To be a dissenting voice here, and I mean no ill wishes to Sammi or her children, it is an awful situation but there is a real danger in the principle of changing the 'rules' of a long established scheme such as this.
Sammi served and was given the option during the OTT period in 2004 I would think, along with every other serving member, and presumably made a conscious decision not to take the '05 pension.
I do not know her pension arrangements when she left the service; did she do the full commutation thing as the '75 pension allowed you to do?
She was a member of a scheme that is archaic in its remit, but that was her choice.
Having children via IVF was also her choice. That's great, let women have control of their lives where children are concerned. Having given birth to the children has she taken any form of long term high value life insurance out in the event that she should die before they fly the nest? To be honest that was my main driver for juping into the '05 scheme. The Qutee article suggests not. I would be happy to be corrected, but frankly I think she has created this situation.
The other issue that bothers me is that Mr Williamson, sympathetic and on-side individual that he is, has now set a precedent where the '75 scheme, and the '05 scheme and probablythe '15 scheme can now all be changed to meet a 'need'. In the case of Sammi and her children the 'need' is obvious, but just think what would happen should a future DefSec have a 'need' to save a lot of money?