SIR - Much as I admire Kirsty Oldfield, pictured, for persisting with her studies in horrendous circumstances (T&A, December 4), I struggle to understand why she needs benefits or charitable donations to live on.
As I understand it, Kirsty is under 18, in full-time education and in the care of relatives. Surely then, she is the dependent of those relatives, and it is they who should be entitled to claim financial support to help meet the costs of raising her?
Yet the case has been reported as if Kirsty is an adult responsible for meeting her own costs of living.
If there really is some "loophole" that means her relatives can't support her - because she can't be treated as their dependent for tax and benefits purposes, say - I think this needs spelling out.
Otherwise I don't see how Kirsty's financial situation (not, of course, her dreadful personal situation) is different from that of any other sixth former.
And of course Kirsty should be entitled to benefits if she had a baby - because then she would have a dependent child, rather than being a dependent child herself!
G Owens, George Street, Shipley
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article