I'm surprised this hasn't been put up as a thread yet.
On Katie H's view that Jordan should pay for Harvey's special provisions rather than the state
http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/ce...atie-hopkins-5049268
Most benefits are means tested in one way or another,I would have assumed that if a parent had over a certain amount in income or bank balance it would automatically disqualify them from receiving state aid for anything.
That she gets assistance with her lad's education/therapy suggests that there is a reason, we may not know.
I know local govt. used to be obliged to pay bus fares if pupils were out of the catchment area, but they found many and varied ways to avoid paying them.
I can't say I blame her for taking what has been offered,but I'd think more of her if she didn't, when you think that many tax payers who fund the help for her boy are many times worse off than she is.
I suppose one could argue that it's a benefit paid not for her but for her son and I don't think anyone would deny him that help.
They actually aired the bit when she explained that she got Harvey 'statemented' for his various conditions and schooling needs. At that point he is entitled to whatever services are there to suit his needs and that is not means tested on the parents income. I've not read the article yet so am not sure if it says that in there too but it definitely aired on the programme.
I understand the difficulty for children with specific needs is in the getting the 'statement' in the first place. It can take a long time for them to be fully assessed sadly 
Apparently [according to JSP on loose women] Katie P tried to get a special school, similar to the one he attends, opened for her region to service all the kids currently going to the one in London so they wouldn't have a 3 hr round journey. Her attempts failed so her area and the surrounds has nothing for children with those needs. . 
Then I can see why he is given aid,and why she accepts it.