It should, but in the eyes of a court she was a minor and not properly supervised. What a mad world we live in :-/
Too right we've gone mad.
By the time I turned 16, I was already a fully qualified sparks and working on building sites.
I've not checked the law recently, but it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest to discover that 16-18 year olds can no longer work unsupervised in such environments.
Blimey KW, you must have been working with Edison then 
I started my apprenticeship at age 15, but was not qualified till I was 19, and consider myself to still be learning today.
I take it that sparks training is very short then ?
Cheeky tinker

I'd just missed the old "5 year time served" bit, so ended up in college in 79 for the first year and achieved pass with distinction for the theory, along with pass with credit for the practical (just 1% short to get the distinction mark).
1980 saw me starting the second year (part 2), and a successful pass on that made me qualified in the eyes of the law.
Like you say though, being qualified and being able to do the job are 2 seperate entities...it was a good 3 years plus after getting my 236 before my colleagues even considered me to be in the same league as them.
Since then I've had to obtain more qualifications (basic tests really, but still bloody expensive) as the regs have been updated, but I'm now at the stage where I pretty much write my own salary cheque.
I do however still firmly believe that taking an exam isn't worth shit, and the only way to learn any trade is by hands on only.