Is this residency fraud?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes it’s fraud. Don’t do it. The rest of us figure out a way to live our lives without cheating. For many it’s attending a less desirable school or living in a crappy apartment. You don’t get to cheat.

Cheating? Last I checked she lives in DC and will pay 2 mortgages and DC property taxes on both. Please.

Which gives her child the right to attend the IB DCPS school for the house she lives in, or any school her child gets into via the lottery.

Paying taxes at 2 or 3 or 4 homes doesn't change it.

Put mom in the Shaw house, and OP/husband and kid move to the condo and all is well.

[Anonymous]

Oh pipe down already

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:She will absolutely be moving between 2 residences/family properties. She will own, not rent out and spend much time in both.

All this fretting and fussing about what? Wilson and Deal are not all that, the money you spend setting up 2 households and rent lost from NOT renting one out could have spent on your child! You're coming up with all kinds of stuff, salivating over scraps...

[Anonymous]

OP’s call

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She will absolutely be moving between 2 residences/family properties. She will own, not rent out and spend much time in both.

No, she won’t. But good try.

By the way, schools do have mechanisms to check this, although they rarely do. My friend had a home visit and the person looked at the kids’ bedrooms and looked for things like beds, dresser/closet with kids clothes, etc.

So mom makes sure all that is in the condo if and when an inspector comes. It’s going to be HER condo.

Wat about the kid whose honest parents can’t afford two mortgages and who play the lottery but lose because a kid like OP’s kid is taking a spot?

Better question- Why is Wilson the only non-selective high school that people want to go to?

She is not taking a spot if she “resides” in bounds. Would it make a difference if she moved in to the condo? Is that still taking a spot? She is not doing anything legally wrong- doesn’t really matter if you agree with it or not.
She wants a “better” (perceived) education for her child. I can’t fault her for that, I can fault DCPS for the inequities in education across the city and what they are not doing about it!

Yes, dumb dumb, that’s what the word RESIDES means.

[Anonymous]

What I'm reading on this thread is that objecting PPs are laying down rules about what "resides" means in the District, without spelling them out. I can't find a clause in DC law stating that a parent, child or both parent and child must sleep at a certain address X number of nights in the year to claim a property as their primary residence in the District of Columbia to render said address legit for school enrollment purposes.

For those crying FRAUD, how do your rules read? Under your rules, how many nights would the mom, the child, or both mom and child need to stay in this condo for them to be able to use it to register the child at a DCPS program in Upper NW, on top of having obtained the requisite residency verification docs?

Are you arguing that a certain % of the child's stuff would need to be in the condo X number of days in the year (rather than, say, in a storage unit?). What percentage? Are you arguing that if the child sleeps in the condo a X number of nights in the year, that the mom could in fact use the address to register him? Or would more have to happen, Grandma shares legal custody of the child with the parents?

Not clear on what your standards are for residency/domicile are, or the DC's either, in regard to this particular scenario, or how relevant they are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I'm reading on this thread is that objecting PPs are laying down rules about what "resides" means in the District, without spelling them out. I can't find a clause in DC law stating that a parent, child or both parent and child must sleep at a certain address X number of nights in the year to claim a property as their primary residence in the District of Columbia to render said address legit for school enrollment purposes.

For those crying FRAUD, how do your rules read? Under your rules, how many nights would the mom, the child, or both mom and child need to stay in this condo for them to be able to use it to register the child at a DCPS program in Upper NW, on top of having obtained the requisite residency verification docs?

Are you arguing that a certain % of the child's stuff would need to be in the condo X number of days in the year (rather than, say, in a storage unit?). What percentage? Are you arguing that if the child sleeps in the condo a X number of nights in the year, that the mom could in fact use the address to register him? Or would more have to happen, Grandma shares legal custody of the child with the parents?

Not clear on what your standards are for residency/domicile are, or the DC's either, in regard to this particular scenario, or how relevant they are.

Is it raining much out there in Landover today?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I'm reading on this thread is that objecting PPs are laying down rules about what "resides" means in the District, without spelling them out. I can't find a clause in DC law stating that a parent, child or both parent and child must sleep at a certain address X number of nights in the year to claim a property as their primary residence in the District of Columbia to render said address legit for school enrollment purposes.

For those crying FRAUD, how do your rules read? Under your rules, how many nights would the mom, the child, or both mom and child need to stay in this condo for them to be able to use it to register the child at a DCPS program in Upper NW, on top of having obtained the requisite residency verification docs?

Are you arguing that a certain % of the child's stuff would need to be in the condo X number of days in the year (rather than, say, in a storage unit?). What percentage? Are you arguing that if the child sleeps in the condo a X number of nights in the year, that the mom could in fact use the address to register him? Or would more have to happen, Grandma shares legal custody of the child with the parents?

Not clear on what your standards are for residency/domicile are, or the DC's either, in regard to this particular scenario, or how relevant they are.

More than zero nights, which is what OP is proposing.

[Anonymous]

Let’s say I rent a studio apartment IB for Janney. I live EOTP. Can I now enroll my kids in Janney?

That’s the same as what OP is proposing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I'm reading on this thread is that objecting PPs are laying down rules about what "resides" means in the District, without spelling them out. I can't find a clause in DC law stating that a parent, child or both parent and child must sleep at a certain address X number of nights in the year to claim a property as their primary residence in the District of Columbia to render said address legit for school enrollment purposes.

For those crying FRAUD, how do your rules read? Under your rules, how many nights would the mom, the child, or both mom and child need to stay in this condo for them to be able to use it to register the child at a DCPS program in Upper NW, on top of having obtained the requisite residency verification docs?

Are you arguing that a certain % of the child's stuff would need to be in the condo X number of days in the year (rather than, say, in a storage unit?). What percentage? Are you arguing that if the child sleeps in the condo a X number of nights in the year, that the mom could in fact use the address to register him? Or would more have to happen, Grandma shares legal custody of the child with the parents?

Not clear on what your standards are for residency/domicile are, or the DC's either, in regard to this particular scenario, or how relevant they are.

Those are excellent questions for OP's defense lawyer. What I can say with certainty is that never staying in the condo and never intending to leave the Shaw house is NOT "residing".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say I rent a studio apartment IB for Janney. I live EOTP. Can I now enroll my kids in Janney?

That’s the same as what OP is proposing to do.

If you and kid stay there during the week, sure. I may do this for MS. But that basically implies you're separating from your spouse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I'm reading on this thread is that objecting PPs are laying down rules about what "resides" means in the District, without spelling them out. I can't find a clause in DC law stating that a parent, child or both parent and child must sleep at a certain address X number of nights in the year to claim a property as their primary residence in the District of Columbia to render said address legit for school enrollment purposes.

For those crying FRAUD, how do your rules read? Under your rules, how many nights would the mom, the child, or both mom and child need to stay in this condo for them to be able to use it to register the child at a DCPS program in Upper NW, on top of having obtained the requisite residency verification docs?

Are you arguing that a certain % of the child's stuff would need to be in the condo X number of days in the year (rather than, say, in a storage unit?). What percentage? Are you arguing that if the child sleeps in the condo a X number of nights in the year, that the mom could in fact use the address to register him? Or would more have to happen, Grandma shares legal custody of the child with the parents?

Not clear on what your standards are for residency/domicile are, or the DC's either, in regard to this particular scenario, or how relevant they are.

Those are excellent questions for OP's defense lawyer. What I can say with certainty is that never staying in the condo and never intending to leave the Shaw house is NOT "residing".

Who gives a flying f***, if all these folks instead of stirring up stuff on DCUM would only write what she's described here on the application form DCPS would make a decision; however, they don't they make up their own determination and lie. IF you have nothing to hide write "reside" unsure here is my situation .... the fact they even mentioned fraud tells us there is something not legit about this situation. Who in their right mind would pay for a condo to sit unrented for 3 years while a child attend school in said school district. Complete waste of money could be spent on child to have a personal tutor and all sorts of extra curricular if present school is so bad...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say I rent a studio apartment IB for Janney. I live EOTP. Can I now enroll my kids in Janney?

That’s the same as what OP is proposing to do.

If you and kid stay there during the week, sure. I may do this for MS. But that basically implies you're separating from your spouse.

Let’s say we “stay there” for an hour after school. We always sleep EOTP. Same as OP. Still ok?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say I rent a studio apartment IB for Janney. I live EOTP. Can I now enroll my kids in Janney?

That’s the same as what OP is proposing to do.

If you and kid stay there during the week, sure. I may do this for MS. But that basically implies you're separating from your spouse.

Let’s say we “stay there” for an hour after school. We always sleep EOTP. Same as OP. Still ok?

Ask DCPS let them make a decision we are not experts on DCPS residency fraud

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Let’s say I rent a studio apartment IB for Janney. I live EOTP. Can I now enroll my kids in Janney?

That’s the same as what OP is proposing to do.

If you and kid stay there during the week, sure. I may do this for MS. But that basically implies you're separating from your spouse.

Let’s say we “stay there” for an hour after school. We always sleep EOTP. Same as OP. Still ok?

Ask DCPS let them make a decision we are not experts on DCPS residency fraud

And yet you’re willing to offer a ton of opinions on why OP’s situation is justified...