School residency cheaters investigated

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

Where is the child resident? It's a simple test, but there's only one answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The editing is definitely shoddy, but if this is the spotlight that's finally bright enough to force DC to do the right thing then that's wonderful. I'll take more Republicans every day of the week. We've been getting shafted because of corruption and cronyism and graft for decades.

I don't care if you work downtown. I don't care if your nana lives on the Hill. You don't. Pay taxes or get the hell out.

And if you work for the DC government, God help you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

For goodness sake, why do folks always blurt out the exceptions - we get it If there is a legit reason you are staying with grandma provide the docs and keep it moving. However, there is no way that most of the fraud is the exception to the rule. Grandma's kids can stay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

For goodness sake, why do folks always blurt out the exceptions - we get it If there is a legit reason you are staying with grandma provide the docs and keep it moving. However, there is no way that most of the fraud is the exception to the rule. Grandma's kids can stay

The point is that it is informal, there is family instability, so there are not always "docs".

[Anonymous]

I'm sure there are a handful of situations where family instability leads to confusing residency. Those can be dealt with on a case by case basis. But it's unlikely the lady driving the Escalade with Maryland tags is suffering much instability - she's just cheating. Not all Maryland parents are cheaters, but not all Maryland parents are innocent either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

This is JAW DROPPING (if true.)

OF COURSE it's true. What's jaw-dropping is that only Republicans (Daily Caller is nothing of not Republican) will actually tell the truth. This corruption-riddled Democrat-machine town would rather live with corruption than admit to it.


Why is it jaw-dropping that municipal employees live outside the city limits? Why do you care where the bus driver, or the clerk who takes parking ticket money at city hall lives?


Can you read? What's jaw-dropping is that it takes a Republican to tell the truth. According to your logic: obviously city employees are Democrats, don't live in DC, and are incapable of truth-telling. Screw 'em.

What are you even talking about? Someone quoted the part about many municipal employees living outside DC proper. Someone else said such a thing would be jaw-dropping. My question is why is it jaw-dropping? Why do you care how many city employees live outside DC? It isn't illegal or fraudulent to live in a neighboring jurisdiction, even if you are a city employee.

It's jaw droping because out of the hundreds of places to live around DC, they're almost ALL in PG county? Why not Montgomery County, Virginia, Howard, etc. All PG? Why? Seems like a bunch of people hiring their friends for it to be that much ofr a trend.

Why PG? Because it's right over the District line and has very cheap property prices compared to Nova and MoCo. It's also under-developed, so your money stretches even further.


Are you the same person who was critiquing the article for not following lawyers home to MoCo who were stealing DC school or called the authors racist for focusing on PG County? Just curious, cuz that would be weird.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

For goodness sake, why do folks always blurt out the exceptions - we get it If there is a legit reason you are staying with grandma provide the docs and keep it moving. However, there is no way that most of the fraud is the exception to the rule. Grandma's kids can stay

The point is that it is informal, there is family instability, so there are not always "docs".

PP here. Suffice it to say that I am very close to this family (parents and grandparents), and this is not a case of cultural misunderstanding or of financial instability. The child did not stay with the grandparents at all. I did not recount the anecdote so that we on DCUM could do our own investigation or analysis of the particulars of the situation. I was making two points, which are relevant regardless of my anecdote, and I will reiterate them here: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

For goodness sake, why do folks always blurt out the exceptions - we get it If there is a legit reason you are staying with grandma provide the docs and keep it moving. However, there is no way that most of the fraud is the exception to the rule. Grandma's kids can stay

The point is that it is informal, there is family instability, so there are not always "docs".

We all know this, but this article was about fraud by the masses not one grandma, yeah we could all debate the comings and goings of one individual but that is not this is about. By the way granny could always provide other data to prove her case. Social services and others use informal data for these types of situations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The editing is definitely shoddy, but if this is the spotlight that's finally bright enough to force DC to do the right thing then that's wonderful. I'll take more Republicans every day of the week. We've been getting shafted because of corruption and cronyism and graft for decades.

I don't care if you work downtown. I don't care if your nana lives on the Hill. You don't. Pay taxes or get the hell out.

the editing is the least of the problems with this piece. It's riddled with innuendo, numbers pulled out of their ass, and broad presumptions. It insults the reader's intelligence by sounding like a random screed pulled from DCUM.

I suspect there is some degree of residency fraud in DC public education. The Daily Caller gang of misfits isn't helping me better understand the nuances of problem or potential solutions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


This is JAW DROPPING (if true.)

OF COURSE it's true. What's jaw-dropping is that only Republicans (Daily Caller is nothing of not Republican) will actually tell the truth. This corruption-riddled Democrat-machine town would rather live with corruption than admit to it.

Why is it jaw-dropping that municipal employees live outside the city limits? Why do you care where the bus driver, or the clerk who takes parking ticket money at city hall lives?

Can you read? What's jaw-dropping is that it takes a Republican to tell the truth. According to your logic: obviously city employees are Democrats, don't live in DC, and are incapable of truth-telling. Screw 'em.

What are you even talking about? Someone quoted the part about many municipal employees living outside DC proper. Someone else said such a thing would be jaw-dropping. My question is why is it jaw-dropping? Why do you care how many city employees live outside DC? It isn't illegal or fraudulent to live in a neighboring jurisdiction, even if you are a city employee.

It's jaw droping because out of the hundreds of places to live around DC, they're almost ALL in PG county? Why not Montgomery County, Virginia, Howard, etc. All PG? Why? Seems like a bunch of people hiring their friends for it to be that much ofr a trend.

Why PG? Because it's right over the District line and has very cheap property prices compared to Nova and MoCo. It's also under-developed, so your money stretches even further.

Are you the same person who was critiquing the article for not following lawyers home to MoCo who were stealing DC school or called the authors racist for focusing on PG County? Just curious, cuz that would be weird.

No, I am not the same person

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

For goodness sake, why do folks always blurt out the exceptions - we get it If there is a legit reason you are staying with grandma provide the docs and keep it moving. However, there is no way that most of the fraud is the exception to the rule. Grandma's kids can stay

The point is that it is informal, there is family instability, so there are not always "docs".

And wha about with the Escalade kids?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I believe there is an issue with tips not being followed up on (as discussed earlier in this thread) as well as with the investigations conducted into the tips. I know of someone who was investigated for residency fraud and cleared the appeals process in spite of having very poor documentation. In that case, it was not a false address provided but rather an informal custody grant (ie, a letter saying that child needed to stay with grandparents for a period due to financial instability of the parents). I was floored that the case was dropped. I mention this to point out two things: (1) tips don't help if the follow-up process is flawed or deficient, and (2) it is not always residency fraud but sometimes false custody arrangements.

And what's the issue with a child staying with their grandparents when they need to? I don't understand the kind of mean-spirited person who seems to think that a case like this is fraud. I know more than a few families like that all over Shepherd Park. Are those kids not entitled to go to Shepherd?

PP here. The child in question was not staying with the grandparents. Not at all. Nor was there any financial instability. I agree that there are complicated situations out there, but this was not one and I was surprised that a letter regarding an informal custody arrangement was sufficient for years and years.

How do you know there was no financial instability?

I feel like this is an area in which the expectations of middle class white folks butt up against cultural realities in communities of color. Informal kinship care is much more common in communities of color than it is in the white communities. So much more common, for a whole ton of reasons that run the gamut from communities of color being less geographically spread out, to a history of wanting to keep kids out of the system. So...you do get kids living informally with their grandparents but no formal change of custody.

This can be confusing for white folks encountering it for the first time, and look like fraud. In reality, it is a cultural difference.

For goodness sake, why do folks always blurt out the exceptions - we get it If there is a legit reason you are staying with grandma provide the docs and keep it moving. However, there is no way that most of the fraud is the exception to the rule. Grandma's kids can stay

The point is that it is informal, there is family instability, so there are not always "docs".

Try going into DC DMV and telling them that because of "cultural differences" and "informal arrangements" there are no "docs." How do you think that's going to work out?

I didn't think so.

So don't make the argument when it comes to the DC public and charter schools.