Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is redefining anything. Caregiver is caregiver - if the law was about "legal custody", it would say "Whoever has legal custody of the child". That's not what it says. It says caregiver, and caregiver is understood in pretty much all social services and family court settings (and schools) as being whoever is the primary caretaker of the child. Whoever is seeing to the child's daily needs.

If the child does't live in DC, the child shouldn't be enrolled in a DC school, regardless of where the legal custodian or parent lives, unless there is split custody, in which case the child IS living half time in DC. It is you who doesn't understand the legal definitions already in place. You are wrong to think someone is switching this up all of a sudden behind everyone's back. Why is it so hard to understand that the kid needs to live in DC, end of story?

No one is redefining anything, and everyone needs to be on notice that if the "changes" you go through in the next 12 years mean you move out of the district/your kid isn't living in the district, you can be kicked out of public school any time unless you had let them know and are paying tuition.

That is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. I am not a lawyer, but DW is. My exposure to lawyers has taught me that a section of a statute must be interpreted in the context in which it appears.

For adults attending DCPS, the statute requires that they reside in DC.

For children attending DCPS, the statute could easily have been written to require that they reside in DC as well. However, the statute does not require this. Instead, for children attending DCPS, the statute requires only that a "parent, custodian other primary caregiver" reside in DC.

Clearly, the drafters of the statute were allowing for the possibility of a non-resident child attending a DCPS by virtue of his parent or custodian being a DC resident, as is the case here.

Look at is this way: Here is a mother who lives in DC and, presumably, pays DC income taxes. For reasons only she knows, she decides that it is in the best interests of her child for the child to live with a grandmother in MD.

Perhaps the mother is a violent alcoholic, has difficulty controlling her rage, and is afraid she might beat the child. Perhaps the mother has a drug problem and is afraid of exposing the child to her drug-addict friends. Perhaps the mother has to work two jobs and cannot drop the child off at school and pick the child up. Heck, perhaps the mother simply feels inadequate when it comes to reading to her child and helping with homework and feels that the child would do better academically by living with the grandmother MD, who, after all, is a former principal.

The reason doesn't really matter. What matters is that the mother has decided that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the grandmother in MD. By virtue of that decision, the child should not lose the right to attend a DCPS, especially when the statute explicitly allows for this possibility.

I am no supporter of MD and VA residents sending their kids to DC public and public charter schools on the dime of DC taxpayers. I whole-heatedly support the prosecution of MD and VA residents who fraudulently send their kids to DC schools.

However, this case smacks of a witch hunt. I don't know if there is a different statute that was violated here, but this family has not violated this statute. These people need a good lawyer.

Then they definitely shouldn't hire you, because you would lose this case for them in opening statements with this flawed reading of the law.

Agree... And I am a lawyer as is DH.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one is redefining anything. Caregiver is caregiver - if the law was about "legal custody", it would say "Whoever has legal custody of the child". That's not what it says. It says caregiver, and caregiver is understood in pretty much all social services and family court settings (and schools) as being whoever is the primary caretaker of the child. Whoever is seeing to the child's daily needs.

If the child does't live in DC, the child shouldn't be enrolled in a DC school, regardless of where the legal custodian or parent lives, unless there is split custody, in which case the child IS living half time in DC. It is you who doesn't understand the legal definitions already in place. You are wrong to think someone is switching this up all of a sudden behind everyone's back. Why is it so hard to understand that the kid needs to live in DC, end of story?

No one is redefining anything, and everyone needs to be on notice that if the "changes" you go through in the next 12 years mean you move out of the district/your kid isn't living in the district, you can be kicked out of public school any time unless you had let them know and are paying tuition.

That is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. I am not a lawyer, but DW is. My exposure to lawyers has taught me that a section of a statute must be interpreted in the context in which it appears.

For adults attending DCPS, the statute requires that they reside in DC.

For children attending DCPS, the statute could easily have been written to require that they reside in DC as well. However, the statute does not require this. Instead, for children attending DCPS, the statute requires only that a "parent, custodian other primary caregiver" reside in DC.

Clearly, the drafters of the statute were allowing for the possibility of a non-resident child attending a DCPS by virtue of his parent or custodian being a DC resident, as is the case here.

Look at is this way: Here is a mother who lives in DC and, presumably, pays DC income taxes. For reasons only she knows, she decides that it is in the best interests of her child for the child to live with a grandmother in MD.

Perhaps the mother is a violent alcoholic, has difficulty controlling her rage, and is afraid she might beat the child. Perhaps the mother has a drug problem and is afraid of exposing the child to her drug-addict friends. Perhaps the mother has to work two jobs and cannot drop the child off at school and pick the child up. Heck, perhaps the mother simply feels inadequate when it comes to reading to her child and helping with homework and feels that the child would do better academically by living with the grandmother MD, who, after all, is a former principal.

The reason doesn't really matter. What matters is that the mother has decided that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the grandmother in MD. By virtue of that decision, the child should not lose the right to attend a DCPS, especially when the statute explicitly allows for this possibility.

I am no supporter of MD and VA residents sending their kids to DC public and public charter schools on the dime of DC taxpayers. I whole-heatedly support the prosecution of MD and VA residents who fraudulently send their kids to DC schools.

However, this case smacks of a witch hunt. I don't know if there is a different statute that was violated here, but this family has not violated this statute. These people need a good lawyer.

Then they definitely shouldn't hire you, because you would lose this case for them in opening statements with this flawed reading of the law.

LOL, love the typo that as the great grandDAD attending school illegally! Not only was he not a DC resident, he was 78 yrs old in elementary school as well!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

I don't know why the family lied at the hearing. Perhaps they were afraid that a more thourough investigation would uncover damaging information, e.g., mom's current boyfriend, whom she loves deeply, is a convicted pedophile and if her relationship with him were discovered child and family services would be called in.

Perhaps they also think that the law requires children attending DCPS to be DC residents. Why wouldn't they? DCPS insists that this is the law.

A person who has not broken the law does not become guilty of breaking the law because he mistakenly believes he has broken the law. He must actually break the law to be guilty.

Wow you are going to all lengths to defend this cheating aren't you. You do realize the reason in this article was a DC public school principal at the time her great grandad attended her school, right? So are you really trying to propose with a straight face that she didn't know the residency requirements and made an honest mistake? You are either nuts or your kid is currently illegally enrolled and you're practicing your defense.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

I don't know why the family lied at the hearing. Perhaps they were afraid that a more thourough investigation would uncover damaging information, e.g., mom's current boyfriend, whom she loves deeply, is a convicted pedophile and if her relationship with him were discovered child and family services would be called in.

Perhaps they also think that the law requires children attending DCPS to be DC residents. Why wouldn't they? DCPS insists that this is the law.

A person who has not broken the law does not become guilty of breaking the law because he mistakenly believes he has broken the law. He must actually break the law to be guilty.

I think it's important to note that MD only considers a child to be a resident if their parent or legal guardian lives in the county. There is a process to appeal this, but it's not a sure thing.

So a child whose parent/legal guardian lives in DC, but who sleeps at grandma's in PG the majority of the time, whether because mom travels for work, or because mom is in drug treatment, is not eligible to attend PG county schools.

Where should that child attend school?

Anonymous wrote:No one is redefining anything. Caregiver is caregiver - if the law was about "legal custody", it would say "Whoever has legal custody of the child". That's not what it says. It says caregiver, and caregiver is understood in pretty much all social services and family court settings (and schools) as being whoever is the primary caretaker of the child. Whoever is seeing to the child's daily needs.

If the child does't live in DC, the child shouldn't be enrolled in a DC school, regardless of where the legal custodian or parent lives, unless there is split custody, in which case the child IS living half time in DC. It is you who doesn't understand the legal definitions already in place. You are wrong to think someone is switching this up all of a sudden behind everyone's back. Why is it so hard to understand that the kid needs to live in DC, end of story?

No one is redefining anything, and everyone needs to be on notice that if the "changes" you go through in the next 12 years mean you move out of the district/your kid isn't living in the district, you can be kicked out of public school any time unless you had let them know and are paying tuition.

That is not a reasonable interpretation of the statute. I am not a lawyer, but DW is. My exposure to lawyers has taught me that a section of a statute must be interpreted in the context in which it appears.

For adults attending DCPS, the statute requires that they reside in DC.

For children attending DCPS, the statute could easily have been written to require that they reside in DC as well. However, the statute does not require this. Instead, for children attending DCPS, the statute requires only that a "parent, custodian other primary caregiver" reside in DC.

Clearly, the drafters of the statute were allowing for the possibility of a non-resident child attending a DCPS by virtue of his parent or custodian being a DC resident, as is the case here.

Look at is this way: Here is a mother who lives in DC and, presumably, pays DC income taxes. For reasons only she knows, she decides that it is in the best interests of her child for the child to live with a grandmother in MD.

Perhaps the mother is a violent alcoholic, has difficulty controlling her rage, and is afraid she might beat the child. Perhaps the mother has a drug problem and is afraid of exposing the child to her drug-addict friends. Perhaps the mother has to work two jobs and cannot drop the child off at school and pick the child up. Heck, perhaps the mother simply feels inadequate when it comes to reading to her child and helping with homework and feels that the child would do better academically by living with the grandmother MD, who, after all, is a former principal.

The reason doesn't really matter. What matters is that the mother has decided that it is in the best interests of the child to live with the grandmother in MD. By virtue of that decision, the child should not lose the right to attend a DCPS, especially when the statute explicitly allows for this possibility.

I am no supporter of MD and VA residents sending their kids to DC public and public charter schools on the dime of DC taxpayers. I whole-heatedly support the prosecution of MD and VA residents who fraudulently send their kids to DC schools.

However, this case smacks of a witch hunt. I don't know if there is a different statute that was violated here, but this family has not violated this statute. These people need a good lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

based on the article there was a hearing where the family lied on the facts (where the child lives). if you say that your grand child lives with his mom in DC while he comes home every night with you in MD, has dinner with you, sleeps in your home and you druve him to school the day after, it is not an honest mistake. she has only be accused so far, so we will have to see how it goes

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awesome:

Barbara Campbell, former D.C. principal, sued for tuition fraud

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzveXjxB

A former D.C. principal and her family are being sued by the city for allowing her great-grandson, who lived outside the district, to attend her school for free.

The tuition fraud suit against Barbara Campbell, her daughter and granddaughter was filed Friday. The suit alleges Campbell and her family enrolled the child at Langdon Education Campus in D.C. for more than two years and lied about where the child lived.

At an administrative hearing, the family testified that the boy lived in D.C. with his mother when, in fact, he lived with Campbell in Maryland.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, the city is seeking more than $75,000 in unpaid tuition and civil penalties.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzvUEqiT

I'm confused. If the boy's mother lived in DC, that should have been enough to entitle him to a DC education, even if he was living with his grandmother in MD.

The law in DC is a follows:

(a) In the case of: (1) each adult who attends a public school of the District of Columbia and does not reside in the District of Columbia; and (2) each child who attends such a public school and does not have a parent, guardian, custodian, or other primary caregiver who resides in the District of Columbia, or is not an orphan; there shall be paid to the State Education Office the amount fixed by the State Education Office pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

DC ST § 38-302

So, the law requires adults to reside in DC, but children only to have a parent, custodian, or primary caregiver who resides in DC.

For example, in a divorce situation where the mother has custody and resides in MD and the father resides in DC, the child could attend a DCPS.

I don't see how having a mother who resides in DC while living with your grandmother in MD is fundamentally different. Why did the family bother lying about where the child lived?

Would someone who really understands the law please explain.

I can understand how you are mis-reading that, but you ARE mis-reading it. What that means is, the PRIMARY CAREGIVER (be it a parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver) has to live in DC. Primary caregiver by definition means the person the child mainly lives with. The only place where there's a question about this is where the child equally splits time between 2 homes, in which case the DC home should still be able to make a case for residency.

But where mom lives in DC but the child is living (meaning, going home every night, eating, sleeping, and mainly living) with Great Grandma in MD, that does NOT meet the above definition because the primary caregiver is great grandma, not mom.

I'm not misreading the law. The word "or" has an accepted meaning that cannot be changed by the statute. The child must have a "parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver" who lives in DC.

The rationale for adding "or other primary caregiver" to the law is to legitimize cases in which neither parent lives in DC, but the child's primary caregiver does, as would the child in that case.

In this case, however, the child's mother does live in DC. It does not matter where the child's primary caregiver lives.

you are misreading the law. if and only if the primary caregiver (a parent, guardian, or whoever else who is the primary caregiver of the child) is a DC resident, then the child can attend DCPS. is a parent is not the primary caregiver, where this parent resides is irrelevant./ if a parent is a DC resident but it is not the primary caregiver of the child, and the primary caregiver of the child is a MD resident, the child is considered resident with the caregiver, so not a DC resident. the categories cited by the law (parent, guardian, custodia, are examples of caregivers, the issue is where the caregiver lives, not the parent (usually the parent is also the caregiver, this is why is listed first, then a guardian, then a custodian, then whoever else in descending order.

and by the way, based on the article, there was a hearing where the former principal lied in connection with where the child lived, so if this is true, it was not an honest mistake

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The kid was most likely unofficially living with grandma.
What happans to a family when they become homeless? Do the kids have to drop out of school? What about families in motels? Are they residents?
And kids of migrant farm laborers?

Federal law gives extensive protection for homeless kids.

And which DC farms hire migrant laborers?

coming soon to your DC community garden plots

She must have pissed off someone. Who at Langdon turned her in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awesome:

Barbara Campbell, former D.C. principal, sued for tuition fraud

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzveXjxB

A former D.C. principal and her family are being sued by the city for allowing her great-grandson, who lived outside the district, to attend her school for free.

The tuition fraud suit against Barbara Campbell, her daughter and granddaughter was filed Friday. The suit alleges Campbell and her family enrolled the child at Langdon Education Campus in D.C. for more than two years and lied about where the child lived.

At an administrative hearing, the family testified that the boy lived in D.C. with his mother when, in fact, he lived with Campbell in Maryland.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, the city is seeking more than $75,000 in unpaid tuition and civil penalties.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzvUEqiT

I'm confused. If the boy's mother lived in DC, that should have been enough to entitle him to a DC education, even if he was living with his grandmother in MD.

The law in DC is a follows:

(a) In the case of: (1) each adult who attends a public school of the District of Columbia and does not reside in the District of Columbia; and (2) each child who attends such a public school and does not have a parent, guardian, custodian, or other primary caregiver who resides in the District of Columbia, or is not an orphan; there shall be paid to the State Education Office the amount fixed by the State Education Office pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

DC ST § 38-302

So, the law requires adults to reside in DC, but children only to have a parent, custodian, or primary caregiver who resides in DC.

For example, in a divorce situation where the mother has custody and resides in MD and the father resides in DC, the child could attend a DCPS.

I don't see how having a mother who resides in DC while living with your grandmother in MD is fundamentally different. Why did the family bother lying about where the child lived?

Would someone who really understands the law please explain.

I can understand how you are mis-reading that, but you ARE mis-reading it. What that means is, the PRIMARY CAREGIVER (be it a parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver) has to live in DC. Primary caregiver by definition means the person the child mainly lives with. The only place where there's a question about this is where the child equally splits time between 2 homes, in which case the DC home should still be able to make a case for residency.

But where mom lives in DC but the child is living (meaning, going home every night, eating, sleeping, and mainly living) with Great Grandma in MD, that does NOT meet the above definition because the primary caregiver is great grandma, not mom.

I'm not misreading the law. The word "or" has an accepted meaning that cannot be changed by the statute. The child must have a "parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver" who lives in DC.

The rationale for adding "or other primary caregiver" to the law is to legitimize cases in which neither parent lives in DC, but the child's primary caregiver does, as would the child in that case.

In this case, however, the child's mother does live in DC. It does not matter where the child's primary caregiver lives.

No one is redefining anything. Caregiver is caregiver - if the law was about "legal custody", it would say "Whoever has legal custody of the child". That's not what it says. It says caregiver, and caregiver is understood in pretty much all social services and family court settings (and schools) as being whoever is the primary caretaker of the child. Whoever is seeing to the child's daily needs.

If the child does't live in DC, the child shouldn't be enrolled in a DC school, regardless of where the legal custodian or parent lives, unless there is split custody, in which case the child IS living half time in DC. It is you who doesn't understand the legal definitions already in place. You are wrong to think someone is switching this up all of a sudden behind everyone's back. Why is it so hard to understand that the kid needs to live in DC, end of story?

No one is redefining anything, and everyone needs to be on notice that if the "changes" you go through in the next 12 years mean you move out of the district/your kid isn't living in the district, you can be kicked out of public school any time unless you had let them know and are paying tuition.

But mom has custody. What right does some school board have in redefining legal definitions? Are these terms even clearly explained to all parents when they enroll? Just about every family is going to have some kind of address or status change in the next 12 years, and if some school board redefines their definitions, do they even inform everyone?

Starting a witch hunt of currently enrolled students is not going to fix the issue with dc education. The inquisition board is a waste of education dollars that could be spent better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Awesome:

Barbara Campbell, former D.C. principal, sued for tuition fraud

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzveXjxB

A former D.C. principal and her family are being sued by the city for allowing her great-grandson, who lived outside the district, to attend her school for free.

The tuition fraud suit against Barbara Campbell, her daughter and granddaughter was filed Friday. The suit alleges Campbell and her family enrolled the child at Langdon Education Campus in D.C. for more than two years and lied about where the child lived.

At an administrative hearing, the family testified that the boy lived in D.C. with his mother when, in fact, he lived with Campbell in Maryland.

According to the Office of the Attorney General, the city is seeking more than $75,000 in unpaid tuition and civil penalties.

Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2013/02/barbara-campbell-former-d-c-principal-sued-for-tuition-fraud--85283.html#ixzz2KzvUEqiT

I'm confused. If the boy's mother lived in DC, that should have been enough to entitle him to a DC education, even if he was living with his grandmother in MD.

The law in DC is a follows:

(a) In the case of: (1) each adult who attends a public school of the District of Columbia and does not reside in the District of Columbia; and (2) each child who attends such a public school and does not have a parent, guardian, custodian, or other primary caregiver who resides in the District of Columbia, or is not an orphan; there shall be paid to the State Education Office the amount fixed by the State Education Office pursuant to subsection (b) of this section.

DC ST § 38-302

So, the law requires adults to reside in DC, but children only to have a parent, custodian, or primary caregiver who resides in DC.

For example, in a divorce situation where the mother has custody and resides in MD and the father resides in DC, the child could attend a DCPS.

I don't see how having a mother who resides in DC while living with your grandmother in MD is fundamentally different. Why did the family bother lying about where the child lived?

Would someone who really understands the law please explain.

I can understand how you are mis-reading that, but you ARE mis-reading it. What that means is, the PRIMARY CAREGIVER (be it a parent, custodian, or other primary caregiver) has to live in DC. Primary caregiver by definition means the person the child mainly lives with. The only place where there's a question about this is where the child equally splits time between 2 homes, in which case the DC home should still be able to make a case for residency.

But where mom lives in DC but the child is living (meaning, going home every night, eating, sleeping, and mainly living) with Great Grandma in MD, that does NOT meet the above definition because the primary caregiver is great grandma, not mom.