Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

if it was an honest mistake, while she lied during the administrative hearing (at least based on the article)? and yes, somebody would cheat to attend Langdon, especially if that somebody can get free pre-K (while in PG county would have to pay $$$ for a full day of care of the child), and work at Langdon so she can just drive the child to school and back during her work commute, instead of having to pay a sitter to take care of the child after school in PG county is over and she is still at work. she would not be the first. other cheaters are people who work in DC

So what do you suggest she do if she can't enroll the child in PG county?

Anonymous wrote:Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

if it was an honest mistake, while she lied during the administrative hearing (at least based on the article)? and yes, somebody would cheat to attend Langdon, especially if that somebody can get free pre-K (while in PG county would have to pay $$$ for a full day of care of the child), and work at Langdon so she can just drive the child to school and back during her work commute, instead of having to pay a sitter to take care of the child after school in PG county is over and she is still at work. she would not be the first. other cheaters are people who work in DC

Actually, the law is not so clear. This is way to muddy to figure out right and wrong and I'm all for throwing out the cheats. Especially knowing this new info that PG county requires the legal guardian to be a resident. If grandma living in PG is not the legal guardian but has recently been caring for the kid, one would assume the proper district to enroll would be the legal parent's district. ESPECIALLY when talking about Langdon. Nobody would "cheat" to attend Langdon. I an assure you the PG grandma's neighborhood school is superior to Langdon. I smell a skunk.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Would Campbell have been allowed to enroll the child in Maryland? She would have been required to be the child's legal guardian to enroll the child in Maryland. So if the mom has custody and is therefor the legal guardian, but Campbell is the primary caregiver, the child is SOL in both jurisdictions in his ability to receive an education.

Sounds like his parents a eff-ups! That's no excuse to steal a seat from a DC kid with an equally compelling need. They should have sent him private. With that McMansion in Fort Wash, they could afford it. Poor AA kids that are legal residents don't have that option. Shame on that thief. I want her fine to go towards reimbursing kids that were stolen from.

Really, that's your answer. Fuck the kid as his parents must be effed up. Apparently the child's mom is a resident of the District of Columbia. Is she a tax payer. Who knows. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. What is really screwy about the way the law is written is that two attorneys can interpret it differently, so indeed it will be litigated at DC taxpayer expense. It is not as clearly written as some of you profess. It will be interesting to see how it is argued.

For people in similar situations as this child, the alternative is to place the child in the system under kinder ship care. DC taxpayers pay the non-resident relative a fee for the care of a DC citizen. The child is then eligible to continue his education in DC.

I am not condoning the practice of stealing seats from DC students, but not one of you would have sent your little darlings to Langdon Elementary. Campbell pissed somebody off and that is why she is in this conundrum.

the law is clear, and she knew it, when asked at the administrative hearing, she LIED about the facts. if she was in good faith, she would have stated the truth. it isd not a problem of interpretation it is problem of lying and cheating

Anonymous wrote:I am not condoning the practice of stealing seats from DC students, but not one of you would have sent your little darlings to Langdon Elementary. Campbell pissed somebody off and that is why she is in this conundrum.


The whole " residency fraud" issue is not about the poor AA kids that miss out on attending a premier school. I've heard too much bickering about legitimate OOB students attending theses schools. For a long time, folks couldn't care less about DCPS. The economy made a lot parents become public school attendees. The principal was caught but we don't know the parents situation. Also, to keep harping about " McMansions", sounds like you have an inferiority complex. There is no secret that you can get "more" house for less in the burbs than in DC. Is that a crime? The focus is to minimize the non residency abuse. You will not get an argument out of parents about that. Whether they are third generation Washingtonians or gentrificators from wherever. You have to be naive to think it will completely disappear. It is sort of like reporting correctly and honestly to the IRS about a nannie's tax withholdings and your neighbor is snooping around your house. She wants to report you because she STRONGLY feels she has the right inform the IRS just to be sure.

it's a crime when you enrol youre child in DCPS and give your DC work address as your residence address...............

I am not condoning the practice of stealing seats from DC students, but not one of you would have sent your little darlings to Langdon Elementary. Campbell pissed somebody off and that is why she is in this conundrum.


The whole " residency fraud" issue is not about the poor AA kids that miss out on attending a premier school. I've heard too much bickering about legitimate OOB students attending theses schools. For a long time, folks couldn't care less about DCPS. The economy made a lot parents become public school attendees. The principal was caught but we don't know the parents situation. Also, to keep harping about " McMansions", sounds like you have an inferiority complex. There is no secret that you can get "more" house for less in the burbs than in DC. Is that a crime?
The focus is to minimize the non residency abuse. You will not get an argument out of parents about that. Whether they are third generation Washingtonians or gentrificators from wherever. You have to be naive to think it will completely disappear. It is sort of like reporting correctly and honestly to the IRS about a nannie's tax withholdings and your neighbor is snooping around your house. She wants to report you because she STRONGLY feels she has the right inform the IRS just to be sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
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.

Would Campbell have been allowed to enroll the child in Maryland? She would have been required to be the child's legal guardian to enroll the child in Maryland. So if the mom has custody and is therefor the legal guardian, but Campbell is the primary caregiver, the child is SOL in both jurisdictions in his ability to receive an education.

Sounds like his parents a eff-ups! That's no excuse to steal a seat from a DC kid with an equally compelling need. They should have sent him private. With that McMansion in Fort Wash, they could afford it. Poor AA kids that are legal residents don't have that option. Shame on that thief. I want her fine to go towards reimbursing kids that were stolen from.

Really, that's your answer. Fuck the kid as his parents must be effed up. Apparently the child's mom is a resident of the District of Columbia. Is she a tax payer. Who knows. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. What is really screwy about the way the law is written is that two attorneys can interpret it differently, so indeed it will be litigated at DC taxpayer expense. It is not as clearly written as some of you profess. It will be interesting to see how it is argued.

For people in similar situations as this child, the alternative is to place the child in the system under kinder ship care. DC taxpayers pay the non-resident relative a fee for the care of a DC citizen. The child is then eligible to continue his education in DC.

I am not condoning the practice of stealing seats from DC students, but not one of you would have sent your little darlings to Langdon Elementary. Campbell pissed somebody off and that is why she is in this conundrum.

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.

Would Campbell have been allowed to enroll the child in Maryland? She would have been required to be the child's legal guardian to enroll the child in Maryland. So if the mom has custody and is therefor the legal guardian, but Campbell is the primary caregiver, the child is SOL in both jurisdictions in his ability to receive an education.

Sounds like his parents a eff-ups! That's no excuse to steal a seat from a DC kid with an equally compelling need. They should have sent him private. With that McMansion in Fort Wash, they could afford it. Poor AA kids that are legal residents don't have that option. Shame on that thief. I want her fine to go towards reimbursing kids that were stolen from.

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.

Would Campbell have been allowed to enroll the child in Maryland? She would have been required to be the child's legal guardian to enroll the child in Maryland. So if the mom has custody and is therefor the legal guardian, but Campbell is the primary caregiver, the child is SOL in both jurisdictions in his ability to receive an education.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10:56 Because there is information about the parent's / parents' income on tax documents. Really, let's not go there.

You know, every DCPS parent is required to disclose their HHI on the Federal lunch forms. Every parent. Whether you are at a Title one school or not. Whether or not your child qualifies for free and reduced lunch. It's the law. If your school doesn't already require that you disclose, they are in violation. Janney and Deal comply with this.

Not true. You are not required to report your income. You are required to sign off on the form. I have never reported my income. I simply sign the form and indicate that we are not looking for reduced or free meals for DC.

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read this thread. There are teachers who live in Maryland and teach at Lafayette Elementary in Chevy Chase. They live in Maryland but their kids go to Lafayette because they work there. How does this situation work under the statue?

They are not residents and, therefore, cheaters. You can anonymously report them to DCPS. Scroll through this thread to find out how - don't want to add redundant material. Like PPs have said it's very easy and anonymous. I know Lafayette is extremely sought after and DC kids are being denied access. We have to put a stop to this. It may have been okay 10 years ago, but with this population boom, this type of loosygooseyness can't be sustained.

^^ is DCPS going to go after the star principals like Lynn Main ;ike they did this other principal? Probably not because the system is random and unfair.

Haven't read this thread. There are teachers who live in Maryland and teach at Lafayette Elementary in Chevy Chase. They live in Maryland but their kids go to Lafayette because they work there. How does this situation work under the statue?

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.

1)the law says that only if the primary caregiver is a DC resident the child can attend DCPS (the law is clear except for a handful of DCUM posters)
2)the woman was a long time principal of DCPS, so one of the people who sure knows very well the law and is even required to verify applications to her school, not a teen ager parent who does not know better
3) there was a hearing where she was asked questions about facts (where does your grand child sleeps at night? who drives him to school? who drives him to doctor's app> and so on) and she LIED. she was not asked about her opinion or beliefs of the meaning of a status, she was asked about facts, and she chose not to tell the truth
and you aresaying bthat you do not know why she lied? is your IQ 3? I give you a hint - she lied because she knew her grandchild was a MD resident under the law and was not supposed to be in nDCPS and she had committed residency fraud in enrolling him in her school, and she was trying to cover her tracks.
your own example does not make sense. if the mother lives withb a convicted pedophile, swearing at the hearing that the child lives with her and the pedophile would not do any good
I confirm that a person does not become guilty of breaking the law becauiswe he mistakenly thinks he broke the law and he must actually brake the law to be guilty. he got this right!. and she broke the law , this is why she is being prosecuted.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You got that half right. Context matters as does what the law makers intended when they wrote the law. Ask your wife.