Anonymous wrote:DC laws on domicile have traditionally been more flexible than in many states, to meet the demands of the political cycle.

As things stand, DCPS considers the address where a parent files DC income tax to be his or her domicile, e.g. where she lives. The rest of the story is immaterial under the law, as long as there aren't dual lease holders at a single residential property.

Boundary cheaters who own/rent multiple residential properties aren't prosecuted in DC partly because the law is on their side. Changing this will be difficult unless laws on DC domicile are tightened up. Highly doubtful. This is one reason that a good many affluent families IB for Hardy have been able to access Deal fairly easily for more than 20 years now. They traditionally rent IB studio apartments in the Deal district (and sometimes sublet them). Then they file taxes in the Deal district and are left alone by OSSE and DCPS.

https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/audit-division-frequently-asked-questions

That's not what that says ... it says a domicile is a "place of abode" -- ie where you ACTUALLY LIVE. I can believe that the IB rich parents are getting away with fraud/lying though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not true because...you say so?

As a matter of fact, if there's no lease holder renting one of the residential properties you own, you can indeed choose that property as your DC tax and DCPS enrollment address under current DC law.

We recently hired a reputable real estate lawyer to research DCPS residency issues with DC tax authorities, OSSE and DCPS. What he told us was that while one can argue that a parent would not be respecting the "spirit of the law" in using an address where they don't sleep most of the time to enroll, you couldn't argue that they're breaking the law and expect to win the argument in court, given the way the relevant laws are written. This has been pointed out by lawyers posting on other residency related threads. The law even permits spouses to claim separate DC domiciles for tax and school enrollment purposes.

None of the residency vigilantes who like calling the OSSE tips line want to hear this. They wish that the law was written differently and love to claim that it is.

See, e.g., https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/files/page_content/attachments/SY18-19%20DCPS%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook%20FINAL.pdf

Page 6 defining in-bounds as where a student's parent lives.

And why do you think a real estate lawyer would be particularly well suited to look at this issue? It has nothing to do with a real estate lawyer's practice.

Yeah, you got crap legal advice from a real estate lawyer, as opposed to a defense attorney.

The current residency forms state "I understand that if I provide false information or documentation, I can be referred to DC Office of the Inspector General for criminal prosecution or to
the DC Office of the Attorney General for prosecution under the False Claims Act and under D.C. Code § 38-312 which provides that any person who
knowingly supplies false information to a public official in connection with student residency verification shall be subject to payment of a fine of not more
than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than 90 days, but not both a fine and imprisonment."

The erollment form asks for the child's home address and states "I confirm all the information provided above is correct to the best of my knowledge. I understand that DCPS will keep this information confidential
and will use it for DCPS business only. I understand that providing false information is punishable by law."

There's no definition of those terms where "Residence" and "home address" mean: property I own or rent, where the child never actually lives.

DC laws on domicile have traditionally been more flexible than in many states, to meet the demands of the political cycle.

As things stand, DCPS considers the address where a parent files DC income tax to be his or her domicile, e.g. where she lives. The rest of the story is immaterial under the law, as long as there aren't dual lease holders at a single residential property.

Boundary cheaters who own/rent multiple residential properties aren't prosecuted in DC partly because the law is on their side. Changing this will be difficult unless laws on DC domicile are tightened up. Highly doubtful. This is one reason that a good many affluent families IB for Hardy have been able to access Deal fairly easily for more than 20 years now. They traditionally rent IB studio apartments in the Deal district (and sometimes sublet them). Then they file taxes in the Deal district and are left alone by OSSE and DCPS.

https://otr.cfo.dc.gov/page/audit-division-frequently-asked-questions

Anonymous wrote:It's not true because...you say so?

As a matter of fact, if there's no lease holder renting one of the residential properties you own, you can indeed choose that property as your DC tax and DCPS enrollment address under current DC law.

We recently hired a reputable real estate lawyer to research DCPS residency issues with DC tax authorities, OSSE and DCPS. What he told us was that while one can argue that a parent would not be respecting the "spirit of the law" in using an address where they don't sleep most of the time to enroll, you couldn't argue that they're breaking the law and expect to win the argument in court, given the way the relevant laws are written. This has been pointed out by lawyers posting on other residency related threads. The law even permits spouses to claim separate DC domiciles for tax and school enrollment purposes.

None of the residency vigilantes who like calling the OSSE tips line want to hear this. They wish that the law was written differently and love to claim that it is.

See, e.g., https://enrolldcps.dc.gov/sites/dcpsenrollment/files/page_content/attachments/SY18-19%20DCPS%20Enrollment%20and%20Lottery%20Handbook%20FINAL.pdf

Page 6 defining in-bounds as where a student's parent lives.

And why do you think a real estate lawyer would be particularly well suited to look at this issue? It has nothing to do with a real estate lawyer's practice.

Anonymous wrote:It's not true because...you say so?

As a matter of fact, if there's no lease holder renting one of the residential properties you own, you can indeed choose that property as your DC tax and DCPS enrollment address under current DC law.

We recently hired a reputable real estate lawyer to research DCPS residency issues with DC tax authorities, OSSE and DCPS. What he told us was that while one can argue that a parent would not be respecting the "spirit of the law" in using an address where they don't sleep most of the time to enroll, you couldn't argue that they're breaking the law and expect to win the argument in court, given the way the relevant laws are written. This has been pointed out by lawyers posting on other residency related threads. The law even permits spouses to claim separate DC domiciles for tax and school enrollment purposes.

None of the residency vigilantes who like calling the OSSE tips line want to hear this. They wish that the law was written differently and love to claim that it is.

Why?

It's not true because...you say so?

As a matter of fact, if there's no lease holder renting one of the residential properties you own, you can indeed choose that property as your DC tax and DCPS enrollment address under current DC law.

We recently hired a reputable real estate lawyer to research DCPS residency issues with DC tax authorities, OSSE and DCPS. What he told us was that while one can argue that a parent would not be respecting the "spirit of the law" in using an address where they don't sleep most of the time to enroll, you couldn't argue that they're breaking the law and expect to win the argument in court, given the way the relevant laws are written. This has been pointed out by lawyers posting on other residency related threads. The law even permits spouses to claim separate DC domiciles for tax and school enrollment purposes.

None of the residency vigilantes who like calling the OSSE tips line want to hear this. They wish that the law was written differently and love to claim that it is.

Anonymous wrote:Under current OSSE rules on residency, if you own or rent a residence in-boundary, and pay DC income tax from that address, you can use that address to enroll.

If you don't own or rent in-boundary, and don't pay DC income tax from your in-boundary address, you're a boundary cheater, not otherwise.

That's not true unless you reside in that address. Say someone owns four properties. They are not allowed to simply choose which address to use for purposes of school boundaries.

Under current OSSE rules on residency, if you own or rent a residence in-boundary, and pay DC income tax from that address, you can use that address to enroll.

If you don't own or rent in-boundary, and don't pay DC income tax from your in-boundary address, you're a boundary cheater, not otherwise.

Anonymous wrote:It is very clear, you have to reside in the boundary. The last chancellor lost his job over this. He lived in the district but not in the boundary. It is not about the name on the deed, it is about where the student lives.

I get it that many people lie and many get away with it, but don’t kid yourself that it isn’t lying or cheating. It is both. Own it, raise your child to the be the liar and cheater you always hoped she would be. Or, move into the home you own and live there.

He got permission to go to new school, he lost his job due to optics of it. There has never been one DC resident charged with boundary cheating. At worst, the school will kick you out. I do agree it’s not right or ethical.

Every kid's residency situation in DC isn't straightforward. Some DCPS students shuttle between relatives'; houses for whatever reasons, mostly low-income children, but not all.

If your family's residency situation is legitimately unusual, make collecting documents proving residency a priority, beyond what DCPS asks for when you enroll. We did that, and were investigated by OSSE and cleared fast. We would up grateful to have been investigated. School gossips soon found new targets.

It is very clear, you have to reside in the boundary. The last chancellor lost his job over this. He lived in the district but not in the boundary. It is not about the name on the deed, it is about where the student lives.

I get it that many people lie and many get away with it, but don’t kid yourself that it isn’t lying or cheating. It is both. Own it, raise your child to the be the liar and cheater you always hoped she would be. Or, move into the home you own and live there.

OK, so boundary cheaters are entirely irrational. They are in fact, completely insane and amoral.

I'm not a boundary cheater, but I believe that citizens deserve a lot more privacy than they are generally accorded here in the information age.

We have friends with children in DCPS who maintain separate residences in the City, in different elementary and middle school districts, although they've been married for 20 years. Are they required to get a megaphone to announce their unusual living arrangement to their school community, stoking envy on the part of parents who can't afford to one one nice single family home, let alone two.

I'd like to see residency document requirements to enroll in DCPS upped considerably, including by adding a DC tax return to the list. I'd also like to see those who can produce the requisite residency documents left alone.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you're here asking if it's OK to use your mom's address for a school, I'd wager that you don't have the moxie to pull this off. In these situations, my advice would to be pay your DC taxes where you like, as long as a family member owns the house and it's not rented out. Nobody's business but yours where you sleep. Collect a stack of residency docs in case you're investigation for residency fraud, and don't advertise where your residency situation at the school you use. If you get investigated, switch houses with your mom til things blow over. If you need your choice validated by non family members, you're not cut out for this shades-of-gray approach to residency. The holier than though moralists on these threads are blowhards who deserve to be ignored.

I respect you for at least detailing how this is fraudulent. What annoys me is when people claim it isn't.

Fradulent, whatever. We use a property we jointly own w/grandparents as our IB address. We renovated the house extensively, mainly through sweat equity and love the place. Kids stay there often. We tune out the small number of school busybodies whisper about us. DCPS investigated us and cleared us years back. If you want to use a relative's address for IB, have the good sense not to talk about it, and to keep your chin up. In the grand scheme of things, you pay plenty in taxes to the City and even the best DCPS schools are no great prize, OP.

You’re a horrible person. Your ridiculous sense of entitlement harms people.

+1. I hate people who try justify to themselves why they should get to break the rules.

I hate busybodies, particularly residency vigilantes. I also hate senior DCPS officials who rely on busybodies to tattle on fellow parents to enforce residency, rather than designing and implementing a competent, if not foolproof, residency verification system for the 21st century. If you could collect a stack of residency documents and submit them to a school registrar annually, particularly documents showing DC withholding, your family members should be able to sleep where they want without being hassled by anybody.

The strongest sense of entitlement that comes through on residency threads is that of parents with access to the most upscale DCPS schools who protect their turf with jealousy and venom. Ech.

Seriously? This roughly translates to, "If you're good enough at fraud, enforcement efforts should cease and they should just leave you alone." That's . . . interesting.

I get thinking that boundary fraud is different, and far less distasteful, than residency fraud (and I agree with that, though it's still wrong.) I even get arguing that OP shouldn't worry if she does it. But getting angry at people because they expect you to comply with the rules and will avail themselves of the mechanisms offered by DCPS is bonkers, and shows you to be not entirely rational.

Anonymous wrote:School employee here.

Yep, that's fraud. You won't be alone in doing it, but it's still fraud.

I love it when the teachers' aides weigh in with "school employee here," as if that gives them some added authority in matters like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My mother lives WOTP and the long term goal is to buy her house from her, but she is not ready to move yet and neither are we.

So my question is what is legal? My choices are 1. do nothing - Stay at our IB school until we actually move (prob not for 3-5 years) and then just transfer DD in at 2nd or 3rd once we actually move OR 2. I'm wondering if it's legal to rent a room from her for next years lottery when DD will be going into K (so she can start off with the class she will eventually be in anyway) or similarly buy the house from her so we legally own it and pay taxes but then rent it back to her until we are all ready to make moves?

Unless your kid is actually sleeping there most nights, using that address for IB enrollment is fraud.

Where is this rule stated in the rules on DCPS residency, or the rules re DC domicile for minors? Hint: nowhere.

PPs make up rules on these threads. Ridiculous.