Woman jailed for sending kids to suburban school

[CaptainChewbacca]

I think we're ignoring a....thing here. As a father, one who is doing miles better financially at the VERY least, than his ex-wife who ultimately has primary custody of our daughter, how in the poopsock did a judge allow a child to be placed with a woman who is in the projects/ghettos/whatever struggling to get by so much so that she feels compelled to LIE to SAVE her child from the neighoborhood where they live, as opposed to an (obviously) more well-off and (apparently) more intelligent (he does live in a good school district in a HOUSE so it's very probable that both of those were intentional) father?

God I hate the F*ing Child welfare system in this country.

You misread. The article says the woman used the address of her father, the grandfather of her children. Not the biological father of the children.

[Chardok]

I think we're ignoring a....thing here. As a father, one who is doing miles better financially at the VERY least, than his ex-wife who ultimately has primary custody of our daughter, how in the poopsock did a judge allow a child to be placed with a woman who is in the projects/ghettos/whatever struggling to get by so much so that she feels compelled to LIE to SAVE her child from the neighoborhood where they live, as opposed to an (obviously) more well-off and (apparently) more intelligent (he does live in a good school district in a HOUSE so it's very probable that both of those were intentional) father?

God I hate the F*ing Child welfare system in this country.

You misread. The article says the woman used the address of her father, the grandfather of her children. Not the biological father of the children.

Carry on.

[Rogue 9]

I think we're ignoring a....thing here. As a father, one who is doing miles better financially at the VERY least, than his ex-wife who ultimately has primary custody of our daughter, how in the poopsock did a judge allow a child to be placed with a woman who is in the projects/ghettos/whatever struggling to get by so much so that she feels compelled to LIE to SAVE her child from the neighoborhood where they live, as opposed to an (obviously) more well-off and (apparently) more intelligent (he does live in a good school district in a HOUSE so it's very probable that both of those were intentional) father?

God I hate the F*ing Child welfare system in this country.

Read the article, Chardok. It says her father, that is, the children's grandfather.

Edit: Crap. Ninjaed, and no delete. Carry on.

[Chardok]

EDIT________ Smarmy reply retracted.

[Broomstick]

... but you ignore what I am actually saying, which is that claiming that she stole the full cost of tuition is ludicrous, seeing as tuition is paid for by taxes which were in this case paid. The school did not lose any money. She did break the law, but I dispute whether the response is appropriate for the crime committed. This is something that would understand, were your mind not obsessed with petty victories and small triumphs.

The value of tuition in these cases is determined by the amount of money spent for each child in the school district. The assumption is that only children living within that district will be "consuming" such resources. Children coming from outside the district obtain the benefit of the school without their legal guardian paying into the pot, so to speak. That's where the "theft" aspect comes into play. Unless the children are residents in the district they are not entitled to having that money spent on their education. One extra student is unlikely to cause a severe problem, but an extra 100 or 200 students might impose costs on the district that are not fully covered by the current taxes, which would require legal residents to pay higher taxes to cover the cost of those students. It's a tragedy of the commons situation.

We don't know how long this subterfuge was going on. I suspect, given this wound up in court, it was more than just a short time. Most of the time children are simply removed from the school in these situations, perhaps the parents are billed for tuition, and prosecution does not occur. Clearly, as so often happens, we are not hearing the whole story here. Perhaps her violation was more egregious than average. We don't know.

Yes, the penalty seems extreme - but it certainly was NOT the maximum that could have been imposed. Her sentence was suspended, she did not actually receive jail time, so to describe the judge as throwing the book at her is incorrect. Within the confines of the law there was leniency.

Saying "but her father paid taxes!" doesn't cut it. Her father paid his own taxes. He didn't pay taxes for his daughter and grandchildren. That's not the way it works.

Maybe there would be a lot less of this if we didn't make schools dependent on local property taxes and instead funded them across entire states out of a general education fund.

[Simon_Jester]

Saying "but her father paid taxes!" doesn't cut it. Her father paid his own taxes. He didn't pay taxes for his daughter and grandchildren. That's not the way it works.

Um, this may be my brain failing me, but do people pay extra taxes at the country level for having dependents live with them?

[Broomstick]

No.

Let's try this again.

The fact I pay taxes in Indiana in no way entitles my sister - pick either the one who lives in Michigan or the one in New York - to send her children to my local school district. That school is only for children resident in the community. If my sister wants her kids to go to my school either her family moves out to where I live, or she sends her kids to live with me on a more or less permanent basis.

Likewise, if my sister lived in Porter county, right next to my county Lake, the fact I pay taxes in Lake county in no way entitles her children to go to my school district.

Actually, schools districts are no organized by counties. It varies all over. One county might have several entirely separate school districts, or one county has on district, or a school district might even encompass more than one county.

The taxes that support the schools are intended solely for students that are legal residents of said district. Being a relative of a tax payer in the district doesn't give you any sort of right to go to school in that district. The key criteria is being a resident of that district.

SOME districts will allow out of district students to attend if they pay tuition fees to do so. That is solely at the discretion of the district, they are under no obligation to do this.

You can argue if this is a good system or a bad system, but right now that's how it is.

[Simon_Jester]

No.

Let's try this again.

The fact I pay taxes in Indiana in no way entitles my sister - pick either the one who lives in Michigan or the one in New York - to send her children to my local school district. That school is only for children resident in the community. If my sister wants her kids to go to my school either her family moves out to where I live, or she sends her kids to live with me on a more or less permanent basis.

Likewise, if my sister lived in Porter county, right next to my county Lake, the fact I pay taxes in Lake county in no way entitles her children to go to my school district.

This is irrelevant from the legal perspective, fine, but I do think it makes an ethical difference: her children are benefiting from services that they are not entitled to by virtue of happening to live in the right hundred square mile plot of land, yes... but the service is no less funded than it would be were they living with their grandfather- which would be perfectly legal. They're taking something they're not entitled to, but the concrete reality of the funding situation for the school district is the same as it would be if the students were living with their grandfather.

And yes, please don't repeat this at me again, I know, I know, it's still illegal.

Actually, schools districts are no organized by counties. It varies all over. One county might have several entirely separate school districts, or one county has on district, or a school district might even encompass more than one county.

This much I know, but tax policies don't normally vary below the county level- if even at that level.

Though that may be me; I pay my county taxes as one extra line on the state income tax form, and the only difference between counties is that I'm taxed at a different rate for living in one county than I would be in another.

[weemadando]

Wonderful.

This woman is sent to gaol, which will cost more per week for the city/state/nation in all likelihood than the tuition costs per year for the child.

Oh yeah. And as a convicted felon she won't be able to get a decent job ever again.

What a great outcome.

What's happening to the kid? No doubt they'll end up with the grandparents anyhow, rather than being put into the foster system and probably go to that damn school anyway.

Seriously. [insert slow clap gif here] GREAT JOB GUYS.

I

[Broomstick]

This woman is sent to gaol, which will cost more per week for the city/state/nation in all likelihood than the tuition costs per year for the child.

She's been sent to a county jail (as opposed to a state or Federal prison) for all of 10 days - it's highly unlikely that will equal the tuition costs, as the OP article clearly states this occurred over a period of years. This article from the Cleveland Plain Dealer estimates a yearly cost per pupil of $10,173 per year in Ohio as reported by the US Census Bureau. I find it hard to believe that 10 days in a county lock up would cost that much.

Oh yeah. And as a convicted felon she won't be able to get a decent job ever again.

THAT is a valid criticism of this case. Actually, there are jobs that pay a living wage open to ex-felons, but not that many. This does mean she's excluded from large categories of the potential job market.

What's happening to the kid? No doubt they'll end up with the grandparents anyhow, rather than being put into the foster system and probably go to that damn school anyway.

Uh... why would the kids wind up in foster care? Sure, they'll probably spent the 10 days she's locked up with grandpa, but that's hardly enough to establish sufficient residency for them to legally attend the school. Nope, they'll be back with mom in the projects and attending the local school there.

[Bakustra]

The problem with your argument, Broomstick, is that if she moved in with her father, she'd still be as much of a freeloader. She wouldn't pay property taxes or add to her father's, so if she was stealing the full value of tuition in this way, she'd still be stealing if she lived with her father. That is not tenable for a variety of reasons, namely that a number of people would count as stealing their tuition. I'm not saying that financial restitution is necessarily inappropriate, or that she didn't freeload, but saying that she stole the full value of tuition is nonsensical and/or dangerous.

[Broomstick]

Look, I actually agree with your point - if she moves in with dad there aren't any more taxes collected. There is this difference between how we'd like the world to work, and how it actually does work. The laws are written with the assumption that people sneaking their kids into the district don't have relatives there and are entirely freeloaders. Maybe a better solution would be to say that if kids have a close relative living in the district and paying taxes they're allowed to attend. Problem for this lady is that the law isn't written that way.

[Bakustra]

Look, I actually agree with your point - if she moves in with dad there aren't any more taxes collected. There is this difference between how we'd like the world to work, and how it actually does work. The laws are written with the assumption that people sneaking their kids into the district don't have relatives there and are entirely freeloaders. Maybe a better solution would be to say that if kids have a close relative living in the district and paying taxes they're allowed to attend. Problem for this lady is that the law isn't written that way.

Well, I don't necessarily have a problem with the laws as written so much as with the idea that they have to be interpreted strictly, and I certainly can see the point of fining her for the extra time and resources spent on the children too.

[Simon_Jester]

I think we all understand that yes, a law which mandates punishment has been broken.

However, the system is rightly criticized when it throws people in jail for doing things that are no more damaging than what they could have done by entirely legal means. Especially given the effects of going to jail on an American citizen's future prospects.

Such cases undermine the law's claim to moral supremacy: the idea that the law should be enforced, rather than merely is enforced.

[Enigma]

This is why I like the Canadian (at least in Ontario) model for this situation. For example in Ottawa, there's only one school board for the city and the surrounding areas. Kids go to their local schools but AFAIK the school board isn't strict as to where they can go to school. For a while, my sister enrolled her kids in the school near my parents house because she and her husband had to work so my parents would take the kids to school and later bring them to their home until either my sister or her husband would come and pick up the kids after work.

In my case, before going to high school, I had at least two choices to go to that were near my parents house. Either go to Hillcrest or Cantebury. Instead, I ended up going to Brookfield because of their spec. ed. program. Brookfield was a lot farther then the first two, that the school board paid for my bus pass to go there (because my parents could not afford to pay for monthly passes for all four years).

Every homeowner in Ottawa-Carelton area pays their school tax that ends up in one school board. No need to stick to one school just because of where you live.

Sometimes it is good to be centralized.

[Solauren]

THat's actually the way it works in the other school districts in Ontario.

I had a choice of 2 high schools, and transferred midway during the school year between 2 schools without problem.

[Norade]

I could have gone to any of three schools where I live. Rutland Secondary, Kelowna Secondary, or Mount Boucherie Secondary, none would have effected me or my parents in anyway. In the end I went to the one that worked for me. It's a shame that other places have such a divide.