May 21, 2008
EAST STROUDSBURG — A ruling that could make it harder for Pocono area school districts to stop families from sending children here to be educated has been handed down by Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court.
The ruling says a local resident raising a child is not violating state law by receiving child support from the child's parent if the parent lives outside the area. The decision stems from a 2006 case in the East Stroudsburg Area School District.
State law says a child can attend school in a district if the child lives in that district with a parent, legal guardian or caregiver raising the child "gratis" (free of compensation or personal profit), as if the child were their own. The child is ineligible to attend school in the district if the parent, legal guardian or caregiver receives compensation, the definition of which does not apply to child support.
Commonwealth Court Judge Doris Smith-Ribner said Monday that the law does not recognize child support as compensation and neither should school districts and their boards.
The East Stroudsburg Area School Board did just that when it voted in 2006 to remove student Jose Velazquez, now 17. Velazquez for most of his life has been raised in the Poconos by his grandmother, Renee Speaks-Velazquez. She has been receiving child support from his mother, who lives out of state, while his father is in prison.
Jose Velazquez was a sophomore during the 2005-06 school year when he was involved in an incident with a school resource officer. Velazquez said the officer harassed and used unnecessary excessive force to restrain him.
Monroe County Juvenile Court found Velazquez delinquent of disorderly conduct in connection with that incident and ordered him sent to a boot camp program.
The school district meanwhile learned he was being raised by his grandmother, that she is not his court-appointed guardian and that she receives child support for him. District staff advised the school board that he no longer was eligible to continue as a student and the board then voted to remove him.
Velazquez was allowed to finish out his sophomore year.
In October 2006, his grandmother filed a petition in county court to reverse the school board decision. President Judge Ronald Vican denied the petition, upholding the school board's vote, after which Speaks-Velazquez appealed in Commonwealth Court.
Meanwhile, Velazquez in December 2006 was charged with stabbing Joseph Paulino, 20, during an argument behind the East Stroudsburg Kmart. Velazquez said the stabbing was self-defense. Paulino was treated for injuries at the hospital and later released.
Velazquez turned himself in after the stabbing and was arrested and placed in Monroe County Correctional Facility to await future court proceedings. He was unable to post the required $50,000 bail and stayed in county jail for 15 months, more than the minimum amount of time to which he would have been sentenced if convicted.
He did, however, continue his high school education in jail while the appeal on his case with the school district was pending in Commonwealth Court.
He was released in March after his bail was reduced to unsecured status, which means he's free without having to post an amount as long as he shows up for all future court proceedings on the stabbing case. That case is still pending while the District Attorney's Office tries to locate Paulino, who reportedly has left the country.
Commonwealth Court on Monday ruled Vican had made "an error in law" when upholding the school board's decision to remove Velazquez.
The higher court ruled:
- The school district, school board and county court should not have viewed the child support received by Velazquez's grandmother as compensation or used that as the basis for the decision to remove him from school.
- His grandmother's failure to seek court-appointed guardianship is irrelevant since she has shown that she raised him as if he were her own child. She said she purposely exercised her right to not seek guardianship because she wants to preserve his relationship with his parents.
"This decision can have a big impact on Pennsylvania school districts," said Len Rieser, co-director of the Educational Law Center in Philadelphia. "Many districts interpret the law as East Stroudsburg did and make the error of viewing child support payments as compensation."
That error is on the side of caution in ensuring students truly are residents eligible to attend school in the district, said Eric Forsyth, director of administrative services for the East Stroudsburg Area School District.
Some parents living outside the area send their children here to live with relatives or others because they view this area's school districts as superior. But, if the people those children are sent to live with cannot prove they don't receive compensation or that they're raising the children as if they were their own, then the children are not district residents and legally cannot attend school here.
"As most people might know, the state provides less than 25 percent of the funding to educate each student in the district, with tax dollars providing the rest," said Forsyth. "Taxes continue to rise as more and more students keep coming into the district. So, yes, we do try to make sure all of our students meet the strict legal definition of being residents."
Forsyth said it's not known at this time if the school board will appeal Commonwealth Court's decision in state Supreme Court.
Calling the decision "a victory," Speaks-Velazquez said the next step at this point is getting her grandson back in school.
"Even though he's missed his junior year and most of his senior year, he should be able to graduate this year, since he's been on schedule with taking his courses," she said.
Read more...
