Homeless Mom Charged With Stealing $16,000 in Education Expenses By Lying About Son’s Address for School
A homeless mother in Connecticut has been charged with theft of “education expenses” totaling nearly $16,000 after it was discovered that she registered her son for school using the babysitter’s address.
A homeless woman from Bridgeport who enrolled her 6-year-old son at a Norwalk elementary school has become the first in the city to be charged with stealing more than $15,000 for the cost of her child’s education.
Tonya McDowell, 33, whose last known address was 66 Priscilla St., Bridgeport, was charged Thursday with first-degree larceny and conspiracy to commit first-degree larceny for allegedly stealing $15,686 from Norwalk schools. She was released after posting a $25,000 bond.
McDowell’s babysitter, Ana Rebecca Marques, was also evicted from her Roodner Court public housing apartment for providing documents to enroll the child at Brookside Elementary School.
According to the story, McDowell was primarily sleeping at a home in a different city, although she could not be there during the days, and also spent time at a local shelter. The boy went to the sitter’s house daily after school.
An argument could be made that as they had no permanent home, there is no reason why the babysitter’s house isn’t a place of residence, as it was a place he went to daily and had more permanence than their other living situations appeared to. However, the school disagreed and decided after an investigation to press charges against the mother, claiming theft.
The Chair of the board of education admits the move is unusual — normally a child found attending school out of district is just sent away. Others are speculating why this case became the case that the district appears to be interested in using to “set an example” in order to discourage other parents from attempting to send their children to school with false addresses, especially since the mother obviously has no ability to pay for the “theft.” A lawyer involved in a similar case wonders why they wouldn’t choose to go after someone where they may have a chance to get reimbursement back for the educational costs while making their point.
Could it be that the district is less concerned about sending a general example and more concerned about sending one geared to a specific audience? Like, for example, the low-income and homeless in the area?