Are Runaway Children Classified as Homeless

I guess I just don't FULLY understand the McKinney-Vento Act.
Basically, it states that the "homeless" have a right to education as much as others.

Quote:

---

(1) Each State educational agency shall ensure that each child of a homeless individual and each homeless youth has equal access to the same free, appropriate public education, including a public preschool education, as provided to other children and youths.

---

Well, in some of Michigan's laws, it also states that "runaways" are considered "homeless" because they don't live in their parent's homes anymore. I don't know, how to explain my question other than, would the McKinney-Vento Act apply to a 17 year old who doesn't live with his parents?

My thoughts on it: If the school DOESN'T enroll you into the school in where you live, wouldn't it be their fault that they have to contact truancy? THEY are the ones denying you of your education, aren't they?

Please don't be rude. I'm just trying to understand that Act and if it would apply to the runaway situation. Or if MY thoughts are correct?
I've heard multiple answers and I just want to be sure.




Here is the link for the McKinney-Vento Act: http://www.naehcy.org/sites/default/...ges/dl/m_v.pdf

Nope. Does not apply. He is not homeless. He just does not want to be at his home.

You're not homeless if you have a home but are choosing not to live in it.

Further, your friend is not homeless because he is living with you. Problem solved.

For the purposes of this discussion, they are probably referring to runaways who are living on the street. Not those who ran away to someone else's home.

He is not being denied an education, he is currently enrolled in a school where he used to live. Therefore, the state is doing its job. If he chooses not to attend, that is on him. They don't have to allow him to switch schools because your home is not where he legally resides.

IIRC, the "friend" isn't living there..yet.

Yeah, misread one of OP's other posts. Anyway, I don't think he has a pot to piss in. From the act OP is looking at:

(1) Each State educational agency shall ensure that each child of a homeless
individual and each homeless youth has equal access to the same free,
appropriate public education, including a public preschool education, as provided
to other children and youths.

He has equal access via the school he is currently enrolled in. Plenty of people shuttle their kids all over creation to get them to school.

Further, from that same act:

The term `homeless children and youths'--
(A) means individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime
residence (within the meaning of section 103(a)(1)); and
(B) includes--
(i) children and youths who are sharing the housing of other
persons due to loss of housing, economic hardship, or a similar
reason; are living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping
grounds due to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations;
are living in emergency or transitional shelters; are abandoned in
hospitals; or are awaiting foster care placement;
(ii) children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence
that is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily
used as a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings
(within the meaning of section 103(a)(2)(C));
(iii) children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public
spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train
stations, or similar settings; and
(iv) migratory children (as such term is defined in section 1309
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965) who
qualify as homeless for the purposes of this subtitle because the
children are living in circumstances described in clauses (i)
through (iii).

None of the above would apply to OP's friend.

Yeap, agreed :)

All I can say is that this site has given me no help what so ever! Your advice is terrible, honestly.

However, thank you for answering my question. I'm calling the superintendent of the school to see if he can help us out. As I have talked to lawyers and they've seemed to say otherwise of what all of you are saying..

I think I'll stick to talking to police officers and lawyers when it comes to legal matters, as nobody on this site knows what they are talking about!

- - - Updated - - -

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

He is not being denied an education, he is currently enrolled in a school where he used to live. Therefore, the state is doing its job. If he chooses not to attend, that is on him. They don't have to allow him to switch schools because your home is not where he legally resides.

---

Thanks for the answer, however, that's not exactly what I meant. He is switching school districts. If he cannot get enrolled in that school district, they are denying him education. But, as stated before, the superintendent is helping us with the matter. Thanks again.

You're surely welcome.

Actually, you should thank us for educating you on why children are not permitted to make adult decisions and how the system does not reward their attempts.

Quote:

---

nobody on this site knows what they are talking about!

---

Translation, for those who don't speak spoilt teenager: "These people insist on explaining reality instead of telling me what I want to hear, and they aren't fooled by different ways of asking."

But we forgot! Teenagers apparently know everything.

Welcome to adulthood! People don't hold your hand and tell you everything is gonna be okay. They tell you *how it is.* If you want someone to confirm your incorrect assumptions, then this is not the place for you anyways. You don't hurt our feelings by acting immaturely. You are only giving your friend false hope.

Quote:

---

Quoting shortie

---

But we forgot! Teenagers apparently know everything.

Welcome to adulthood! People don't hold your hand and tell you everything is gonna be okay. They tell you *how it is.* If you want someone to confirm your incorrect assumptions, then this is not the place for you anyways. You don't hurt our feelings by acting immaturely. You are only giving your friend false hope.

---

Well, the superintendent said it was okay if he enrolled himself. So, guess who DIDN'T know what they were talking about? I'm sorry that you believe I'm an immature teenager. But, I don't mind that. You're judging me without even knowing me. :p Have a nice day!

And when the authorities get involved because an unsupervised minor is attending school without any parental supervision, there will be problems!

Is the child reported as a runaway? If not, then there may be little problem provided mom or dad (or whoever is the legal guardian) agree to sign them into school or transfer temporary custody to some other adult.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

Well, the superintendent said it was okay if he enrolled himself. So, guess who DIDN'T know what they were talking about? I'm sorry that you believe I'm an immature teenager. But, I don't mind that. You're judging me without even knowing me. :p Have a nice day!

---

Your question here was whether a runaway child is homeless under a specific statute. You were given an accurate answer, then threw a tantrum.

Now you're stating that the child was allowed to enroll in school, something that has absolutely no relevance to the question asked, and... what?

Since students in MI are supposed to be enrolled in the district their parents reside, I wish I was listening, when the superintendent discovers whatever McFly told him is not true. Who wants to bank on a misdemeanor vs a felony?




http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...ND%20residence

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%2...e=mcl-750-411a

Quote:

---

Well, the superintendent said it was okay if he enrolled himself.

---

Horsepuckey. I know you think you're pulling one over on us, but no, the superintendent most assuredly did nothing of the sort.

Because, like it or not, a minor who does not meet the legal definition of homeless - and your friend doesn't - is not permitted to enroll himself in school without parental consent. The superintendent isn't going to risk losing his job, your friend is just Not That Special.

Gotta give you props for the valiant effort at trying to convince total strangers otherwise, though. You should look into writing fiction.

How can you tell when a teenager is lying? Their lips are moving.

--- Judge Judy

Here's the reality, kiddo:

I live where I am not wanted.

I don't qualify for any assistance except Food Stamps (barely).

I'm an adult who lives in a place she can be thrown out of any day because she is not wanted...I don't qualify for help finding an apartment, or even a homeless shelter, because I have someone who will very reluctantly let me live here....

I would like everyone to know that my best friend has been living with me since November 16th 2012. He moved in at the age of 17 in the state of Michigan. I will further explain how the lawyers on this site don't fully understand the laws themselves. :)

First!
His parents did call the police after my mother and I left with my friend from his house. My best friend left a note saying where he was going and that he was going by will, not by force. His father tried saying that my mother kidnapped him, but instead, the police said that there was nothing they could do as a 17 year old was not a minor. They then told his father to have a good night.

Second
The school counted him as "homeless" even though he was obviously living with us. He was given free lunches due to that, but he was able to enroll without his parents permission.

Lastly
A 17 year old is a MIDDLE AGE for teenagers in Michigan. A 17 year old is NOT a minor nor an adult.


I only wanted to clear this us due to the amount of posts I saw on the internet at the time I was looking it up, I thought this would be helpful. So for anyone who is asking if you can move out in Michigan at the age of 17, the answer is YES. Just make sure you tell your parents where you are going and that you are going by choice.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

I would like everyone to know that my best friend has been living with me since November 16th 2012. He moved in at the age of 17 in the state of Michigan. I will further explain how the lawyers on this site don't fully understand the laws themselves. :)

First!
His parents did call the police after my mother and I left with my friend from his house. My best friend left a note saying where he was going and that he was going by will, not by force. His father tried saying that my mother kidnapped him, but instead, the police said that there was nothing they could do as a 17 year old was not a minor. They then told his father to have a good night.

Second
The school counted him as "homeless" even though he was obviously living with us. He was given free lunches due to that, but he was able to enroll without his parents permission.

Lastly
A 17 year old is a MIDDLE AGE for teenagers in Michigan. A 17 year old is NOT a minor nor an adult.


I only wanted to clear this us due to the amount of posts I saw on the internet at the time I was looking it up, I thought this would be helpful. So for anyone who is asking if you can move out in Michigan at the age of 17, the answer is YES. Just make sure you tell your parents where you are going and that you are going by choice.

---

Oh, sweet child o' mine...

I thought his mom was going to enroll him in school??

It's hardly a big victory against the evil machine if he got enrolled in school and mom was okay with it.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

I would like everyone to know that my best friend has been living with me since November 16th 2012. He moved in at the age of 17 in the state of Michigan. I will further explain how the lawyers on this site don't fully understand the laws themselves. :)

---

At risk of repeating myself:

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

Your question here was whether a runaway child is homeless under a specific statute. You were given an accurate answer, then threw a tantrum.

Now you're stating that the child was allowed to enroll in school, something that has absolutely no relevance to the question asked, and... what?

---

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

First!
His parents did call the police after my mother and I left with my friend from his house. My best friend left a note saying where he was going and that he was going by will, not by force. His father tried saying that my mother kidnapped him, but instead, the police said that there was nothing they could do as a 17 year old was not a minor. They then told his father to have a good night.

---

What does that have to do with whether a runaway 17-year-old is homeless, or with enrollment in school? If you wanted to know about juvenile court jurisdiction in Michigan, you would need to ask us a question about juvenile court jurisdiction. If you wanted to know the policies of the local constabulary, as you didn't bother to identify your locality, you would have had to have asked them. That has nothing to do with either "homelessness" or school enrollment.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

Second
The school counted him as "homeless" even though he was obviously living with us. He was given free lunches due to that, but he was able to enroll without his parents permission.

---

If the school counted him as "homeless", whatever that's supposed to mean, that's what the school did under the school's policies, quite possibly because the teenager lied to the school about his situation. I could call you "dumb as a sack of hammers", but that wouldn't actually make you a sack of hammers. (Would it?)

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

Lastly
A 17 year old is a MIDDLE AGE for teenagers in Michigan. A 17 year old is NOT a minor nor an adult.

---

The age of majority in Michigan is 18. A 17-year-old is a minor. You are confusing the fact that there are different age thresholds for different activities (e.g., getting a driver's license, being held fully responsible for your criminal acts, smoking, voting, buying alcohol) with whether or not somebody has reached the age of majority.

Quote:

---

second
The school counted him as "homeless" even though he was obviously living with us. He was given free lunches due to that, but he was able to enroll without his parents permission.

---

What you mean is the school chose to look the other way, while your mother falsified Federal documents. They offered to do the same for us, when we took in a homeless 18 yr old and allowed him to finish school. Contrary to your mom, we chose not to commit a Federal crime.

It doesn't really matter if it has nothing to do with this question, I just thought it needed to be included.

The school DID count him as homeless because that's what they needed to do. Nobody lied in the situation, that's just what the school chose to call it.

Lastly, if 17 was a minor, he would not have been able to leave his household without parents permission. I'm not confusing anything with anything. A 17 year old is not a minor.

Yes, a 17 year old is a minor BY STATUTE. The law that says so has been shown to you. Either you cannot read or you cannot reason. The fact that you have been able to exploit a loophole in the law does not change the law itself. But clearly you think that you know the law better than the attorney who has responded to you here so I see no point in continuing this conversation.

They didn't give me the correct answers - actually, none of the lawyers on this site helped me. Oh well. I got the correct answers elsewhere, that's all the matters, huh?

Either way, the issue has been resolved. He was able to move in because he wasn't a minor. If he was, he would not have been able to move in and he would have been taken home. Considering a minor would have needed parental permission, which he didn't have. It may be stated in the law that a 17 year old is a minor, but on the day that he left home, the police said that he wasn't a minor at the age of 17. That's exactly what the police told his parents, and so they could not return him home.

Have a nice day all of you. :)

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

It doesn't really matter if it has nothing to do with this question, I just thought it needed to be included.

---

If you are going to pretend that your supposed revelations are relevant to what you were told, then they need to somehow relate to what you were asked or what you were told. You seem to be conceding that you received a 100% accurate answer to your actual question, and that you are engaged in an adolescent fit of pique.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

The school DID count him as homeless because that's what they needed to do.

---

They could have classified him as a grapefruit. That doesn't change the fact that he was neither homeless nor a grapefruit.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

Nobody lied in the situation, that's just what the school chose to call it.

---

I am not particularly impressed with your contention that nobody lied, but as I said, calling you "dumb as a sack of hammers" doesn't mean you are in fact a sack of hammers.

Quote:

---

Quoting zombies

---

Lastly, if 17 was a minor, he would not have been able to leave his household without parents permission.

---

I realize that you aren't very bright, but that has nothing to do with the age of majority and everything to do with the jurisdictional limit of the juvenile court. That has been explained in painstaking detail, with reference to statute, and even a five-year-old would get it. But you....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ejga4kJUts