J.T., on behalf of minor children, E.E.-T. and E.T. v. Rahway Board of Education, Union County, 3/25/26 (#106-26R)

106-26R
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00767-26
Agency Dkt. No. 011-01-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.T., on behalf of minor children, E.E.-T. and E.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Rahway Board of Education, Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by the petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Rahway Board of
Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner challenged the Board’s determination that she and her children do not reside
in Rahway and that the children are therefore not entitled to a free public education in the
Board’s schools. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the petition was untimely
because it was filed more than 21 days after the Board’s ineligibility notice and dismissed the
case.
In her exceptions, petitioner argues that the Board’s December 18, 2025 ineligibility
notice did not specify a removal date, and that she filed her petition on January 13, 2026, the
same day that that she was notified that her child was being removed and had to be picked up.

2
She indicates that she was only informed at that time that correspondence had previously been
mailed, and she was not aware until that date that the timeline to appeal had begun.
In response, the Board argues that the right to appeal is triggered when notice of the
Board’s decision is provided, not when the Board acts to enforce the decision. 	The Board
contends that the 21-day deadline is mandatory, and there is no reason to relax it.
Upon review, the Commissioner concludes that the petition of appeal was not untimely.
While N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2) provides that a parent may contest a board of education’s
ineligibility decision within 21 days of the date of the decision, this provision must be read in
combination with N.J.A.C. 6A:3-8.1(f), which states,
Where the petition of appeal is filed within 21 days following a
notice of ineligibility, the student may continue to attend school
while the appeal is pending. After the 21-day period, the petitioner
shall file a petition in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3 and a
motion for emergent relief pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6. 	The
petitioner must prevail on the motion for emergent relief in order
for the student to continue to attend school while the appeal is
pending.
Here, while the petition of appeal was filed more than 21 days after the ineligibility notice,
petitioner complied with the regulatory requirement by filing both a petition and a motion for
emergent relief. The Commissioner has previously held that the merits of a residency appeal are
not barred by failure to file within 21 days of the board of education’s adverse notice. T.K. o/b/o
D.K., Y.K., and A.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of W. Orange, Commissioner Decision No. 4-12 (Jan.
5, 2012).1 	As such, the Commissioner concludes that the petition in this matter is not time-
barred.
1 The Commissioner notes that the Board’s briefing relies on the Initial Decision in the T.K. matter, in which
the ALJ dismissed the petition as untimely because it was not filed within 21 days. The Board fails to

3
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is rejected. This matter is hereby remanded to the OAL
for further proceedings consistent with this decision. 2
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 25, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	March 25, 2026
address the subsequent Commissioner decision rejecting the ALJ’s conclusion. The Commissioner also
notes that in another case cited by the Board, W.G. o/b/o C.G. and L.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of
Vineland, Commissioner Decision No. 96-06 (Mar. 13, 2006), while the Commissioner did dismiss a
residency appeal as untimely, the Commissioner also indicated that petitioner could have perfected his
appeal with a motion for emergent relief, but did not do so.
2 The motion for emergent relief was not addressed by the ALJ because the Board agreed to allow
petitioner’s children to continue attending school while the case was pending. As no emergent hearing
was held, the Commissioner cannot determine at this time whether petitioner would have prevailed on
her motion. Accordingly, the remand transmittal in this matter will indicate that the motion for emergent
relief should be addressed, unless the Board agrees prior to transmittal to continue to allow the children
to remain in school during the proceedings. If the Board does not agree to continued enrollment and it is
necessary to proceed with the motion for emergent relief, the children shall remain enrolled while the
motion is pending, until the Commissioner issues her decision on emergent relief.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 011-01-26
J.T. O/B/O E.E.-T. AND E.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
RAHWAY BOARD OF
EDUCATION, UNION COUNTY
Respondent.
_____________________________________
J.T., appearing pro se for minor children E.E.-T. and E.T.
Margaret A. Miller, Esq., appearing for respondent (Weiner Law Group, LLP,
attorneys)
Record Closed: February 9, 2026 	Decided: February 13, 2026
BEFORE NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Twenty-six days after the Rahway Board of Education’s (Board) December 18,
2025, determination that she was not domiciled in Rahway and her children were being

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
2
disenrolled from the school district, the petitioner challenged the Board’s conclusion. Is
the claim time-barred? Yes. Under N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2), a parent must appeal the
Board’s disenrollment of their child based on a lack of domicile in the district within twenty-
one days of receiving notice. Ibid.
.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By email dated January 13, 2026, J.T. filed a Petition and application for emergent
relied on behalf of her minor children, E.E.-T. and E.T., with the Commissioner of the
Department 	of 	Education 	(DOE), 	contesting 	the 	Board’s 	conclusion 	received 	on
December 18, 2025, that J.T. was not domiciled in Rahway and the Rahway School
District (District) was disenrolling her children from its public schools. Petitioner asserts
that she resides in Rahway and that the Board’s determination was incorrect, having not
contacted her to discuss its concerns or to schedule a home visit, provide advance notice
of its determination, or surveil her Rahway residence at other times.
On January 13, 2026, the DOE transmitted this case to the OAL for resolution of
the emergent application and to file the contested case under the Administrative
Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules,
N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On January 21, 2026, the parties agreed to resolve the emergent relief application,
whereby the minor children would continue their education in the District pending the final
resolution in this case. I granted leave to the Board to file a Motion to Dismiss in place of
an Answer, which I received on January 30, 2026, arguing that J.T. filed her petition out
of time.
Petitioner filed her opposition on February 2, 2026. 	On February 9, 2026, the
Board replied, and I closed the record.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
3
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the petition and its supporting documents, as well as arguments
presented in support and in opposition to this motion, I FIND the following as FACT for
purposes of this motion only:
E.E.-T. is a student at Grover Cleaveland Elementary School, and E.T. is a student
at Rahway Academy within the Rahway public school system. 	On December 3, 2025,
the District’s attendance officer advised J.T. that the District was disenrolling her children
from the District because they were domiciled in Colonia, New Jersey, not Rahway. In
other words, the petitioner received advance notice, contrary to her assertion that she
received none.
This determination followed surveillance of the Rahway address on file with the
District, which purportedly revealed that her children did not leave that location on five
occasions between November 17, 2025, and December 3, 2025, but were in school. 	The
petitioner’s assertion that the District should have conducted surveillance at different
times does not dispute the investigation results, and the District is not required to conduct
a scheduled home visit as she suggests.
J.T. requested a hearing, which the Board conducted on December 16, 2025.
On December 18, 2025, the Board’s attorney advised J.T. that following the
hearing, the Board determined that neither she nor her children were domiciled in Rahway
and that it would be disenrolling the children from the District.
The letter attached to her petition advised J.T. of her right to file an appeal with the
DOE Commissioner “within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this notice.” Further, if the
Board did not receive an appeal within twenty-one days following the date of this letter,
the petitioner’s “children would be removed from the District’s rolls.” Id.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
4
Since the Board did not receive notice of an appeal within twenty-one days of the
letter or by January 8, 2026, the District contacted the children’s father on January 13,
2026, and asked him to pick the children up because the District disenrolled them.
The petitioner opposes this motion by suggesting that her obligation to appeal
commenced when the District implemented the disenrollment, not when the Board notified
her of its residency determination and disenrollment from the District. 	To be sure, the
District sent the notice to J.T. via email on December 18, 2026, and mailed it to her
residence on file in Rahway and the reported address in Colonia. 	Still, she filed her
appeal only when the District took steps to disenroll her daughter on January 13, 2026.
Indeed, I FIND that the petitioner filed her challenge to the residency ineligibility
determination more than twenty-one days after receiving notification of the Board’s
findings.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.10, upon motion to dismiss filed instead of answer, “the
Commissioner may dismiss the petition because the petitioner has advanced no cause
of action even if the petitioner’s factual allegations are accepted as true.” See Sloan v.
Klagholtz, 342 N.J. Super. 385, 394 (App. Div. 2001). 	Our courts recognize that “[t]he
test for determining the adequacy of a pleading” is whether the facts suggest a cause of
action. 	Velantzas v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 109 N.J. 189, 192 (1988). 	The “inquiry is
limited to examining the legal sufficiency of the facts alleged on the face of the complaint,”
Printing Mart-Morristown v. Sharp Elecs. Corp., 116 N.J. 739, 746 (1989), and “the legal
requisites for [the petitioner’s] claim must be apparent from the complaint itself.” Edwards
v. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Co., 357 N.J. Super. 196, 202 (App Div.), certif. denied, 176
N.J. 278 (2003).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
5
Timeliness
Under N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2), a board of education may order the removal of a
child from school if the board determines that the parent is not domiciled within the school
district. Under N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1), a student is eligible to attend a school district if
they are domiciled within the school district, and a student is domiciled in the school
district when they are the child of a parent or guardian whose domicile is located within
the school district. Ibid.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2) requires that the Board notify the parent or guardian in
writing of their right to contest the residency decision. Id. Further, a parent or guardian
wishing to appeal the Board's action in its denial of admission, the parent or guardian's
appeal 	must 	file 	the 	appeal 	within 	twenty-one 	days 	of 	receiving 	notice 	of 	the
determination. Id.; N.J.A.C. 6A:22-5.1. Notably, the DOE Commissioner will dismiss
cases when a residency appeal is not timely filed. See, e.g., W.G. o/b/o C.G. and L.G. v.
Bd. of Educ. of the City of Vineland, Cumberland Cty., OAL Dkt. No. EDU-8922-05, 2006
WL 407660, affd, Commissioner of Education Decision #96-06 (March 13, 2006). Further,
under N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2), a parent or guardian has the burden of proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that their child is eligible for a free education. Id.
Even accepting the petitioner's position that the Board improperly determined she
was not domiciled in Rahway, she needed to file a petition challenging that determination
in a timely manner. 	The petitioner mistakenly maintains that her obligation to file this
challenge was only when the District removed her children. The District does not dispute
that her children remained in its schools after it notified her of the disenrollment. Indeed,
the Board advised the petitioner that it would remove her children if it did not receive
notice of an appeal; it did not. Although the petition suggests J.T. only learned of the
Board’s determination on January 13, 2026, her motion opposition acknowledges
receiving the December 18, 2025, letter. Indeed, I found that J.T. received the letter dated
December 18, 2025. 	Her only excuse for not filing this challenge earlier was that her

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
6
children remained in school. Yet the letter’s filing time requirements were clear, as it was
clear that the District would remove the children from school should she not timely file.
Still, the Commissioner may exercise her authority under N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.16 to
relax the application of a rule "where strict adherence . . . may be deemed inappropriate
or unnecessary or may result in injustice." Ibid. However, exceptions to filing timelines
are generally appropriate where compelling circumstances exist to justify the enlargement
or relaxation of the time limit. See, Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J.
572 (1993) (addressing the ninety-day limitation period applicable to certain Board
decisions.)
The Kaprow court explained the dual purposes of a filing limitations period:
A limitations period has two purposes. The first is to stimulate litigants to
pursue a right of action within a reasonable time so that the opposing party
may have a fair opportunity to defend, thus preventing the litigation of stale
claims. 	The second purpose is “to penalize dilatoriness and serve as a
measure of repose" by giving security and stability to human affairs.
(Internal citations omitted.)
[Id. at 587]
Here, I CONCLUDE that the petitioner does not present a compelling reason that
warrants relaxation of the twenty-one-day filing period. Indeed, I CONCLUDE that the
evidence, even when viewed in the most favorable light to the petitioner, demonstrates
that she filed her petition beyond the twenty-one-day limitation period after receiving the
Board’s notice, warranting its dismissal.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that the Board’s motion
to dismiss be GRANTED. I further ORDER that the Petition of Appeal be DISMISSED.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
7
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00767-26
8
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
February 13, 2026
DATE 	NANCI G. STOKES, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	February 13, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	February 13, 2026
ljb