Board of Education of the Township of Springfield, Union County v. Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex County, 1/26/2023, (#24-23)

24-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of Springfield,
Union County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark,
Essex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
The issue in this case is which of the two school districts – the Board of Education of the Township of
Springfield (Springfield) or Board of Education of the City of Newark (Newark) – is responsible for the tuition
and transportation costs associated with educating the children of A.I.P. after the family lost their permanent
residence and became homeless in approximately June of 2016. The Commissioner issued a previous decision
in September 2022, remanding this matter to the OAL to address inconsistent findings in an earlier
Initial Decision.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: the preponderance of credible evidence indicates that A.I.P. and
her children resided at an address in Newark for more than one year prior to the start of the 2017-2018 school
year; accordingly, they became the responsibility of the Newark school district for the 2017-2018 school year;
Springfield expended a total of $79,511.58 in tuition and transportation costs related to the education of
A.I.P.’s children; however, A.I.P. relocated to Dover in the summer of 2018 and from that point forward Dover
became the school district responsible for the education of the P. children; the amount that Springfield paid in
tuition and transportation for the period beginning in the summer of 2018 was $36,031.92. The ALJ concluded
that Newark is responsible for educational costs for the children for the 2017-2018 school year, and Dover
became the responsible school district in the summer of 2018. 	Accordingly, the ALJ ordered Newark to
reimburse Springfield in the amount of $43,479.66 for educational costs related to the P. children during
the 2017-2018 school year.
Upon review, the Commissioner remanded this matter a second time as she is unable to determine from the
present record when the P. family’s living situation became permanent such that they were no longer
homeless. The Commissioner noted that in order to determine which school district is responsible for the cost
of the P. children’s education at different points in time, a fact-specific homelessness determination is
essential. T he present record does not provide sufficient and accurate information regarding where the P.
family was living and for what length of time so as to allow the Commissioner to determine when they
became homeless and at what point their period of homelessness ended. 	Accordingly, the matter was
remanded to the OAL for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has
been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08290-22
(EDU 06696-19 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 71-4/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Township of
Springfield, Union County,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Newark, Essex
County,
Respondent.
The record of this case and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
have been reviewed, mindful of the Commissioner’s September 7, 2022 decision remanding the
matter to address inconsistent findings in the Initial Decision. The exceptions filed by respondent
Newark Board of Education (Newark) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the reply thereto filed by
petitioner Springfield Board of Education (Springfield), have also been considered.
The issue for determination here is which of the two school districts is responsible for the
tuition and transportation costs associated with educating the P. children when they became
homeless. It is undisputed that A.I.P. and her children resided in Springfield prior to becoming
homeless in June of 2016. According to the McKinney-Vento paperwork submitted by A.I.P., the
family was residing with A.I.P.’s mother at a Newark address and also at an Irvington address. As
the district of residence (the last district that the children attended prior to becoming homeless),
24-23

2
Springfield initially paid for M.P. and Jad.P. to attend school.1 M.P. attended an out-of-district
placement, and Springfield paid the tuition and provided transportation from the Newark address.
Springfield also paid the tuition for Jad.P. to attend an out-of-district placement, but she did not
require transportation as it was a residential facility. At the end of the 2016-17 school year, Jad.P.’s
residential placement came to an end. Springfield offered home instruction pending a new
placement, but A.I.P. refused. M.P. also refused to attend the extended school year program.
In June of 2017, Springfield informed Newark that the P. family had lived in Newark for a
year, and therefore, Newark should take over responsibility for their placement and tuition for the
2017-18 school year. In September 2017, Newark’s homeless management specialist Ana Osoria
responded and indicated that she had spoken with A.I.P. and would assist her with registration but
needed copies of the children’s IEPs. Thereafter, on November 14, 2017, Ms. Osoria informed
Springfield that she met with A.I.P. and that she had not lived in Newark consistently for a year
because A.I.P. told her she had been staying in “multiple locations and at different districts
including hotels/motels in Springfield, a friend’s house in Irvington and her family member in
Maplewood.” (J3). Thereafter, Springfield worked to secure placements for the children because
they had not been getting an education. Springfield offered home instruction in the interim, but
A.I.P. refused. It appears that Jad.P. and M.P. began attending out-of-district placements in or
about April 2018, and Springfield provided transportation for both children from the Newark
address. On April 10, 2018, Springfield’s Director of Social Services Tiffany Boehm informed Newark
1 Springfield also paid for and provided transportation for Jas.P. to attend school in Springfield during the 2016-17
school year. Jas.P. graduated in June 2017, and accordingly is not at issue in this matter.

3
that the placements would begin shortly, but that Springfield intended to bill Newark for the cost
because the P. family had lived in Newark for more than a year.2
Springfield then initiated a residency investigation. The investigator conducted surveillance
on the Newark address and observed M.P. leave the house and get on the bus on four consecutive
school days beginning on April 25, 2018. He also observed several vehicles come and go but did not
see Jad.P. He also conducted surveillance on a Saturday and did not see any activity. Based on his
observations, the investigator concluded that M.P. was residing in Newark. On May 15, 2018, Ms.
Osoria updated Springfield that she had spoken with A.I.P. on the phone on April 27, 2018, writing:
During our conversation, the parent indicated that her mother has
asked them to leave several times since we spoke in November 2017
and the family had to split. Her older daughter resided with a friend
in Irvington, NJ and [A.I.P.] and her younger daughter stayed
temporarily [in Dover] with her friend in a 1 bedroom apartment.
[A.I.P.] stated that she needed to provide Springfield with a stable
address in order to arrange the bus pick up because of her frequent
moves. According to [A.I.P.], because her temporary addresses are
not reliable and short term, she drops off the students at her
mother’s address to be picked up so the bus is not interrupted.
(J7).
Ms. Osoria indicated that she set up an in person meeting with A.I.P. for April 20, 2018 so that she
could bring documentation, but A.I.P. did not show up.
In August 2018, A.I.P. informed Springfield by email that she and the children “no longer
stay at my mother’s house, we currently stay with my fiancé temporarily until I can find a
permanent dwelling for us.” (P18). Springfield thereafter arranged transportation to pick up M.P.
at the fiancé’s home in Dover and paid the tuition for her out-of-district placement. It appears that
Jad.P. dropped out of school. According to Ms. Boehm’s testimony, in December 2018, A.I.P.
2 The Commissioner notes that with respect to Jad.P., Springfield only appears to seek reimbursement of her
transportation costs. The Commissioner is unsure why Jad.P.’s tuition costs do not appear to be at issue.

4
indicated that she was permanently staying in Dover, and Dover took responsibility for M.P.’s
education.
Springfield filed the instant petition against Newark seeking reimbursement of the tuition
and transportation costs for M.P. and Jad.P. from June 2017 (one year after it alleged the P. family
moved to Newark) through December 2018 (when Dover took over financial responsibility).
Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision dated
June 8, 2022, which found that A.I.P. and her children resided in Newark from June 30, 2016 until
the summer of 2018, and therefore became the responsibility of Newark for the 2017-18 school
year. The ALJ then ordered Newark to reimburse Springfield for tuition and transportation from
June 26, 2017 through December 31, 2018.
The Commissioner issued a decision on September 12, 2022 remanding this matter for
inconsistent findings. In one instance, the ALJ appeared to find that A.I.P. was domiciled in Dover as
of the summer of 2018, but then went on to order reimbursement of tuition and transportation
through December 31, 2018. On remand here, the ALJ found that Dover became the responsible
district for the children in the summer of 2018, and revised the tuition and transportation amount
due from Newark to no longer include September through December 2018.
Upon review, the Commissioner is constrained to remand this matter a second time as she
is unable to determine from the present record when the P. family’s living situation became
permanent such that they were no longer homeless. In order to determine which school district is
responsible for the cost of the minor children’s education at different points in time, a
homelessness determination is essential. The Commissioner is also not satisfied that the present
record provides sufficient and accurate information regarding where the P. family was living and for
what length of time while they were homeless.

5
Under the McKinney-Vento Act, homeless children are defined as “individuals who lack a
fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence,” which includes “children sharing housing with
other persons due to loss of their own housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.” 42 U.S.C.A.
§ 11434a. Similarly, under state law, homeless children are defined as “child[ren] or youth who
lack[] a fixed, regular and adequate residence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 and N.J.A.C. 6A:17-
2.2,” which includes children living in the “residence of relatives or friends where the homeless
child resides out of necessity because his or her family lacks a regular or permanent residence of its
own.” N.J.A.C. 6A:17-1.2 and 2.2. When a child’s dwelling becomes fixed, regular and adequate,
domicile attaches immediately. Board of Education of the Township of Egg Harbor v. Board of
Education of the Mainland Regional High School District, et al, Commissioner’s Decision No. 555-10,
decided December 30, 2010, at 4.
Thus, conducting a homelessness evaluation to determine whether a child’s home is
considered fixed, regular and adequate requires a fact-specific analysis and “cannot rest upon a
simple calculation of the amount of time that children have spent in a particular location or
municipality.” M. O’K. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Cresskill, et al, Commissioner
Decision No. 325-14, decided August 12, 2014, at 3, aff’d, A-0828-14T4 (App. Div. Sept. 8, 2016). In
conducting such a fact-specific inquiry, the Commissioner must consider the totality of the
circumstances, such as “[t]he reasons for the children’s homelessness, their living conditions, and
the resources and intentions of the parents or custodians are relevant.” Ibid.
Once it is determined whether a child is homeless, the question becomes which district is
financially responsible for the child’s education. Ordinarily, a student is eligible for a free public
education in a school district if he or she is domiciled within the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a);
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a). A student’s domicile is determined by the domicile of his or her parents.

6
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1). When a child becomes homeless, the school district of residence – i.e., the
school district in which the child resided before becoming homeless – remains responsible for the
cost of the child’s education, including when the child is temporarily living and attending school in
another school district. N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.3; N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12. However, when a homeless child
lives in a school district for one year or longer – and a new domicile has not been established – the
child is “deemed domiciled” in that district for the purposes of determining which district is
responsible for the cost of the child’s education. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d); N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.3(c).
In this matter, while it is undisputed that the family was homeless for at least the 2016-17
school year, it is unclear if or when the P. family lived in Newark for one year such that they would
be “deemed domiciled” for purposes of the children’s education. Further fact finding is therefore
required. In the June 8, 2022 Initial Decision, the ALJ found that the P. family were deemed
domiciled in Newark for the 2017-18 school year, reasoning that: “In the instant matter, it is clear
that A.I.P. resided in Newark. The address given to Springfield was the Newark address.
Springfield’s investigator confirmed that A.I.P. resided in Newark. The only reasonable conclusion is
the A.I.P. resided in Newark.” (Initial Decision, June 8, 2022, at 15). The Initial Decision on remand
did not provide any additional factual findings on this issue and simply found that the
preponderance of the credible evidence indicated that the P. family resided at the Newark address
for more than a year. The Commissioner notes that, despite the ALJ’s finding regarding providing
Springfield with the Newark address, A.I.P.’s McKinney-Vento paperwork listed both a Newark and
an Irvington address.3 Additionally, the investigator’s surveillance on four consecutive school days
3 The Commissioner acknowledges that the Newark address was used for the purposes of transportation beginning
in the 2016-17 school year until the start of the 2018-19 school year, but also notes that according to Ms. Osoria,
A.I.P. told her on April 27, 2018 that she would drop the children off at the Newark address when living
temporarily elsewhere so that the bus service would not be interrupted.

7
in April 2018 does not prove that the P. family had lived in Newark for a year after becoming
homeless in June 2016, but rather only demonstrates where the family was in April 2018.
While the family appears to have relocated to Newark on June 30, 2016, a determination
needs to be made – through testimony from A.I.P. or others with personal knowledge of the
family’s living arrangement – regarding how long the family lived in the Newark School District. On
November 14, 2017, more than a year later, Ms. Osoria spoke with A.I.P. who appeared to tell her
that she’d been living in different places, including hotels/motels, with a friend in Irvington and with
a family member in Maplewood, but it is unclear whether A.I.P. had lived in Newark for a full year
prior to bouncing between these temporary situations.
Additionally, a determination needs to be made regarding when the family’s homelessness
status changed. It is undisputed that Dover took over responsibility for M.P.’s education sometime
in December 2018, so it appears that the Dover address was a permanent residence and the family
was no longer homeless. While A.I.P.’s August 2018 email indicated that she was temporarily
staying with her fiancé in Dover until she could find a permanent dwelling, it is unclear at what
point the Dover residence became fixed, regular and adequate. Such a determination is essential
because it will decide which school district is responsible for the cost of M.P.’s education from
September 2018 to December 2018. If the family was no longer homeless when they moved to the
Dover residence in August 2018, then Dover would be responsible for the cost of education for that
period; however, if the Dover residence did not become permanent until December 2018, then
either Newark or Springfield (depending on whether the P. family was ever deemed domiciled in
Newark) would be the responsible district.
The Commissioner notes that while homelessness determinations are fact-specific, there
was never an evaluation of the family’s living conditions at any one of the Newark, Irvington, or

8
Dover addresses. No one looked into what parts of the home the family could use, where the
children were sleeping, or what efforts A.I.P. was taking to secure permanent housing. While the
Commissioner acknowledges that A.I.P. is not a party in this matter, the fact remains that she is the
best source of information about the family’s living situation and financial circumstances, and thus
her participation through discovery or testimony is critical to a determination in this matter.
Therefore, further information is necessary to determine where the P. family was staying when they
were homeless and for how long, and the date their home became fixed, regular and adequate such
that M.P. and Jad.P. were no longer homeless under state and federal law, in order to resolve the
claims for tuition reimbursement.
Accordingly, this matter is hereby remanded to the OAL for further proceedings consistent
with this decision,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
January 26, 2023
January 26, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 71-4/19
ON REMAND
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 06696-19
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF SPRINGFIELD,
Petitioner,
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
CITY OF NEWARK,
Respondent.
______________________________
Marie-Laurence Fabian, Esq., co-counsel for Petitioner (Porzio, Bromberg &
Newman, P.C., attorneys)
Teresa L. Moore, Esq., for Respondent, Newark Board of Education (Riker,
Danzig, Scherer, Hyland & Perretti, LLP, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 17, 2022 	Decided: November 7, 2022
BEFORE: THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a petition, dated April 10, 2019, with the New Jersey Department
of Education, Bureau of Controversies and Disputes, alleging that the Newark Board of
Education is responsible for transportation and tuition costs for certain children that
have attended school in Petitioner’s district.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on May 15, 2019, as a contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to –15; N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to –13, bearing OAL Docket No. EDU 06696-19.
A prehearing conference was held on June 5, 2019. A prehearing order, dated
June 7, 2019, was entered by the undersigned.
The hearing was held on December 13, 2021, December 14, 2021 and January
24, 2022.
The record remained open for the parties to submit post hearing briefs, which
were due thirty days after receipt of the hearing transcripts. 	Transcripts were received
on March 11, 2022. 	Petitioner submitted their brief on April 6, 2022. 	Respondent
submitted their brief on April 7, 2022. Whereupon the record closed on April 7, 2022.
An Initial Decision was entered by the undersigned on June 8, 2022, wherein the
undersigned found in favor of Petitioner and awarded it tuition reimbursement from
Respondent in the amount of $79,511.58.
By Final Decision of the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Education,
dated September 7, 2022, the matter was remanded to the undersigned to ascertain
who is responsible for the children’s education costs between September 2018 and
December 2018.
A telephone conference was held with counsel on September 15, 2022.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
3
The parties were directed to submit briefs as to their respective positions as to
the Final Decision. 	Petitioner submitted its brief, together with the Certification of
Tiffany Boehm with proposed exhibits P-24, P-25 and P-26, on October 7, 2022.
Respondent filed its reply thereto on October 17, 2022.
The record closed on October 17, 2022.
ISSUES
Who is the responsible party for the education of the children from September
2018 through December 2018.
FINDINGS OF FACT1
1. 	A.I.P., and her children, Jas. P., Jad. P. and M.P., resided in the Township
of Springfield, N.J. until approximately June of 2016.
2. 	As residents of Springfield the children were entitled to be educated in the
Springfield public school system.
3. 	All three children, above noted, were students with special needs and had
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). (P-20)
4. 	A 	welfare 	check 	at 	the 	Springfield 	address 	of 	the 	P 	family 	by 	the
Springfield Police revealed that they no longer resided at said address. 	A
different family resided therein. (12/13/21 Tr. 26:12 to 27:24)
5. 	The Springfield Board of Education discovered that the P family was
residing 	in 	Newark, 	NJ, 	through 	a 	worker 	with 	Families 	and 	Communities
Together (FACT), however the worker was unable to provide a current address.
(P-19)
6. 	In September 2016, after being contacted by the school social worker,
A.I.P. came to the Florence M. Guadineer Middle School to re-register M.P., and
1 The Findings of Fact herein are the Findings of Fact from the Initial Decision entered on June 8, 2022.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
4
provided a lease, dated September 1, 2016, for her prior Springfield address. (P-
21)
7. 	The P family was not living at their previous address in Springfield. 	They
were living with the childrens’ grandmother in Newark, NJ, at 134 Fabyan Place.
8. 	The Springfield Police confirmed that the P family was not living at their
previous address. A different family was living there. (12/13/21 Tr. 41:6-17)
9. 	A.I.P. filled out a McKinney Vento Act Student Information form for Jad. P.,
Jas. P. and M.P. 	A.I.P. claimed in the forms that the family was homeless since
June 30, 2016, and were residing at 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ. 	She also
listed an Irvington address on the forms. (P-3)
10. 	Springfield 	BOE 	set 	up 	transportation 	from 	the 	134 	Fabyan 	Place,
Newark, NJ address to Springfield for Jas. P. and M.P. so they could attend
school. 	Transportation was not required for Jad. P. as she was in a residential
facility. 	Transportation for Jas. P. and M.P. continued through the end of the
2016/2017 school year.
11. 	Transportation was arranged for M.P. to attend the extended school year
program but was subsequently cancelled as M.P. refused to attend the program.
12. 	The 	transportation company 	informed Springfield via 	email that M.P.
would not leave the porch of the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address. 	They
also advised that A.I.P. had exited the house after being contacted by telephone
that M.P. would not get on the bus. (P-9)
13. 	During the 2016/2017 school year the only address used to pick up the
children for transport to school was the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address.
14. 	An 	email, 	dated 	June 	27, 	2017, 	was 	sent 	to 	the 	Newark 	Board 	of
Education homeless liaison, Ana Osoria, to advise that the P family was living in
Newark from May 2016. 	Said email provided the names of the children and the
Newark address. (J-1)
15. 	Ms. Osoria did not respond to this email until September 12, 2017, after
receiving a follow up email from Tiffany Boehm of Springfield, dated September
6, 2017. (J-2)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
5
16. 	In response to Ms. Osoria’s email of September 12, 2017, the IEPs for the
three children were forwarded. (P-23)
17. 	By email dated November 14, 2017, Ms. Osoria advised Springfield that
she met with A.I.P. and determined that A.I.P. did not reside in Newark for 365
days. This was based on representations made by A.I.P. Ms. Osoria determined
that the children should be the responsibility of Springfield. (J-3)
18. 	Springfield then assumed responsibility for the children and arranged for
placements and transportation from the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address.
Jad. P. was placed at Washington Academy, and M.P. was placed at Rutgers
Day School. P-10 and P-11)
19. 	By letter dated April 10, 2018, Springfield advised Newark that it still held
the position that Springfield was the responsible district for the 2017/2018 school
year. (J-4)
20. 	Ms. Osoria responded, by email dated April 10, 2018, to said letter on
behalf of Newark requesting documents to support Springfield’s position and
restating Newark’s position. (J-5)
21. 	In response thereto, attendance and transportation records were provided
by email dated April 23, 2018. (J-6)
22. 	Ms. Osoria responded, again reiterating Newark’s position, which was
based upon a conversation she had with A.I.P. 	Said email was also to update
what had transpired. (J-7)
23. 	Springfield 	had 	their 	residency 	investigator 	investigate 	the 	residency
situation for the P family. 	The investigator, James Post, set up surveillance at
the 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ address and discovered that M.P. was
residing therein. 	He did not observe Jad. P. 	He prepared a report as to his
findings. (P-4)
24. 	Newark’s position regarding the residency of the P family was based
entirely on what A.I.P. told Ms. Osoria without any supporting documentation.
25. 	Ms. Osoria testified that A.I.P. told her she wanted her children to continue
to be educated in the Springfield district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
6
26. 	Ms. Osoria, after speaking via telephone with A.I.P. on April 27, 2018,
arranged a meeting with her for April 30, 2018. A.I.P. did not attend the meeting.
(J-7)
27. 	Springfield discovered during the summer of 2018 that the P family was
living in Dover, NJ. 	M.P. was enrolled in the Dover district. 	The transportation
contract for M.P. was cancelled. 	It appeared that Jad. P. had dropped out of
school.
28. 	Newark Board of Education was the responsible district for the education
of the P family children, Jad. P., Jas. P. and M.P. from the beginning of the
2017/2018 school year until the time the children became the responsibility of the
Dover school district.
29. 	Springfield expended the sum of $15,707.50 in tuition for the Rutgers Day
School for M.P. for the period of April to June 2018. (P-12)
30. 	Springfield expended the sum of $12,942.84 in tuition for the Rutgers Day
School for M.P. for the period of September to October 2018. (P-13)
31. 	Springfield expended the sum of $12,942.84 in tuition for the Rutgers Day
School for M.P. for the period of November to December 2018. (P-14)
32. 	Total tuition costs expended by Springfield for M.P. are $41,593,18.
33. 	Transportation costs paid by Springfield total $39,918.40 for Jad P. to
Washington Academy, and for M.P. to Rutgers Day School, for the period of
June 26, 2017 through December 31, 2018. (P-15 and P-15a)
34. 	Total amount of funds expended by Springfield that the Newark Board of
Education is responsible for equal $79,511.58.2
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	Springfield expended the sum of $36,031.92 during the period A.I.P. had
moved to Dover, New Jersey. (P-13, P-14, P-15i and P-15l)
2 The was the sum determined to be payable from Respondent to Petitioner in the Initial Decision of June 8, 2022.
This amount is reduced in the within Initial Decision on Remand.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
7
2. 	The Dover school district would be the responsible district to educate the
children from the time A.I.P. moved to Dover. 	The move occurred in the
summer of 2018.
3. 	The total amount due Springfield from Newark totals $43,479.66 (79,513.58
less $36,031.92)
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Right to a Free Public Education
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) and N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a) sets forth the right of a student to
a free public education, which in pertinent parts states:
Public schools shall be free to the following persons over five
and under twenty years of age:
a. Any person who is domiciled within the school district[.]
Consideration in proving residency for purposes of establishing eligibility for
school district placement is found at N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.4(a),
(a) A district board of education shall accept a combination
of any of the following or similar forms of documentation
from persons attempting to demonstrate a student’s eligibility
for enrollment in the school district:
1. 	Property 	tax 	bills, 	deeds, 	contracts 	of 	sale, 	leases,
mortgages, signed letters from landlords and other evidence
of property ownership, tenancy or residency;
2. Voter registrations, licenses, permits, financial account
information, utility bills, delivery receipts, and other evidence
of personal attachment to a particular location;
. . .
3. 	Court 	orders; 	State 	agency 	agreements; 	and 	other
evidence of court or agency placements or directives;

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
8
4. Receipts; bills; cancelled checks; insurance claims or
payments; 	and 	other 	evidence 	of 	expenditures
demonstrating personal attachment to a particular location or
to support the student;
. . .
6. Affidavits, certifications and sworn attestations pertaining
to statutory criteria for school attendance, from the parent,
guardian, 	person 	keeping 	an 	“affidavit 	student,” 	adult
student, person(s) with whom a family is living, or others as
appropriate;
. . .
8. Any other business record or document issued by a
governmental entity.
(b) 	A 	district 	board 	of 	education 	may 	accept 	forms 	of
documentation not listed in (a) above, and shall not exclude
from 	consideration 	any 	documentation 	or 	information
presented by a person seeking to enroll a student.
(c) A district board of education shall consider the totality of
information and documentation offered by an applicant, and
shall not deny enrollment based on failure to provide a
particular form of documentation, or a particular subset of
documents, without regard to other evidence presented.
N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(c) states: The district of residence for children whose parent
or guardian temporarily moves from one school district to another as the result of being
homeless shall be the district in which the parent or guardian last resided prior to
becoming homeless. 	For the purpose of this amendatory and supplementary act,
“homeless” 	shall 	mean 	an 	individual 	who 	temporarily 	lacks 	a 	fixed, 	regular 	and
adequate residence.
As A.I.P. claimed homelessness for the 2016/2017 school year, Springfield acted
appropriately and registered children, notwithstanding their new address in Newark.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d) states: Any person whose parent or guardian, even though
not domiciled within the district, is residing temporarily therein, but any person who has

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
9
had or shall have his all-year-round dwelling place within the district for one year or
longer shall be deemed to be domiciled within the district for the purposes of this
section.
The preponderance of the credible evidence shows that A.I.P., M.P. and Jad. P.
resided at 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ for more than one year. 	Accordingly, they
became the responsibility of the Newark school district for the 2017/2018 school year.
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3 	states in pertinent part: a) Tuition assessed pursuant to this
section shall be calculated on a per-student basis for the period of a student's ineligible
enrollment, up to one year, by applicable grade/program category and consistent with
the 	provisions 	of N.J.A.C. 	6A:23A-17.1. 	The 	individual 	student's 	record 	of 	daily
attendance shall not affect the calculation.
Springfield expended the sum of $41,593.18 in tuition costs, and the sum of
$39,918.40 in transportation costs from the time that Newark was the responsible
district for the education of M.P. and Jad. P. 	The total sums expended by Springfield
were $79,511.58.
However, A.I.P. relocated to Dover, New Jersey in the summer of 2018. 	Dover
would be the responsible district from that point going forward. 	See Board of Ed. Of
Twp. of Egg Harbor v. Board of Ed. Of Mainland Reg’l H.S. Dist., No. 555-10 (Comm’r
Ed. Dec. 30, 2010). 	I agree with the position taken by Respondent that Dover was the
responsible district from the period A.I.P. moved. 	Accordingly, Respondent should not
be responsible to reimburse Petitioner for that time frame. 	The amount Petitioner paid
during this period equals $36,031.92. 	The balance due Petitioner from Respondent
equals $43,479.66.
I note that Respondent objected, in its brief, to the additional exhibits produced
by Petitioner (P-24, P-25 and P-26). I have determined that the same shall be admitted
and be part of the record. 	The matter is on remand and each party was free to
introduce additional relevant information if they chose. I do note that I give no weight to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
10
the assertion by A.I.P. that she remained homeless (P-24) as it is unsupported hearsay
with no residuum of relevant competent evidence.
Based upon the foregoing, I further CONCLUDE that Jad. P. and M.P., together
with their mother, A.I.P., resided at 134 Fabyan Place, Newark, NJ, from June 30, 2016
until the summer of 2018; and, Newark became the responsible school district for the
2017/2018 school year after the family resided therein for more than one year.
I further CONCLUDE that A.I.P. moved to Dover, New Jersey in the summer of
2018 and that Dover became the responsible district for the education of the children
thereafter.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing it is ORDERED that the Newark Board of Education
reimburse the Springfield Board of Education the sum of $43,479.66.
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 08290-22
11
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.
November 7, 2022
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
12
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
None
List of Exhibits
For Petitioner:
P-1 	letter from Tiffany Boehm to A.I.P. (parent), dated 6/27/16
P-2 	Email from Kara King to Tiffany Boehm, dated 9/16/16
P-3 	McKinney Vento Act Student Resident Information forms
P-4 	Email report from James Post to Jannett Pacheco, Petitioner’s Former Director of
Human Resources, dated 5/13/18
P-5 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
Jas.P. for the time period ASAP through June 23, 2016, dated 9/22/16
P-6 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period ASAP through June 23, 2016, dated 9/20/16
P-7 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period ASAP through June 22, 2017, dated 12/2016
P-8 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period July 5, 2017, through August 15, 2017, dated 8/15/17
P-9 	Emails from Diana Blajsa from UCESC to Sue Lies, Petitioner’s Transportation
Coordinator, dated 6/9/17
P-10 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
Jad.P. for the time period April 2, 2018 through June 21, 2018, dated 3/26/18

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
13
P-11 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation form with regard to
M.P. for the time period April 11, 2018 through June 21, 2018, dated 6/1/17
P-12 	Vendor History Printout for April, May and June 2018
P-13 	Vendor History Printout for September and October 2018
P-14 	Springfield Board of Education Purchase Order 901230
P-15 	Springfield Board of Education District Billing Reports
P-17 	Power School Documents
P-18 	emails between Tiffany Boehm and parent dated 11/28 and 29/2021
P-19 	email between Tiffany Boehm and FACT worker
P-20 	IEPs
P-21 	Lease submitted by parent to Springfield
P-23 	email dated 9/17/17 from Tiffany Boehm’s secretary, Jessica
For Respondent:
R-1 	Residency Investigation
R-2 	McKinney Vento training manual
R-3 	McKinney Vento questionnaire
Joint Exhibits:
J-1 	Email from Ellyn Atherton to Ana Osoria with the subject “Homeless Students
Living in Newark” dated 6/27/17
J-2 	Emails from Tiffany Boehm to Ana Osoria dated 9/6-12/17
J-3 	Emails from Ana Osoria to Tiffany Boehm dated 11/14/17
J-4 	letter from Tiffany Boehm to Ana Osoria dated 4/10/18
J-5 	Email from Ana Osoria to Tiffany Boehm dated 4/10/18
J-6 	Email from Tiffany Boehm to Ana Osoria with attachments dated 4/23/18
J-7 	Email from Ana Osoria to Tiffany Boehm dated 5/15/18

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08290-22
14
Additional Exhibits on Remand:
P-24 	email Aug. 8, 2018 to Tiffany Boehm from A.I.P.
P-25 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation
P-26 	Request for Coordinated Special Education Transportation
Briefs submitted on Remand:
Petitioner:
Letter brief of Marie Laurence Fabian, Esq.
Certification of Tiffany Boehm, with P-24, P-25 and P-26
Respondent:
Letter brief of Teresa L. Moore, Esq.