E.C. and S.C., on behalf of minor children, C.C. and K.C. v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union City, 9/6/2024, (#331-24)

331-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
E.C. and S.C., on behalf of minor children, C.C. and K.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner challenged a decision by the Elizabeth School District finding that his two minor children
improperly attended school within the District for several months while they resided with him outside the
District. Petitioner contended that he and his wife, S.C., owned two homes, one in Elizabeth and the other in
Newark. In early 2023, petitioner and his wife separated, and S.C. remained in Elizabeth while E.C. moved to
the Newark house. Because S.C. traveled frequently to her home country of Ecuador, E.C. acted as the primary
custodial parent during her absences. Eventually E.C. moved the children to the Newark house temporarily,
always intending to move them back to Elizabeth with their mother. The District sought to impose a penalty
pursuant to statute at the rate of $99.63 per day per child while they lived outside the District.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: N.J.S.A. 6A:22-1 et. seq. governs student residency requirements within certain
school districts; 	in order to be eligible to attend public school within a municipality, students must be
domiciled within the town where the school is located; there are several exceptions to the statutory
requirement requiring residency within the district, including Family Crisis and being the child of divorced or
separated parents; based on the petitioner’s undisputed testimony, and taking into account the limited nature
of the residency investigation conducted by the school district, petitioner’s children fell into the categories of
both Family Crisis and separation, and as such were entitled to continue to attend the Elizabeth Public Schools
during the entirety of the 2022-2023 school year pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1)(i). Accordingly, the ALJ
granted petitioners’ appeal and reversed the district’s determination regarding tuition owed for the period
when the children were temporarily residing outside of Elizabeth.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioners’ minor children
were entitled to attend school in the Elizabeth school district during the entirety of the 2022-2023 school year
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1)(i). Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL was adopted as the final
decision in this matter, the petitioners’ appeal was granted, and the Board’s counterclaim for tuition was
denied.
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.

331-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03974-23
Agency Dkt. No. 100-4/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
E.C. and S.C., on behalf of minor children, C.C. and
K.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	City 	of 	Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have
been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioners’
minor children were entitled to attend school in the Elizabeth school district during the entirety of the
2022-2023 school year pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1)(i).
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petition of
appeal is hereby granted. Respondent Board’s counterclaim for tuition reimbursement is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 6, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	September 9, 2024
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:6-
9.1. Under N.J.Ct.R. 2:4-1(b), a notice of appeal must be filed with the Appellate Division within 45 days
from the date of mailing of this decision.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 100-4/23
E.C. 	AND 	S.C. 	ON 	BEHALF 	OF 	MINOR
CHILDREN C.C. AND K.C.,
Petitioners,
v.
CITY OF ELIZABETH BOARD OF EDUCATION,
UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
E.C., petitioner, pro se
Brian Kane, Esq., for respondent (LaCorte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella, attorneys)
David M., Interpreter
Record closed: June 13, 2024 	Date of Decision: July 25, 2024
BEFORE ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioning parent challenges a decision by the Elizabeth School District finding
that his two minor children improperly attended school within the District for several

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
2
months while they resided with him outside the District. 	The District further seeks to
impose a significant penalty pursuant to statute at the rate of $99.63 per day per child
while they were living outside the District.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about March 13, 2023, the Elizabeth School district sent final Notices of
Ineligibility for petitioner’s two minor children C.C. and K.C. to remain students within the
District due to a change of Domicile.
Petitioner sought an internal appeal within District and was denied.
Pursuant to statute, the District allowed both children to remain as students
pending the outcome of a formal appeal before the Office of Administrative Law.
The Department of Education transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act
establishing the office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform
Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure
established by the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and
disputes arising under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. Jurisdiction is conferred
under N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. The case was filed at the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on
May 8, 2023.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
According to petitioner, he and his wife, from whom he is separated, own two
homes, one in Elizabeth and another in Newark.
Like many couples who separate, no formal written agreement was created, but
the couple separated in early January 2023. 	At that time, petitioner moved into the
Newark residence.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
3
Petitioner testified that his wife often traveled to her home country of Ecuador,
leaving him to care for the couple’s children. 	Though at first, he visited them often, the
children often expressed disappointment when he had to leave and so they asked if they
could reside with him. At all times relevant herein, petitioner’s wife, (the mother of the
children) remained a resident of Elizabeth.
Out of respect for his wife’s desire to live separately, petitioner stated that he
allowed the children to move in with him in Newark for the balance of the 2023 school
year, and he arranged to transport them to Elizabeth. 	Since he was out of work due to
an injury he suffered at a jobsite, he was able to provide transportation for them to and
from Newark, which he does not deny became the children’s temporary home. 	He did
indicate however, that it was never the intention to have the children permanently reside
in Newark, and in fact at the time of the final date of hearing, petitioner had moved back
into the Elizabeth where he and his wife reside in separate bedrooms. 	(The Newark
property has since been rented out.)
Testifying for Elizabeth was William Buteau (“Mr. Buteau”), who serves as a school
investigator.
Prior to assuming his duties with the District, Mr. Buteau worked as a police officer
with the Elizabeth Police Department.
According to Mr. Buteau, on or about March 1, 2023, a secretary from the District
contacted him and requested an investigation be opened against petitioner and his two
children. Apparently, the referral came from the District’s IT Department, which noted a
series of “pings’ from the children’s laptop computers that were coming from outside the
geographic boundaries of the District. (To further support its case against petitioner, the
District presented eight pages of documents from certain dates in March, April and May
2023 showing the “pings” from outside Elizabeth). 	It should be noted that though Mr.
Buteau testified to the ping record, the documents were not certified nor did an IT expert
testify concerning ho computer use is tracked.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
4
Mr. Buteau went on to say that he also reached the conclusion that the children
were not eligible to attend school in Elizabeth because on one occasion he parked his
vehicle outside petitioner’s other residence in Newark, where he observed petitioner put
the children in his car and drive away on a school day. 	(Mr. Buteau admits that part of
the way from Newark to Elizabeth, he lost track of the vehicle, and he did not attempt to
trace or follow petitioner or his children again.)
When asked if he did any further investigation such as parking outside the school
to see if petitioner picked the children up to take them to Newark, he indicated that due
to a heavy caseload, he did not take time to see where the children went after school.
Finally, Mr. Buteau was asked whether he had any interactions directly with petitioner,
and/or attempted to interview him. Other than one short interaction when petitioner came
to school to explain his domestic situation, he did not pursue anything further with
petitioner.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. 	At all times relevant herein, petitioner and his wife were residents of the City of
Elizabeth.
2. 	At the start of the 2022-23 school year, both of petitioner’s children, C.C. and K.C.
were enrolled as students in the district.
3. 	Some time at the beginning of 2023, petitioner and his wife separated, with
petitioner moving to a home they owned in the City of Newark.
4. 	Petitioner commenced visiting his children as often as he could, and when his wife
made trips to Ecuador, petitioner acted as the primary custodial parent.
5. 	Some time in early March 2023, both children expressed to petitioner that they
missed him and wanted to see him more.
6. 	Believing at the time that it was better for he and his wife to remain apart, petitioner
arranged for both children to temporarily move into the Newark home with him.
7. 	Since he was out of work due to a job injury, petitioner was able to transport the
children to school each day.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
5
8. 	Petitioner does not deny that the children were residing with him in Newark
temporarily.
9. 	Though this temporary arrangement remained in effect for the balance of the 2023
school year, since he did not want to harm his children’s’ education, within the first
months of the 2023-24 school year, petitioner moved back to Ellizabeth residing in
the same home as his wife, though they created separate areas and slept in
separate bedrooms.
10. 	At all times relevant herein, petitioner wife, (to whom he was still married) and the
mother of the children still resided in Elizabeth.
LEGAL STANDARD AND CONCLUSIONS
N.J.S.A. 6A:22-1 et. seq. governs student residency requirements within a certain
school district. In order to be eligible to attend public school within a municipality, students
must be domiciled within the town where the schools are located, unless the District itself
has an agreement with a neighboring district for its residents to attend school outside the
district.
N.J.S.A. 6A:22-6.2 allows for a student who has moved outside the district to
remain a student within the contested district provided an appeal has been filed. However,
the district can still pursue tuition reimbursement from the parents of the student for the
period of time in question once the appeal is completed.
There are several exceptions to the statutory requirement requiring residency
within the district, one of which is “Family Crisis.” Another exception is being the child of
divorced or separated parents.
Based on the petitioner’s undisputed testimony, compared against the limited
nature of the investigation conducted by the Elizabeth investigator, I CONCLUDE that
petitioner’s children fell into both categories of “Family Crisis” and Separation, and as
such were entitled to continue to attend the Elizabeth Schools from March 2023 through
October 2023 when the first day of appeal started.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
6
I FURTHER CONCLUDE that since for the sake of the children, after a few months,
petitioner moved back to Elizabeth on a permanent basis, no tuition should be assessed
against petitioner while the appeal was pending in good faith.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the petitioners’ circumstances fall within the “Family
Crisis” and Separation exceptions to the residency statue. 	Accordingly, the appeal is
GRANTED and the determination seeking tuition payments for attending school while
temporarily domiciled out-of-District is REVERSED.
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 03974-23
7
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.
July 25, 2024
DATE 	ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	July 25, 2024
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	July 25, 2024
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03974-23
8
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioners:
E.C.
For Respondent:
William Buteau
Exhibits
Petitioner:
P-1 	Miscellaneous submissions concerning children’s certificates and progress in
schools and medical information as well as letter from petitioner explaining
domestic separation from mother of children
Respondent:
P-1 	Investigator’s Memorandum
P-2 	Demographic information for C.C. and K.C.
P-3 	EBOE laptop tracking for K.C.
P-4 	EBOE laptop tracking for C.C.
P-5 	Notice of Initial Determination
P-6 	Final notice of ineligibility C.C.
P-7 	Final notice of ineligibility K.C.
P-8 	Petitioner’s submissions
P-9 	EBOE 22-23 school calendar
P-10 	EBOE 23-24 school calendar