L.B., on behalf of minor child, B.C. v. Board of Education of the Township of Washington, Gloucester County, 1/12/2021, (#13-21)

13-21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.B., on behalf of minor child, B.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Washington, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that B.C. has not resided
within the Washington Township School District since July 6, 2019 and is therefore not eligible
to receive a free public education in Washington Township Public Schools. 	The Board filed a
motion for summary decision, which petitioner failed to answer, and sought reimbursement of
tuition for the period of B.C.’s ineligible attendance.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue in this case, and the matter is
ripe for summary decision; petitioner notified the Board at the end of the 2018-2019 school year
that she was moving from her previous address in Sewall to an address in Pine Hill, which is
located outside of the respondent’s school district; however, B.C. was never registered in Pine
Hill schools, and continued to attend Washington Township schools for the 2019-2020 school
year; pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2), petitioner has the burden of proof in a determination
of residency; 	and petitioner has offered no competent proof that she and B.C. were domiciled
within Washington Township after July 6, 2019. The ALJ concluded that B.C. was not entitled
to receive a free public education in the Washington Township School District following the
2018-2019 school year; 	accordingly, the respondent Board is entitled to reimbursement for
tuition costs in the amount of $18,077 for the 2019-2020 school year, plus $100.43 per school
day from the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year through the date of this decision, during
which time petitioner’s minor child was ineligible to attend school in respondent’s district.
Upon review of the record in this matter, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and
conclusion. The Initial Decision was adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the petitioner
was ordered to reimburse the Board for tuition in the amount of $18,077, plus $100.43 for every
school day during the 2020-2021 school year that B.C. attended Washington Township schools. The
petition was dismissed.
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.
January 12, 2021

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 07411-20
Agency Dkt. No. 103-5/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
L.B., on behalf of minor child, B.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Washington, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed.1
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge’s
(ALJ) finding that petitioner failed to sustain her burden of establishing that she was a
domiciliary of Washington Township from July 6, 2019 to the present, or that her minor child,
B.C., resided with a domiciliary of Washington Township who was responsible for B.C.’s care
and support. 	The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ’s conclusion that B.C. was,
therefore, not entitled to a free public education in the District’s schools during that time.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b, the Commissioner shall assess tuition against
petitioner for the time period during which the minor child was ineligible to attend school in
Washington Township. Therefore, the Board is entitled to tuition reimbursement in the amount
1 Correspondence sent by petitioner, which the Commissioner deems to be her exceptions, were not timely pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.5 and were therefore not considered by the Commissioner.

2
of $18,077 for the 2019-2020 school year, plus $100.43 per school day from the beginning of the
2020-2021 school year to the date of this decision, during which time petitioner’s minor child
was ineligible to attend school in respondent’s district.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in
this matter. Petitioner is directed to reimburse the Board in the amount of $18,077 for the 2019-
2020 school year, plus $100.43 per school day from the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year
to the date of this decision, for tuition costs incurred during the time period in which B.C. was
ineligible to attend school in Washington Township. The petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 12, 2021
Date of Mailing: 	January 12, 2012
2 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 GRANTING
RESPONDENT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 103-5/20
L.B. O/B/O B.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF WASHINGTON,
GLOUCESTER COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________
L.B., petitioner, pro se
Lauren E. Tedesco, Esq. on behalf of respondent (Capehart & Scatchard, P.A.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: 	November 18, 2020 	Decided: December 1, 2020
BEFORE DOROTHY INCARVITO-GARRABRANT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant, 	L.B. 	(appellant), 	on 	behalf 	of 	minor 	child 	B.C., 	challenges 	the
determination 	made 	by 	the 	respondent, 	Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
2
Washington 	(respondent), 	that 	the 	minor 	student 	has 	not 	resided 	in Washington
Township (Washington), since July 6, 2019, and is ineligible to attend school in
respondent’s 	district. 	The 	respondent 	seeks 	dismissal 	of 	appellant’s 	appeal 	and
payment of tuition and costs by appellant for the number of days B.C. attended school
in its district, while ineligible to do same.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 12, 2020, appellant filed an appeal for residency on behalf of B.C. to
determine their eligibility to enroll in respondent’s school district. 	The Department of
Education Bureau of Controversies and Disputes transmitted this case to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) on June 11, 2020, for a hearing pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-
1 et seq. and N.J.S.A. 52:14 F-1 et seq..
A prehearing conference was held on September 21, 2020. Respondent advised
that it had previously filed the instant motion for summary decision. 	Appellant advised
that she understood the motion was filed. 	She further advised that she would respond
to and oppose the motion. 	A prehearing order was entered on September 23, 2020. 	It
provided for a briefing schedule, status conference, and hearing dates. 	Pursuant to
paragraph 13 of the prehearing order, appellant’s opposition to the motion was due on
October 19, 2020. 	No opposition was received. 	The ordered status conference was
held on November 12, 2020. Appellant failed to appear for the conference. As a result,
an Order was entered on November 13, 2020, which canceled the hearing dates and
required appellant to file her opposition to respondent’s motion for summary decision by
November 18, 2020. No opposition to the motion was received.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND LEGAL ARGUMENTS
Findings of Fact
The material facts were uncontroverted and I FIND as FACT the following:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
3
Appellant is the biological mother of B.C., who is seventeen years old, and
enrolled in respondent’s high school. 	(R-A.) 	Appellant is also the biological mother of
two other students who attend school in respondent’s district. 	Their biological father is
L.R.. 	Those students are the half-siblings of B.C. (R-C.) 	All three siblings have
attended respondent’s schools continuously for five years prior to June 2019 and
specifically during the time period of June 2018 through June 2019. (R-D, R-E.) During
that time, petitioner, B.C., the two half-siblings, and L.R. were domiciled at XXX
Aldeberan Drive, Sewell, New Jersey. (R-D.)
On June 19, 2019, appellant emailed respondent’s Student Registration, Data
and Information Manager stating that she had moved outside the district to Pine Hill,
New Jersey. Petitioner inquired whether all three children could remain in respondent’s
school district, due to a financial hardship which caused her to relocate. 	(R-E.) 	On the
same date, respondent denied petitioner’s request and directed 	petitioner to contact
her children’s high school and elementary school to transfer their academic and health
records 	to 	the 	Pine 	Hill 	School 	District 	for 	the 	2019-2020 	school 	year. 	(R-F.)
Petitioner’s 	new 	lease, 	dated 	June 	25, 	2019, 	provided 	for 	her 	tenancy 	at 	XXX
Blackwood-Clementon Road, #XXX, Pine Hill.3 	(R-G.) 	The term of the lease was July
6, 2019 through July 30, 2020.
On July 31, 2019, L.R. completed a Change of Address notification for his
biological children, the two half-siblings of B.C.. 	He provided his old address of XXX
Aldeberan Drive, Sewell, and his new address XXX Cascade Court, Sewell. 	His
children 	were 	transferred 	from 	Thomas 	Jefferson 	Elementary 	School 	to 	Birches
Elementary School, both of which are within respondent’s district. L.R. represented that
both children resided with him at the new address. 	L.R. provided a lease for the
Cascade Court residence that reflected he lived there with his significant other, R.H.
The term of the lease was from August 1, 2019 through July 31, 2020. 	(R-H.)
Respondent 	unilaterally 	changed 	B.C.’s 	address 	to 	the 	Cascade 	Court 	address,
because petitioner had not completed B.C.’s transfer out of respondent’s district by July
31, 2019.
3 This is address provided by petitioner when she filed the instant appeal.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
4
On November 18, 2019, respondent received an anonymous note stating that
B.C. did not live in its district. 	(R-I.) 	Respondent conducted a residency investigation.
On January 24, 2020, the respondent’s residency officer met with R.H., who explained
that B.C. did not live at her home at the Cascade Court address. 	She further advised
that B.C. never resided at that address with her. 	R.H. stated that B.C. resides with
appellant at the XXX Blackwood-Clementon Road address. 	On the same date, R.H.
provided an email to the respondent memorializing this information. (R-J.) On February
5, 2020, the respondent emailed R.H. to confirm B.C.’s address. (R-K.) R.H. noted that
she and L.R. never requested to have B.C.’s address changed to the Cascade Court
address. (R-K.)
Subsequently, on February 6, 2020, respondent issued a Notice of Ineligibility
and Pending Board of Education Hearing for Disenrollment to appellant based upon her
domicile in Pine Hill and the respondent’s residency investigation. 	The notice advised
petitioner that she was entitled to a hearing before respondent’s Board of Education. 	It
further advised that “[i]f the Board of Education determines your child is, in fact,
ineligible for enrollment in the Washington Township Public Schools, the Board may
assess tuition for the period of time for which she . was deemed ineligible (annual rate:
$18,077).” 	(R-L.) 	The residency hearing was held on February 18, 2020. 	During the
hearing, the petitioner stated as follows: “I reside in Pine Hill.” (R-N.) The petitioner also
represented that L.R. was not B.C.’s biological father. 	Although petitioner identified
B.C.’s biological father, appellant did not provide any information about whether he had
any custodial rights or was domiciled in respondent’s district. 	Petitioner did not provide
any Family Court custody orders to respondent and did not provide any guardianship
order showing that L.R. was responsible for B.C. like a parent would be. 	(R-N.) 	As a
result, the Board determined that B.C was ineligible to attend the schools in its district
and disenrolled B.C.
Petitioner is domiciled at XXX Blackwood-Clementon Road, #XXX, Pine Hill, New
Jersey. Petitioner relocated to that address on July 6, 2019, which was the beginning of
the term of her lease for that residence. (R-G.) Petitioner and B.C. have not resided in
respondent’s 	district 	since 	that 	date. 	B.C. 	is 	ineligible 	for 	public 	education 	in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
5
respondent’s district. 	B.C. has not resided with L.R. in respondent’s district after June
2019. 	Petitioner has refused to transfer B.C. to the Pine Hill school district. 	Petitioner
was aware that she would be required to pay tuition for the days B.C. attended
respondent’s school district when she was actually ineligible to do so. On February 19,
2020, respondent issued a Final Notice of Ineligibility to petitioner. (R-O.) 	This Final
Notice advised petitioner of her rights to appeal and that she may be assessed tuition
for any period of ineligible attendance. It further advised petitioner that tuition would be
calculated on the basis of 1/180 of the total annual per pupil cost of $18,077 multiplied
by the number of ineligible days. (R-O.)
On March 12, 2020, petitioner faxed her appeal of the Board’s decision to the
Commissioner of Education from respondent’s registration office. 	On March 21, 2020,
all New Jersey Schools were closed by Governor Murphy by Executive Order 107, due
to the COVID-19 pandemic and a transition to remote learning occurred. 	On May 20,
2020, respondent contacted the Office of Controversies and Disputes (Office) regarding
the instant appeal. They advised they had not received the faxed request for the appeal
on March 12, 2020. On May 21, 2020, respondent mailed the appeal to the Office. (R-
Q.) On May 22, 2020, the appeal was received by the Office.
Petitioner did not oppose this instant motion. 	Petitioner emailed respondent’s
counsel on November 12, 2020, after failing to appear for the status conference,
advising she was involved in family court litigation and that B.C. was experiencing some
mental health concerns. However, petitioner never provided any competent evidence to
support her allegations or to explain the relevance of any family court motion to the
issues raised in the instant appeal given the fact that L.R. is not B.C.’s biological or
adoptive father. 	B.C. was ineligible to attend school in respondent’s district for the
entire 2019-2020 school year. 	B.C. continues to be ineligible to attend school in
respondent’s district to the present.
Respondent is entitled to reimbursement for tuition by the petitioner in the total
amount of $23,500.22 for B.C.. 	The total reimbursement petitioner owes to respondent
for the 2019-2020 school year is $18,077. 	Respondent is entitled to reimbursement for
tuition by the petitioner in the sum of $5,423.22, (54 days x $100.43), for B.C. for the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
6
period 	of 	September 	8, 	2020 	through 	December 	1, 	2020. 	Petitioner 	is 	further
responsible to reimburse respondent for any tuition for days after the issuance of this
initial decision through the entry date of the Final Decision.
Legal Argument
For respondent
First, 	respondent 	argued 	that 	summary 	decision 	in 	its 	favor 	dismissing
appellant’s appeal is appropriate because no genuine issue of material fact exists. 	Brill
v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 142 N.J. 520 (1995).
Second, respondent argued that a student is eligible to attend a school district if
the student is between five and twenty years of age and 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 is domiciled in the
school district when he or she is the child of a parent or guardian whose domicile is
located within the school district.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1).
If 	a 	student 	does 	not 	have 	the 	right 	to 	attend 	the 	school 	district, 	the
Commissioner may assess tuition. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2; N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3. Tuition may
be assessed for the period during which the hearing and decision on appeal were
pending, and for one year of the student’s ineligible attendance prior to filing the appeal,
including the twenty-one-day period to file the appeal. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a); S.L. o/b/o
J.L, J.L., and O.L. v. Board of Educ. Of Twp. Of Union, 2015 WL 4410098 (N.J.Adm.
June 4, 2015), aff’d. and modified, (Comm’r of Educ. July 8, 2015); C.E. obo minor child
K.E. v. Twp. Of West Orange Bd. Of Educ., EDU 09617-19, 2019 WWL 7600050
(December 6, 2019), adopted, Commissioner (January 9, 2020).
Respondent 	argued 	that 	petitioner 	and 	B.C. 	have 	not 	been 	domiciled 	in
respondent’s district since July 6, 2019. 	L.R. is not B.C.’s biological father. 	L.R. does
not have any legal or custodial right to B.C.. Petitioner’s appeal was filed using her Pine
Hill address. 	Respondent argued that a preponderance of evidence demonstrates that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
7
B.C. is domiciled in Pine Hill for the 2019-2020 school year and the 2020-2021 school
year to the present date. 	Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b), the tuition is required to be
calculated on the basis of 1/180 of the $18,077 total annual cost to respondent
multiplied by the number of days of ineligible attendance. 	Respondent calculated that
their daily tuition reimbursement for the 2019-2020 school year was $100.43 per day.
For petitioner
Petitioner did not file opposition to the motion.
LEGAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The respondent seeks relief pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5, which provides that
summary decision should be rendered “if the papers and discovery which have been
filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a matter of
law.” 	Our regulation mirrors R. 4:46-2(c) which provides that “the judgment or order
sought shall be rendered if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to a
judgment or order as a matter of law.”
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,
are sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the allegedly disputed issue in
favor of the non-moving party. 	Our courts have long held that “if the opposing party
offers . . . only facts which are immaterial or of an insubstantial nature, a mere scintilla,
‘fanciful frivolous, gauzy or merely suspicious,’ he will not be heard to complain if the
court grants summary judgment.” 	Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520,
529 (1995) (citing Judson v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co., 17 N.J. 67, 75 (1954)).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
8
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and
determine the truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for
trial.” 	Brill, at 540, (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S. Ct.
2505, 2511, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 213 (1986)). 	When the evidence “is so one-sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the trial court should not hesitate to grant
summary judgment. 	Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 251-252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512, 91 L .Ed.
2d at 214. Appellant’s statements to the respondent in her email dated November 12,
2020 to respondent’s attorney, indicating that she was involved in family court litigation
and inferred that that litigation would impact this appeal, were unsupported and not
credible, because appellant has not provided any court orders or documents in the one
and one-half years since she relocated to Pine Hill showing that L.R. had custodial or
guardianship rights to B.C. or that she was likely to prevail in the family court on this
issue. L.R.’s actions in transferring his biological children, B.C.’s half-siblings, and not
B.C. to his new residence is illuminating in this regard. 	As a result, appellant’s
unsupported statements were wholly insufficient to create a genuine issue of material
fact, which would preclude summary decision. 	They do not even demonstrate a mere
scintilla of credible facts.
Following the Brill standard, after considering all the papers and evidence filed in
support respondent’s motion for summary decision and no opposition having been
received, I CONCLUDE that there are no genuine issues of material fact that require a
plenary hearing and that this matter is ripe for summary decision.
At issue is whether B.C. is entitled to a free education in respondent’s district
under N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1, which provides that public schools shall be free to persons
over five and under twenty years of age who are “domiciled within the school district.”
See V.R. ex rel A.R. v. Hamburg Bd. of Educ., 2 N.J.A.R. 283, 287 (1980), aff’d, State
Bd., 1981 S.L.D. 1533, rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Rabinowitz v. N.J. State Bd. of
Educ., 550 F. Supp. 481 (D.N.J. 1982) (New Jersey requires local domicile, as opposed
to mere residence, in order for a student to receive a free education). B.C. is seventeen
years old. Therefore, I CONCLUDE B.C. meets the age requirements and is entitled to
a free public education.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
9
A person who meets age requirements and is domiciled within a school district
may attend its public schools free of charge. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a). A person may have
many residences, but only one domicile. 	Somerville Bd. of Educ. v. Manville Bd. of
Educ., 332 N.J. Super. 6, 12 (App. Div. 2000), aff’d, 167 N.J. 55 (2001). 	A child’s
domicile is normally that of his or her parents. 	Ibid. 	The domicile of a person is the
place where he has his true, fixed, permanent home and principal establishment, and to
which whenever he is absent, he has the intention of returning, and from which he has
no present intention of moving. 	In re Unanue, 255 N.J. Super. 362, 374 (Law Div.
1991), aff’d, 311 N.J. Super. 589 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 157 N.J. 541 (1998), cert.
denied, 526 U.S. 1051, 119 S. Ct. 1357, 143 L. Ed. 2d 518 (1999).
Further, N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.2, provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) A student is eligible to attend the school district
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b if he or she is kept in the
home 	of 	a 	person 	other 	than 	the 	student's 	parent 	or
guardian, and the person is domiciled in the school district
and is supporting the student without remuneration as if the
student were his or her own child.
1. A student is not eligible to attend a school district
pursuant to this provision unless:
i. The student's parent or guardian has filed, together
with documentation to support its validity, a sworn statement
that he or she is not capable of supporting or providing care
for the student due to family or economic hardship and the
student is not residing with the other person solely for the
purpose of receiving a free public education; and
ii. The person keeping the student has filed, if so
required by the district board of education:
(1) A sworn statement that he or she is domiciled
within the school district, is supporting the child without
remuneration and intends to do so for a time longer than the
school term, and will assume all personal obligations for the
student pertaining to school requirements; and
(2) A copy of his or her lease if a tenant, a sworn
landlord's statement if residing as a tenant without written
lease, or a mortgage or tax bill if an owner.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
10
The acts, statements, and conduct of the individual, as viewed in the light of all
the circumstances, determine a person’s true intent. 	Collins v. Yancey, 55 N.J. Super.
514, 521 (Law Div. 1959). 	The parent has the burden of proof by a preponderance of
the evidence. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2).
Here, 	no 	competent 	evidence 	was 	produced 	demonstrating 	that 	petitioner
resided in Washington, or that B.C. ever resided with L.R. in Washington after July
2019. 	No competent evidence was produced by petitioner showing that L.R. had
custody or guardianship of B.C., or that B.C. resided with him and that he was
responsible for her care and support, as if he was her parent. 	Petitioner failed to
provide any proof that B.C. was domiciled with L.R. in Washington at any time material
to this matter. 4
The record reflects that petitioner and B.C. relocated to Pine Hill on July 6, 2019,
as evidence by the lease for her XXX Blackwood-Clementon, #XXX, Pine Hill residence,
which petitioner voluntarily provided to respondent. Petitioner admitted she lives at that
address. Petitioner admitted that L.R. is not B.C.’s biological father.
Petitioner’s statements and actions show a course of conduct designed and
engaged in intentionally to keep B.C. enrolled in respondent’s district for its free
education, when she knew she and B.C. no longer resided in the district. In this regard,
on June 19, 2020, petitioner advised respondent that she had relocated to a new
residence located at XXX Blackwood-Clementon Road, #XXX, Pine Hill, New Jersey
and she provided her lease for this new residence showing she would be residing at
that address commencing on July 6, 2019. 	Despite respondent’s direction, petitioner
failed to complete the documents required to transfer B.C. to the Pine Hill school district.
Petitioner did not reside in respondent’s district for the entire 2019-2020 school
year and from the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year to the present. Pine Hill was
her true, fixed, and permanent home. 	Pine Hill was the property to which, whenever
4 Petitioner’s other children, (B.C’s two half-siblings), were appropriately domiciled with their biological
father, L.R., within respondent’s district at all times material and relevant herein.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
11
she was absent, she intended to, and did, return. This is where the petitioner and B.C.
ate, slept, and resided. Pine Hill was their domicile.
Accordingly, in light of all of the facts and circumstances, I CONCLUDE that B.C.
was not entitled to a free public education in the respondent’s district. 	I CONCLUDE
petitioner failed to satisfy her burden of proof that B.C. was domiciled with L.R. at his
address in Washington and that he was caring and providing for her as if he was her
parent. 	I CONCLUDE respondent did not act in an arbitrary and capricious manner in
this matter. I CONCLUDE summary decision in favor of respondent is appropriate.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(1) provides that when the evidence does not support the
claim of the resident, the resident shall be assessed tuition “for the student prorated to
the time of the student’s ineligible attendance in the school district. 	Tuition shall be
computed on the basis of 1/180 of the total annual per-pupil cost to the local district
multiplied by the number of days of ineligible attendance and shall be collected in the
manner in which orders of the commissioner are enforced.” The record reflects that the
actual cost of each of petitioner’s child’s attendance in district during the 2019-2020
school year was $100.43 per day equaling $18,077 per annum.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the District is entitled to reimbursement for tuition
for B.C. by the petitioner in the total amount of $23,500.22. 	I CONCLUDE the total
reimbursement petitioner owes to respondent for the 2019-2020 school year is $18,077.
I further CONCLUDE that the respondent is entitled to reimbursement for tuition by the
petitioner in the sum of $5,423.22, (54 days x $100.43) for the period of September 8,
2020 through December 1, 2020. 	I CONCLUDE petitioner is further responsible to
reimburse respondent for any tuition for days after the issuance of this initial decision
through the entry date of the Final Decision.
ORDER
It 	is 	ORDERED 	that 	the 	determination 	of 	the 	respondent, 	Township 	of
Washington Board of Education, that B.C. was not domiciled in the Township of

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
12
Washington School District for the 2019-2020 school year and the period between
September 8, 2020 through December 1, 2020 is AFFIRMED.
It 	is, 	therefore, 	ORDERED 	that 	petitioner 	pay 	respondent, 	Township 	of
Washington Board of Education, tuition in the total amount of $23,500.22 for ineligible
attendance in the District schools for the periods stated above.
It is further ORDERED petitioner is further responsible to reimburse respondent
for any tuition for days of ineligible after the issuance of this initial decision through the
entry date of the Final Decision.
It is further ORDERED that B.C.’s domicile be changed from Township of
Washington to Pine Hill.
It is hereby ORDERED that Respondent’s motion for summary decision is
GRANTED. Petitioner’s appeal is DISMISSED.
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 07411-20
13
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.
+
December 1, 2020
DATE 	DOROTHY INCARVITO-GARRABRANT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency
Date Mailed to Parties:
/lam

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 07411-20
14
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
None
For respondent
R-A 	B.C.’s Birth Certificate
R-B 	Certification of Katherine Carey, respondent’s Director of Assessment,
Data Technology, Registration and School Community Outreach, dated June 10, 2020
R-C 	Birth Certificates of B.C.’s half-siblings
R-D 	XXX Aldeberan Drive Lease and ID
R-E 	Email from petitioner, dated June 19, 2019
R-F 	Respondent’s correspondence to petitioner, dated June 19, 2020
R-G 	XXX Blackwood-Clementon Road, #XXX, Lease
R-H 	Transfer Documents for B.C.’s half-siblings to XXX Cascade Court, Sewell
R-I 	Residency Investigation Request
R-J 	Email from R.H to petitioner, dated January 24, 2020
R-K 	Email from R.H to petitioner, dated February 5, 2020
R-L 	Notice 	of 	Ineligibility 	and 	Pending 	Board 	of 	Education 	Hearing 	for
Disenrollment, dated February 6, 2020
R-M 	Residency Hearing recording---NOT PROVIDED OR REVIEWED
R-N 	Residency Hearing transcript, dated February 19, 2020
R-O 	Final Notice of Ineligibility for Continued Enrollment, dated February 19,
2020
R-P 	Petitioner’s Residency Appeal
R-Q 	Emails between respondent and Office of Controversies and Disputes,
dated May 21, 2020
R-R 	Appeal Confirmation, dated May 22, 2020