K.P., on behalf of minor children, K.P. and K.P. v. Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton, Mercer County, 11/13/2024, (#419-24)

419-24 Synopsis
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.P., on behalf of minor children, K.P. and K.P..,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton,
Mercer County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this case on remand, pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that his minor
child, Ky.P., was not entitled to a free public education in Hamilton schools during the 2022-2023 school year.
(This matter pertains solely to Ky.P.; in the within decision, the Commissioner refers to K.P.’s minor children –
both of whom share the initials K.P. – as Ky.P. and Ka.P., for purposes of clarity; the Board explained in its
March 23, 2023, determination letter that it did not take any action with respect to Ka.P. as he remained
eligible to attend school in Hamilton.) The Board contended that Ky.P. did not live with her father in Hamilton,
but rather resided in Princeton Township, and demanded payment of tuition in the amount of $4,456.65 for
Ky.P.’s ineligible attendance in the district.
.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: after giving the petitioner a second opportunity to appear for a
hearing, he once again failed to appear; based upon testimony and documentary evidence supplied by the
Board, Ky.P. attended school in Hamilton Township for 55 days during the 2022-2023 school year while
domiciled outside of the district; further, the cost of tuition for the 2022-2023 school year was $81.03 per day,
or $14,586 per year for a third grade student. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the Board was entitled to
payment from petitioner for Ky.P.’s tuition in the amount of $4,456.65.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ on remand and
adopted the October 15, 2024 Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. Accordingly, the Board’s
counterclaim for tuition was granted and petitioner was ordered to pay the Board $4,456.65 in tuition costs for
Ky.P.’s period of ineligible attendance.
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.t

419-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04401-24 (EDU 04952-23 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 137-5/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.P., on behalf of minor children, K.P. and K.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Township 	of
Hamilton, Mercer County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
on remand have been reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
This matter concerns the Board’s March 23, 2023, determination that Ky.P. does not
reside in Hamilton Township and their demand for payment of tuition in the amount of $4,456.65
for Ky.P.’s ineligible attendance at school in the district during the 2022-2023 school year.1
Petitioner appealed the Board’s determination but failed to prosecute his appeal at the OAL.
In February 2024, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granted petitioner’s appeal and
dismissed the Board’s counterclaim for tuition. In March 2024, the Commissioner rejected the
Initial Decision, dismissed the petition of appeal for failure to prosecute, and remanded the
1 Because they share the same initials, in this decision, the Commissioner refers to K.P.’s minor children as Ky.P. and
Ka.P for purposes of clarity. In its March 23, 2023, determination letter, the Board explained that it did not take any
action with respect to Ka.P. and confirmed that he remained eligible to attend school within the Hamilton Township
School District. Therefore, this matter pertains only to Ky.P., despite both children being named in the case caption.

2
matter to the OAL to develop the record regarding the number of days of Ky.P.’s ineligible
attendance and the per diem cost of tuition.
On remand, the ALJ gave petitioner a second opportunity to appear for a hearing, and he
failed to do so. Based upon testimony and documentary evidence supplied by the Board, the ALJ
found that Ky.P. attended school in Hamilton Township for 55 days during the 2022-2023 school
year while domiciled outside of the district. The ALJ further found that the cost of tuition was
$81.03 per day, or $14,586 per year for a third-grade student. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded
that the Board was entitled to payment from petitioner for Ky.P.’s tuition in the amount of
$4,456.65.
The Commissioner concurs with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ on remand and
adopts the October 15, 2024, Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter. “N.J.S.A. 18A:38-
1(a) mandates that public schools are free to any person, [over age five and] under twenty years
of age, ‘who is domiciled within the school district.’” K.K-M., on behalf of A.W. v. Bd. of Educ. of
City of Gloucester City, 463 N.J. Super. 24, 31 (App. Div. 2020). 	A child’s parents “’shall have the
burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence’ to prove domicile in the school district.”
D.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Princeton Reg’l Sch. Dist., 366 N.J. Super. 269, 273 (App. Div. 2004) (quoting
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2)).
If the petitioner fails to prosecute the appeal, “the Commissioner may assess tuition for
the period during which the hearing and decision on appeal were pending, and for up to one year
of a student’s ineligible attendance in a school district prior to the appeal’s filing and including
the 21-day period to file an appeal.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a). Because petitioner failed to prosecute
the appeal, the Commissioner shall assess tuition against petitioner for the period during which

3
Ky.P. was ineligible to attend school in the district “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.” N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b).
Accordingly, the Board’s counterclaim for tuition is granted. Petitioner is hereby ordered
to pay the Board $4,456.65 in tuition costs for Ky.P.’s period of ineligible attendance.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	November 13, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	November 13, 2024
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
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 137-5/23
(ON REMAND EDU 04952-23)
K.P. ON BEHALF OF K.P AND K.P.,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON BOARD OF
EDUCATION, MERCER COUNTY,
Respondent.
K.P., petitioner, pro se
Michael Pattantite, Esq., for respondent (Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano,
Carrigg, Lang & Casey, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: September 24, 2024 	Decided: 	October 15, 2024
BEFORE NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner appeals the determination of respondent, Township of Hamilton Board
of Education (Board), that K.P. daughter1 is not domiciled in the Township of Hamilton
School District (District) and should be disenrolled and assessed back tuition of $4,456.65
for the days of illegal attendance.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed an appeal with the Department of Education ("the Department") on
May 17, 2023. The Board filed an answer on June 5, 2023. The matter was transmitted
to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where on June 5, 2023, it was filed as a
contested case. N.J.S.A. 52:148-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
A prehearing telephone conference was scheduled for June 20, 2023, but both
parties failed to appear.
Notice of the rescheduled conference on August 1, 2023, was sent to the parties
through email on July 12, 2023. Both parties appeared for this conference, during which
they discussed K.P.’s domicile and agreed to appear at a subsequent conference.
On August 7, 2023, notice was sent to the parties of a telephone conference on
September 5, 2023, through regular mail and email. A dial-in number was provided.
The petitioner failed to appear for the September 5, 2023, telephone conference,
notify my office in advance, or request an adjournment. The petitioner then failed to
appear for four subsequent telephone conferences.
1 For clarity, I will refer to K.P. parent as “petitioner” and K.P. minor child as “K.P. daughter.” Also, the
pleadings should only have named K.P. daughter. There is no residency issue with K.P. son.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
3
On November 9, 2023, notice was sent to the parties of a hearing by regular mail
and email on January 5, 2024. The notice stated:
If you do not attend the hearing, the file will be returned to the
transmitting agency for appropriate action which may include
imposition of the proposed penalty or granting the relief
requested by the other party.
On January 5, 2024, the Board appeared for the proof hearing, but the petitioner
failed to appear and failed to notify my office in advance or to request an adjournment.
The Board presented its proofs for its counterclaim, and the record remained open for the
petitioner 	to 	explain 	his 	nonappearance 	and 	for 	the 	Board 	to 	provide 	additional
information supporting its counterclaim. 	The Board made its submission on January 9,
2024. 	When no explanation was received from the petitioner regarding his failure to
appear, the record closed on January 16, 2024.
An initial decision reversing the Board’s findings was issued on February 6, 2024.
On March 15, 2024, the Commissioner of Education reversed the initial decision,
dismissed the petitioner’s residency appeal, and remanded the matter to develop the
record on the number of days of K.P.'s daughter’s ineligible attendance and the per diem
cost of tuition.
On June 4, 2024, the parties appeared for an in-person hearing. At that time, the
petitioner advised that he has been residing in Hamilton for four years and that K.P.
daughter resides with him. 	The petitioner further advised that as a truck driver, his
schedule changes, and when he is scheduled to work overnights, K.P.'s daughter must
stay with her mother, who resides in Ewing. The petitioner’s schedule changes randomly,
and K.P.'s daughter did not permanently reside with the mother but stayed with her
temporarily.
Based upon the petitioner’s assertions, both parties agreed to appear at a
subsequent hearing on the residency issue. 	Notice of the rescheduled hearing for
September 24, 2024, was emailed to the parties on June 5, 2024. 	The Board appeared
for the hearing, but the petitioner failed to appear and failed to notify my office in advance

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
4
or request an adjournment. 	The hearing was held on September 24, 2024, testimony
was taken, and the record was closed.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the testimony of Dr. James Altobello, District Director of Operations,
and the documentary submitted by the Board, I FIND the following as FACTS2:
1. 	K.P. daughter began attending school in the District in September 2022 as a
third-grade general education school student for the 2022-2023 school year.
2. 	Thereafter, the respondent received information that K.P. daughter was not
residing in Hamilton but was residing in Princeton Township.
3. 	The Board engaged the services of Tri-Shield Security and Protection to
investigate K.P. daughter’s actual residence.
4. 	Surveillance was conducted at the Princeton Township address. After a
complete investigation, it was determined that K.P. daughter resided at the
Princeton address with her brother’s mother and did not reside in Hamilton
Township.
5. 	On February 6, 2023, a residency hearing was conducted before the Board.
The petitioner did not attend the residency hearing or claim he did not receive
notice.
6. 	On February 22, 2023, the Board determined that K.P. daughter was not
domiciled in or a resident of the Township of Hamilton, which would have
entitled her to attend a school within the District without a tuition obligation for
the school year 2022-2023.
2 Although not required, I am restating the facts from the remanded EDU 04952-23, derived from the
Board’s Counterpetition for an Order Assessing Tuition, marked R-2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
5
7. 	By letter dated March 23, 2023, the Board notified the petitioner of its decision
that K.P. daughter was ineligible to attend the District schools and of his right
to appeal. This letter was sent to the petitioner at both the Hamilton and
Princeton Township addresses via regular mail and Certified Mail, Return
Receipt Requested.
8. 	Between March 23, 2023, through June 21, 2023, K.P. daughter attended
school in the District for fifty-five days, though not domiciled in the District.
9. 	The annual per pupil cost for a general education school student in third grade
in the District is $14,586.
10. The District was in session for 180 days during the 2022-2023 school year; the
daily tuition rate for a general education school student is $81.03. The Board
assessed K.P. $4,456.65 for fifty-five days of ineligible attendance.
11. K.P. daughter is not registered in the District for the 2023-2024 school year and
did not attend school in the District during the 2023-2024 school year.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
At issue is whether K.P. daughter was entitled to a free education 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).
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.,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
6
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. 1998), certif. denied, 157 N.J. 541 (1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1051
(1999).
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).
The record reflects that K.P. daughter attended fifty-five days of school within the
District for the 2022-2023 school year while domiciled outside of the District. Accordingly,
I CONCLUDE that K.P. daughter was not entitled to a free public education in the District.
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 based
on 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 uncontested record reflects that the actual cost of
K.P.’s 	attendance 	in-district 	was 	$81.03 	per 	day, 	equaling 	$14,586 	per 	annum.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the Board is entitled to reimbursement for tuition by the
petitioner in the amount of $4,456.65.
ORDER
For the reasons above, I hereby ORDER that petitioner K.P. pay respondent
Hamilton Township Board of Education tuition in the total amount of $4,456.65 for
unauthorized attendance in the District schools for the abovementioned periods.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
7
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the ACTING
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.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. Exceptions may be filed
by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the
other parties.
October 15, 2024
DATE 	NICOLE T. MINUTOLI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
NTM/dw

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04401-24 (on remand from EDU 04952-23)
8
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
Dr. James Altobello
EXHIBITS
For petitioner:
None
For respondent:
R-1 	Published Tuition Rates for 2022-2023 school year
R-2 	Counter petition for tuition from EDU 04952-23 (remanded matter)