M.M., on behalf of minor children, E.M. and I.M. v. Board of Education of the Township of South Brunswick, Middlesex County, 9/26/2022, (#254-22)

254-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.M. and A.M., on behalf of minor children,
E.M. and I.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of South Brunswick,
Middlesex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioners appealed the determination of the respondent Board that their minor children were not
entitled to a free public education in the South Brunswick School District (District) during the 2021-2022 school
year. The Board contended that, based on the results of residency investigations, petitioners do not live at the
address provided on the children’s school registration but rather may live at another address within the
District, where M.M.’s mother resides. The Board sought reimbursement for the cost of tuition for the period
of E.M. and I.M.’s ineligible attendance.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a), public schools are free to any person over five
and under twenty years of age who is domiciled within the District; the issues in dispute here are whether the
family resided on Bernini Way during the 2021-2022 school year and, if not, the amount of tuition owed by
petitioners to the Board for that period of time; the credible evidence indicates that the address provided on
the school registration is within a 55 and over community that does not allow children under the age of 19, and
that the family may actually live at a different address within the District, where the children’s grandmother
resides. The ALJ concluded that petitioners did not sustain their burden of proving that E.M. and I.M. were
domiciled on Bernini Way and did not submit evidence supporting residency at the other address; accordingly,
the children were not entitled to a free public education in the District during the 2021-2022 school year, and
petitioners are responsible for tuition reimbursement in the total amount of $25,922.
The Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s finding that petitioners failed to prove that they were domiciled
within the District during the 2021-2022 school year, and further concurred that the children were, therefore,
not entitled to a free public education in the District’s schools during that time. However, the Commissioner
concluded that the record does not present sufficient information to accurately determine the per diem
tuition owed, nor whether the children attended school in the District for the entire year. Accordingly, this
matter is remanded to the Office of Administrative Law for further proceedings to calculate the per diem
tuition and number of days of ineligible attendance, as required by N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b.
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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 04264-22
Agency Dkt. No. 47-3/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.M. and A.M., on behalf of minor children,
E.M. and I.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
South Brunswick, Middlesex County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ)
finding that petitioners failed to sustain their burden of establishing that they were domiciled in
South Brunswick during the 2021-2022 school year. The Commissioner further concurs with the
ALJ’s conclusion that minor children E.M. and I.M. were, 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 petitioners
for the time period during which the minor children were ineligible to attend school in the
district. The statute specifically provides that the Commissioner may order tuition “computed
on the basis of 1/180 of the total annual per pupil cost to the local district multiplied by the
254-22

2
number of days of ineligible attendance.” N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b. The Initial Decision notes that
the cost of tuition is $72 per day, or $12,961 per year.1 However, this information appears only
in the notice of ineligibility sent by the district to petitioners, and in the ALJ’s summary of
witness testimony about the issuance of that notice. The record contains no certification from
district staff with knowledge about tuition costs, nor does the Initial Decision recount any
witness testimony on this topic.2 The Commissioner therefore concludes that the record does
not present sufficient information to calculate the per diem tuition. Furthermore, while the
Initial Decision assesses tuition for the 2021-2022 school year, there is no evidence in the
record demonstrating that the children attended school in South Brunswick for the entire
school year, either in the form of a certification or witness testimony.
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the Office of Administrative Law for further
proceedings to calculate the per diem tuition and number of days of ineligible attendance, as
required by N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 Multiplying $72 by 180 days results in an annual tuition cost of $12,960, not $12,961. While this discrepancy may
be due to rounding of one figure or the other, the Commissioner declines to make such an assumption, particularly
when neither figure is supported by competent evidence in the record.
2 The Commissioner was not provided with a transcript of the proceedings and therefore relies on the ALJ’s
summary of the testimony. If the tuition costs were testified to by one of the Board’s witnesses, that information
should be included on remand to clarify the record.
September 26, 2022
September 26, 2022

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 47-3/22
M.M. AND A.M. ON BEHALF OF
E.M. AND I.M.,
Petitioners,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH BRUNSWICK
BOARD OF EDUCATION,
Respondent.
__________________________________
M.M. and A.M. on behalf of E.M. and I.M., petitioners, pro se
David L. Disler, Esq., for respondent (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: July 20, 2022 	Decided: August 15, 2022
BEFORE TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioners M.M. and A.M., on behalf of minor children, E.M. and I.M., appeal the
decision of respondent Township of South Brunswick Board of Education (Board) that
E.M. and I.M. were not eligible to attend the South Brunswick Township Public Schools in
the 2021-2022 school year. 	Petitioners also seek a ruling that they are not responsible

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
2
to pay tuition for E.M. and I.M. for the 2021-2022 school year in the amount of $12,961
for each child.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 4, 2022, petitioners filed a pro se residency appeal with the Office of
Controversies and Disputes of the New Jersey Department of Education. 	On May 2,
2022, the matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was
filed as a contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to
-13.
On June 28, 2022, the parties appeared for a prehearing telephone conference,
during which the hearing was scheduled for July 20, 2022. A prehearing order was issued
on June 30, 2022.
On July 20, 2022, the hearing was conducted using Zoom Communications, Inc.,
a remote audio/video platform licensed by the OAL for use during the public health
emergency in which the Governor of the State of New Jersey issued Emergency Orders
mandating 	stay-at-home 	protocols 	for 	citizens 	and 	public 	employees 	(COVID-19).
Petitioners, who speak Russian and are not fluent in English, were assisted throughout
the proceedings, including the hearing, by Natalia Sorokina, a Russian language
interpreter. The record closed on July 20, 2022.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The issues in dispute are whether the M. family, mother and two minor children,1
resided at Bernini Way, Monmouth Junction, New Jersey, within the geographic area
served by the South Brunswick Township School District (District), during the 2021-2022
1 A.M., the father of the two minor children involved in this matter, stated that he lives in Brooklyn, New
York, apart from his wife and children.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
3
school year and if not, the amount of tuition owed by petitioners to respondent for the
2021-2022 school year.2
At the hearing, respondent presented three witnesses; A.M. testified on behalf of
petitioners. The following is not a verbatim recitation of the testimony but a summary of
the testimonial and documentary evidence that I found relevant to the above issues.
TESTIMONY
Suzanne Luck-Born (Luck-Born), District Director of Student Assessment and
Instructional Support, testified on behalf of respondent. She has been employed by the
District for twenty-six years in various positions, the last eleven in her current position.
Luck-Born is responsible for the Registration Department, including oversight of two
Central Registrars who register new families and coordinate registrations with the
Transportation and Buildings Departments.
On September 13, 2021, shortly after the school year began, Luck-Born received
an email from the Director of Transportation stating that Mickey Guzman (Guzman), the
Community Manager of the Villagio South Brunswick Homeowners Association (Villagio
HOA), objected to District buses entering the Villagio community as it is an age-restricted
community in which school-aged children are not permitted. 	(R-1.)3 	According to the
District records, the M. children resided in the Villagio community at Bernini Way, but the
lease M.M. had provided to the District as proof of residency had expired. Luck-Born or
her staff contacted petitioners and requested updated residency documents, which M.M.
hand-delivered on September 14, 2021, including a lease for July 1, 2021, through July
1, 2023, for Bernini Way.
2 	E.M. has attended school in the District continuously since the 2018-2019 school year and I.M. has
attended school in the District continuously since the 2020-2021 school year.
3 	Luck-Born identified this summary of the residency investigation conducted in this matter, which she
wrote. She stated that this document was provided to Board of Education members prior to the M. family
hearing. Not all communications described in this document were written but all were corroborated by later
writings and/or action taken in response.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
4
On September 21, 2021, Luck-Born retained a private investigator, Patrick O’Brien
(O’Brien), to conduct a residency investigation. Luck-Born identified the report generated
by O’Brien, in which he concluded that the M. family was not residing at Bernini Way. (R-
2.) 	Using this report, Luck-Born told her supervisor that as a result of the investigation,
the District had no basis to conclude that E.M. and I.M. lived at Bernini Way, but the M.
family may have been residing at Drinking Brook Road, another location within the
township.4 	Luck-Born identified the “system-generated” letter sent to petitioners on
December 17, 2021, stating that the District does not “accept students” from the Villagio
address, but they could provide proof of residency at the alternate location. (R-3.)
On January 10, 2022, Luck-Born sent a letter to petitioners stating that E.M. and
I.M. are not eligible to attend the District schools because:
• 	Petitioners failed “to provide requested documentation that
satisfies the residency requirements as outlined in N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1[.]”
• 	“Based upon an investigation by [the District’s] Residency
Officer,” the District determined that the M. family "is not
residing at Bernini Way[.]"
• 	“The 55 and Older Community” in which Bernini Way is
located “does not use [the District’s] schools due to the age
restriction of residents.”
[R-4.]
On January 26, 2022, petitioners sent a letter to Luck-Born disputing the findings
of the investigation, claiming that the District was discriminating against them, and stating
that if the District was unwilling to permit the children to complete the year in the District,
they would “be forced to go to court and appeal your decision, as well as file a lawsuit for
persecution and discrimination.” 	(R-5.) 	A Board hearing was scheduled and, in the
4 The District operates seven elementary schools. The two addresses at issue here, Bernini Way and
Drinking Brook Road, are within the geographic boundaries for different elementary schools. There was
no evidence presented as to why the M. family would prefer one school over another, other than because
their children were already attending the first school and because they stated that they do not live within
the geographic boundaries of the second school. See, P-6.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
5
interim, the District hired Prime Source Investigators to obtain a second opinion and more
recent information.
On two days in February 2022, the investigator from Prime Source parked outside
Bernini Way from 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m., and he reported seeing no activity at the house
during those hours. (R-8.) Further, in response to a request from District Superintendent
Scott Feder (Feder), Guzman provided excerpts from the Villagio HOA governing
documents, which make clear that no children under the age of 19 are permitted to reside
in a home in the community. (R-6.)
On February 10, 2022, respondent held a hearing at which petitioners appeared
and gave testimony. 	On February 14, 2022, Feder sent a final notice of ineligibility to
petitioners, which described the basis for the decision of respondent that petitioners’
children are not domiciled at Bernini Way and are not eligible to attend school in the
District. (P-3.) Petitioners were again given the opportunity to provide proof of residency
at Drinking Brook Road. In this notice, respondent stated that they would be responsible
for tuition for each child in the amount of $72 per day, or $12,961 per year.
Petitioners did not provide additional information to respondent. 	This appeal
followed.
Patrick J. O’Brien, testified on behalf of respondent. He spent twenty-five years
on the South Brunswick Police Department, five as an investigator. 	From December
2011, through December 2021, O’Brien served as the District Residency Investigator.
During this time, he estimates that he handled over one-hundred residency investigations,
in cases in which “the Board had reason to believe that non-resident children were
attending school” in the District.
O’Brien identified the report he prepared on his investigation of the M. family who
were allegedly living at Bernini Way. 	(R-2.) 	He began on September 21, 2021, by

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
6
conducting internet research. 	He was able to confirm the house at Bernini Way was
purchased in 2009 by Charles and Maria Lichtenstein.5
O’Brien stated that on September 24, 2021, he arrived at Bernini Way at 7:30 a.m.,
and stayed one hour, during which he saw no activity, no cars, no lights on inside the
house, and no children or adults leaving the house. (R-2.)
On October 15, 2021, O’Brien arrived at Bernini Way at 8:15 a.m. and saw an open
second floor window. At 8:23 a.m., a silver SUV with New Jersey license plates pulled
into the driveway and when the garage door was opened remotely, drove into the garage.
O’Brien described the driver as an adult male in his 60’s; he stated that A.M., who was
present by Zoom during O’Brien’s testimony, was not the man he saw driving the SUV.
At 8:26 a.m., O’Brien saw an adult female walking inside the house from the first to the
second floor. O’Brien described the adult female as in her 60’s; he stated that M.M., who
was present by Zoom during O’Brien’s testimony, was not the woman he saw in the
house.
On November 29, 2021, O’Brien arrived at Bernini Way at 7:32 a.m. and saw the
same second floor window open. 	He saw no cars or other activity. 	He drove to the
elementary school where the M. children were attending. While he was told by staff that
M.M. usually drove her children to school and parked in the rear lot, he did not see M.M.
or the children that morning.
On November 29, 2022, O’Brien drove past Bernini Way at 7:50 a.m., observed no
cars, and proceeded to the elementary school. 	At 8:45 a.m., a woman driving a white
SUV with New Jersey license plates parked in a spot in the rear lot. The car came from
the direction opposite of where it would travel if coming from Bernini Way. 	The woman
walked two students, one male and one female into the school, returned to her car, and
proceeded to Drinking Brook Road, parking in the driveway.
5 Maria Lichtenstein is the landlord on the leases M.M. signed for Bernini Way. (P-6, P-7, P-8.) On each
lease, Lichtenstein uses Bernini Way as her address for notices.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
7
On November 30, 2022, O’Brien arrived at Drinking Brook Road at 8:25 a.m., and
observed the same white SUV parked in the driveway. He saw the lights go on in the car
at 8:45 a.m. 	O’Brien drove to the elementary school, saw the same white SUV drive in
from the same route and park in the rear lot at 8:54 a.m. O’Brien left and went to Drinking
Brook Road. The same white SUV returned at 9:06 a.m. and parked in the driveway. On
Saturday, December 11, 2021, O’Brien saw the same white SUV parked in the driveway
at Drinking Brook Road.
O’Brien stated that on each occasion he went to Bernini Way, he never saw
children, whether at the home or in the neighborhood, and never saw signs of children
such as toys or bicycles. 	He concluded that based on his investigation, there are no
grounds to believe that the M. family resided at Bernini Way.6
Austin Lindsay (Lindsay) testified on behalf of respondent. 	Since 2018, he has
been a field investigator with Prime Source Investigators and in this position, has
conducted over one thousand investigations. 	In a typical residency investigation, he is
briefed by the client and given an address to surveil, and reports back with a description
of the residence, any vehicles present, and any activity that he observes.
Lindsay identified the report he wrote regarding the investigation he conducted on
Bernini Way. 	(R-8.) 	On February 3, 2022, Lindsay arrived at Bernini Way at 6:00 a.m.
Knowing that school started at 8:55 a.m., and that the children involved were young and
likely woke up early, Lindsay wanted an early start. He described Bernini Way as a large
home with a two-car garage, located in a cul-de-sac in a nice neighborhood. By the time
he left at 10:00 a.m., Lindsay had seen no activity at the house, no lights inside the house
going on, no doors opening, no vehicles departing.
6 	O’Brien further concluded that the family resided at Drinking Brook Road, but respondent offered no
further evidence to support this theory.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
8
On February 4, 2022, Lindsay arrived at Bernini Way at 6:00 a.m., and stayed until
10:00 a.m. 	Again, he saw no activity, no lights going on, no vehicles. 	As shown on a
video Lindsay took of the residence, one light above the interior staircase was on when
he arrived, and it turned off at 8:05 a.m., without any other lights going on. 	(R-10.)
Lindsay concluded that this light was on a timer. Lindsay saw no children at Bernini Way,
nor in the neighborhood, and saw no school buses (though both February 3 and 4, 2022
were school days). He concluded that the M. family does not live at Bernini Way.
A.M. testified on behalf of petitioners. He stated that he and M.M. decided to live
separately7 but continue to parent their children together. In 2018, M.M. and the children
moved to Monmouth Junction to live with M.M.’s aunt, Maria Lichtenstein (Lichtenstein),
and M.M.’s mother.
Lichtenstein lives at Bernini Way with her husband, M.M. and the children. M.M.’s
mother, who was not named, lives at Drinking Brook Road. 	M.M.’s mother is quite old
and sickly and cannot be with the children all the time, but the children do stay with her
from time to time. 	The dates chosen by the investigators to surveil Bernini Way are all
days on which the children stayed with their grandmother.
In 2018, petitioners took E.M. to register at Monmouth Junction Elementary
School. They were told what documents were required for registration and provided all
required documents, including the lease between Lichtenstein and M.M. for Bernini Way.8
At the same time, petitioners told the registrar that they did not need transportation for
E.M. because they lived in the Villagio, and school buses are not allowed in the
community.
Each successive year, from 2019 through 2021, petitioners submitted all required
documents to the registrar and each year, petitioners told the registrar that they did not
7 A.M. did not say whether he and M.M. are divorced.
8 Petitioners also introduced copies of M.M.’s federal tax return, her New Jersey drivers’ license, and her
bank account statements, all of which show her address as Bernini Way. (P-6 through P-20.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
9
need transportation for E.M., and eventually for both children. 	In 2021, someone in the
school system made a mistake and sent the bus to Bernini Way.
A.M. stated that respondent did not prove that M.M. and the children do not live at
Bernini Way; just because the HOA rules forbid children does not mean the family does
not live there. M.M. pays rent to Lichtenstein, as provided in the lease. When asked to
provide proof of payment of rent, A.M. stated that they pay in cash some months and did
not have documentary proof of non-cash payments.
DISCUSSION
To the extent that testimony given by petitioner and the other witnesses is in conflict
or inconsistent, the credibility of their testimony must be assessed. 	Credibility is best
described as that quality of testimony or evidence which makes it worthy of belief. The
Supreme Court of New Jersey considered the issue of credibility in In Re Estate of
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514 (1950). The Court pronounced:
Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the
mouth of a credible witness but must be credible in itself. 	It
must be such as the common experience and observation of
mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.
[Ibid. at 522.]
See also, Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546, (1954), State v. Taylor, 38 N.J. Super.
6 (App. Div.1955).
In order to assess credibility, the witness’ interest in the outcome, motive or bias
should be considered. 	Furthermore, a trier-of-fact may reject testimony because it is
inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony, or with common
experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony. Congleton v. Pura- Tex Stone
Corp., 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
10
Luck-Born, O’Brien and Lindsay were all credible witnesses. They spoke without
emotion about routine matters they took on in the course of their employment. 	While I
question the limitations of O’Brien’s investigation—he did not have proof that the children
he saw with the woman in the white SUV were actually E.M. and I.M.—respondent did
not pursue the alternate theory, that the M. family was living at Drinking Brook Road. It
was enough that neither investigator saw any children, or even a woman of M.M.’s age,
at Bernini Way.
There is no dispute that the Villagio HOA rules forbid children under the age of 19,
and it should not then be a surprise that by the second week of the 2021-2022 school
year, Guzman had had enough of the disruptive school buses and contacted the District
to keep them out. A.M. testified that starting in 2018, when E.M. began school, petitioners
notified the Transportation Department that they did not need busing and someone made
a mistake in September 2021 and sent a bus to their address. 	While not all of A.M.’s
testimony rang true, this explanation makes sense. 	Prior to September 2021, Guzman
had no reason to complain to the Transportation Department because there were no
buses going through the Villagio. 	The M. family may have been living at Bernini Way
between September 2018 and June 2021, which would explain why M.M. went to the
trouble of opening bank accounts with that address, using that address for her drivers’
license and her federal tax returns. 	There was no testimony regarding the apparent
willingness of M.M.’s aunt to sign a lease that violates the Villagio’s stringent age-
restriction rules,9 but the question here is not whether the M. family and/or their landlord
was breaking the rules by setting up house in a fifty-five and over community.10 	The
question is whether they lived in the Villagio community during the 2021-2022 school year.
The credible evidence presented by two investigators is that on five occasions,
between October 2021, and February 2022, when school was in session and the M.
children were in attendance, the children did not spend the previous night at Bernini Way
and did not leave from Bernini Way to go to school. 	Coincidence is not enough to
9 There was also no documentary proof that the M. family made lease payments to Lichtenstein.
10 	Given how quickly Guzman reacted when she saw the school buses, it is surprising that she never
noticed elementary school-aged children allegedly living in the community for close to four years, a clear
violation of HOA rules.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
11
overcome the preponderance of the credible evidence and accordingly, I FIND that
petitioners did not prove that during the 2021-2022 school year, E.M. and I.M. resided at
Bernini Way.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Petitioners contend that E.M. and I.M. are entitled to a free education in the 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, for a student to receive a free education). 	E.M. is nine years old and I.M. is
seven years old and, therefore, I CONCLUDE they meet the age requirements to be
entitled to a free public 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, and a child’s domicile is normally that of his or her
parents. 	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). 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 (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 parents have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
12
Here, the evidence as to E.M. and I.M. being domiciled in the District is mixed.
E.M. started school in the District in September 2018, and she and her brother have
attended continuously since then. 	M.M. went to a great deal of trouble to show Bernini
Way as her address. 	Both houses in which M.M.’s relatives reside—Bernini Way and
Drinking Brook Road—are in the District, albeit within the geographic boundaries of
different elementary schools. Petitioners refused to concede residency at Drinking Brook
Drive—either because they did not want their children to change schools in the middle of
the school year or because they did not live there and could not prove otherwise.11
Accordingly, in light of all of the facts and circumstances, I CONCLUDE that E.M.
and I.M. are not entitled to a free public education in the District. I CONCLUDE petitioners
failed to satisfy the burden of proving that E.M. and I.M. are domiciled at Bernini Way and
elected not to submit evidence supporting residency at Drinking Brook Road.
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:
[F]or 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 attendance in-District was $12,961 per
year for each student for the 2021-2022 school year.
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3(a) provides that,
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.
11 In their letter of January 26, 2022, petitioners state that they could enroll their children in private school
but prefer for them to complete the current school year at Monmouth Junction Elementary School. (P-2.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
13
6A:23A-17.1. 	The 	individual 	student's 	record 	of 	daily
attendance shall not affect the calculation.
Therefore, 	I 	CONCLUDE 	that 	petitioners 	are 	responsible 	to 	pay 	tuition 	to
respondent for attendance by E.M. and I.M. at Monmouth Junction Elementary School in
the amount of $12,961 for each, for a total of $25,922.
ORDER
I ORDER that the decision of respondent South Brunswick Township Board of
Education that E.M. and I.M. were not eligible for a free public education in the District
during the 2021-2022 school year is AFFIRMED and the pro se residency appeal of
petitioners M.M. and A.M. on behalf of E.M. and I.M. is DISMISSED.
Further, I ORDER that petitioners shall pay respondent tuition in the amount of
$25,922.
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 04264-22
14
Within thirteen days from the date on which this initial 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, P.O. 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.
August 15, 2022
DATE 	TRICIA M. CALIGUIRE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
TMC/nmn

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
15
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For Petitioners:
A.M.
M.M.
For Respondent:
Suzanne Luck-Born
Patrick J. O’Brien
Austin Lindsay
EXHIBITS
For Petitioner:
P-1 - 	Letter 	from South 	Brunswick 	Public 	Schools 	to 	Petitioners 	regarding
ineligibility of children, dated January 10, 2022
P-2 - 	Letter from Petitioners to Suzanne Luck-Born, dated January 26, 2022
P-3 - 	South Brunswick Public Schools Final Notice of Ineligibility, dated February
14, 2022
P-4 - 	Pro Se Residency Appeal, dated March 4, 2022
P-5 - 	Letter of Counsel for Respondent, dated April 29, 2022
P-6 - 	Lease dated June 30, 3018
P-7 - 	Lease dated June 1, 2019
P-8 - 	Lease dated June 1, 2021
P-9 - 	PNC Bank Statement
P-10 - PNC Bank Statement
P-11 – PNC Bank Statement
P-12 – Citibank, N.A. Statement
P-13 - Citibank, N.A. Statement

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04264-22
16
P-14 - Citibank, N.A. Statement
P-15 - Citi Diamond Preferred Card Statement
P-16 - Citi Diamond Preferred Card Statement
P-17 - Citi Diamond Preferred Card Statement
P-18 – Federal 2019 Income Tax Return, Form 1040
P-19 - Federal 2020 Income Tax Return, Form 1040
P-20 - New Jersey State Driver’s License Issued to M.M.
P-21 - New York State Driver’s License Issued to A.M.
For Respondent:
R-1 	Summary of Residency Investigation
R-2 	Daily Report Log from Residency Investigation
R-3 	Letter to Petitioners from Scott Feder, dated December 17, 2021
R-4 	Letter to Petitioners from Suzanne Luck-Born regarding Determination of
Ineligibility, dated January 10, 2022
R-5 	Letter to Suzanne Luck-Born from Petitioners, dated January 26, 2022
R-6 	Email from the Villagio South Brunswick to Scott Feder regarding Villagio
South Brunswick HOA, dated February 1, 2022
R-7 	Respondent's District Policy 5111 – Eligibility of Resident/Non-Resident
Pupils
R-8 	Email from Nate Reber to David Pawlowski regarding his Investigation
Report Summary, dated February 7, 2022
R-9 	South Brunswick School District's Statements of Assurance
R-10 	Video