J.C., on behalf of minor children, C.C., D.C, S.C., A.C., V.C., and A.C. v. Board of Education of the Village of Ridgefield Park, Bergen County, 9/8/25 (#434-25)

434-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13584-24
Agency Dkt. No. 225-7/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
J.C., on behalf of minor children, C.C., D.C., S.C.,
A.C., V.C., and A.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Village of Ridgefield
Park, Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
and the exceptions filed by respondent Board of Education of the Village of Ridgefield Park
(Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been reviewed and considered. 	Petitioner did not
submit a reply.
Petitioner filed the instant residency appeal to challenge the Board’s determination that
because she was no longer domiciled in the district, her children could no longer attend school
in Ridgefield Park pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a). 	In its answer, the Board maintained its
position and requested an order assessing tuition against petitioner.
However, once the matter was transmitted to the OAL, the parties conferred and agreed
that petitioner and her children were homeless. They further agreed that it was in the children’s
best interest to remain enrolled in the Ridgefield Park School District. The Board also agreed not

2
to pursue its claim for tuition against petitioner. 	Initial Decision, at 3 (citing Exhibit J-1,
Settlement Agreement and Release).
Thereafter, the assigned Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing wherein
petitioner testified and documentary evidence, including the Settlement Agreement and Release,
was admitted. Applying applicable law, the ALJ determined that petitioner and her family have
been homeless since the foreclosure of their Ridgefield Park home in early 2023. The ALJ found
that between February 2023 and June 2024, the family lived in a temporary, undersized rental
unit in Kearny, New Jersey, and remained homeless. The ALJ further found that between July
2024 and August 2024, the family lived in various motels and remained homeless. Finally, the
ALJ concluded that the Board was financially responsible for the children’s education because the
family lived in Ridgefield Park immediately before they became homeless.
In its exceptions, the Board does not dispute any of the ALJ’s factual findings, and it does
not contest the ALJ’s conclusion that the children are homeless. Instead, the Board contends for
the first time that N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d) “mandates a modification with respect to which school
district is financially responsible” for the children’s education. Board’s Exceptions, at 1. Because
the family lived in Kearny for more than one year between February 2023 and June 2024, the
Board now contends that the Commissioner should modify the Initial Decision to reflect that the
Kearny Board of Education is financially responsible for the cost of the children’s education
beginning in February 2024.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision, in part. 	Specifically, the
Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s factual findings in their entirety, as well as the ALJ’s legal
conclusion that the family became homeless in February 2023 and remained homeless during

3
the pendency of the OAL proceedings. However, as explained herein, the Commissioner declines
to adopt the ALJ’s conclusion regarding financial responsibility for the children’s education during
the family’s period of homelessness as that issue was not fully litigated below.
At the outset, the Commissioner notes that the parties’ Settlement Agreement and
Release fully resolved the issues raised in the residency petition and the counterclaim—the Board
agreed to allow the children to continue attending school in Ridgefield Park, which is the relief
petitioner sought, and it agreed not to pursue its claim for tuition against petitioner.
The issue raised in the Board’s exceptions—whether the Kearny Board of Education
should bear some financial responsibility for the children’s education—is beyond the scope of
the residency petition and counterclaim presently before the Commissioner and was not fully
litigated at the OAL. Furthermore, the Kearny Board of Education, which is not a party to this
case, has not had the opportunity to respond to the arguments set forth in the Board’s
exceptions. The Board may file a petition of appeal requesting tuition reimbursement from the
Kearny Board of Education if it deems it necessary to do so. N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted, in part, as the final decision in this matter, and
the petition of appeal is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 8, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 8, 2025
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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 225-7/24
J.C ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN,
C.C., D.C., S.C., A.C., V.C. and A.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE VILLAGE
OF RIDGEFIELD PARK, BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
J.C., petitioner, pro se
David L. Disler, Esq., for respondent (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C.
attorneys)
Record Closed: June 9, 2025 Decided: June 19, 2025
BEFORE DANIEL J. BROWN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The parties agree that the petitioner and her children are homeless. Additionally,
the parties agree that the petitioner and her children lived in a temporary residence in
Kearny, New Jersey from February 2023 until June 2024. In June 2024, Petitioner and

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
2
her children moved into a temporary living situation, a motel. They have stayed in various
motels, and they continue to stay in a motel today. The parties agree that the petitioner
and her family resided in Ridgefield Park prior to becoming homeless and that Ridgefield
Park is the school district of residence until the petitioner and her husband establish a
permanent residence. Is the respondent (Board) responsible for educating the
petitioner’s children that are the subject of this case? Yes, a homeless student’s school
district of last residence is responsible for educating the student or paying the cost of
tuition if the student attends school in another district and providing transportation.
N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.3; N.J.A.C. 18A:38-19.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The petitioner and her husband have eight children. Six of her children are
currently enrolled in the Ridgefield Park School District (District). In early 2023, the
petitioner’s home in Ridgefield Park was foreclosed upon. As a result, the District deemed
that the petitioner’s family was homeless and allowed her children that were enrolled in
the District to remain enrolled in the District. Thereafter, the Petitioner signed a month-
to-month lease for an apartment in Kearny, New Jersey. Because the petitioner and her
family were living in an apartment in Kearny for the second half of the 2022-2023 school
year and for the entire 2023-2024 school year, the District determined the petitioner and
her family established a new domicile in Kearny. By letter dated June 28, 2024, the
petitioner was informed of the District’s determination and her right to request a Board
hearing. The petitioner requested a hearing and appeared before the Board on August
28, 2024. During the hearing, the petitioner did not dispute that she, her husband and
her children were no longer domiciled in the District. The Board determined that the
Petitioner and her children were domiciled in Kearny.
The petitioner filed a residency appeal on behalf of her children on July 19, 2024.
On September 20, 2024, the Board filed an answer and an order assessing tuition against
the petitioner for the time her children attended school in the District but were domiciled
elsewhere. On September 23, 2024, the New Jersey State 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 OAL, N.J.S.A.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
3
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. The OAL received the case on the same day. The case was
assigned to me on October 4, 2024. The parties agree that the question presented in this
case is whether the petitioner and her children are and have been homeless since their
home in Rochelle Park was foreclosed.
Normally, the initial determination in a dispute about homelessness is made by the
County Superintendent of Schools. N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.8. Here, however, the claim of
homelessness was apparently raised after the transmission of this case to the OAL.
Therefore, I will address the homelessness issue in this initial decision.
On October 30, 2024, December 16, 2024, February 25, 2025, and March 11,
2025, I held prehearing conferences under N.J.A.C. 1:1-13.1 to discuss hearing
availability dates, the nature of the proceeding, the issues to be resolved, and any unique
evidentiary problems. I also permitted additional time for discovery. During the telephone
conference with the parties on March 11, 2025, I scheduled the hearing for May 5, 2025.
On April 24, 2025, I received a request from the parties to appear via Zoom as Board
counsel was recovering from a medical condition, and I approved that request. On the
same day, I received a signed settlement agreement and a joint stipulation of facts from
the parties. The settlement agreement provides in pertinent part that:
At the residency hearing, the Board agrees not to contest the
Parent’s claim that they are homeless. In the event the
Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) finds that the Parents are
homeless, the Board agrees to accept the ALJ’s finding,
waives the right to appeal that finding, and the Board will not
pursue back payment for any tuition prior to the date of this
agreement. Furthermore, the District will not contest that it is
in the best interest of C.C., D.C., S.C. A.C., V.C. and A.C. to
remain enrolled in the Ridgefield Park School District.
I conducted the hearing on May 5, 2025. At the hearing, the parties agreed that
the only witness that would testify on behalf of either party would be the petitioner. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the parties requested the opportunity to file written summations,
and I approved that request. I gave the parties until May 12 to file written summations.
On May 9, 2025, I received the respondent’s written summation. I kept the record open

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
4
until June 9, 2025, to give the petitioner additional time to file a written summation. After
receiving no communication from the petitioner, I closed the record on June 9, 2025.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the joint stipulation of fact, the testimony the petitioner provided and my
assessment of the credibility of the testimony, together with the documents that the
parties submitted and my assessment of their sufficiency, I FIND the following as FACT:
The petitioner and her husband are parents to eight minor children, including six
children currently enrolled in District schools: C.C., D.C., S.C., A.C., V.C., and A.C. For
the 2024-2025 school year, A.C. was enrolled in the first grade, A.C. was enrolled in the
third grade, V.C. was enrolled in the fourth grade, S.C. was enrolled in the sixth grade,
D.C. was enrolled in the seventh grade and C.C. was enrolled in the ninth grade in the
District. Petitioner has lived in Ridgefield Park for most of her life. The petitioner’s
husband moved into Ridgefield Park with the petitioner prior to the birth of the couple’s
first child. The home in Ridgefield Park where the petitioner and her husband lived was
originally owned by the petitioner’s parents. In 2013, Petitioner’s father was the victim of
identity theft and lost his life savings. As a result, the petitioner’s parents took out a
reverse mortgage on the Ridgefield Park property. The petitioner’s father passed away
in 2016 and her mother passed away eleven months later. Upon the mother’s passing
away, the entirety of the reverse mortgage became due. Because the petitioner could
not afford to pay off the entire mortgage, the home went into foreclosure and the petitioner
filed for bankruptcy.
After a delay in the processing of the foreclosure due to COVID-19, the petitioner’s
home was foreclosed upon in early 2023. The petitioner’s employer helped the petitioner,
and her family find a temporary rental in Kearny, New Jersey, a two-bedroom apartment.
The Petitioner’s three boys stayed in one bedroom and her five daughters stayed in the
other bedroom. The petitioner and her husband slept on a pull out couch in the living
room. From February 2023 through June 2024, the Petitioner and her husband paid
monthly rent at that location. The petitioner and her family were forced to leave the
apartment in Kearny after a dispute arose with neighbors.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
5
From July 2024 to August 2024, the petitioner and her family lived in two motels in
Little Ferry, New Jersey. One motel was the Travel Lodge and the other hotel the Knights
Inn. At each motel, the petitioner and her family rented two rooms. Each room had a full-
size bed, requiring the children to share a bed with their parents or their siblings.
Due to the cost of the motels in Little Ferry, the family moved to cheaper motels in
Parsippany, New Jersey in August 2024. One motel was the Days Inn, and the other
motel was the Travel Lodge. Again, at each motel, the petitioner and her family rented
two rooms. Each room had a full-size bed, the children to share a bed with their parents
or their siblings.
From October 2024 to the present, the Petitioner and her family have been residing
at the Sunset Motel, formerly known as the Knight’s Inn, located in Pine Brook, New
Jersey. This motel, like the other motels used by the petitioner and her family represents
a temporary residence. Again, at this motel the family rents two rooms with each room
having a full-size bed, requiring the children to share with their siblings or their parents.
The Petitioner and her family continue to look for permanent housing but have been
unable to locate a permanent residence due to their current financial means and the size
of their family. However, it is the intention of the petitioner and her family to return to their
prior Ridgefield Park residence, which was purchased by a friend of the family as an
investment property. The friend intends to enter into a rental agreement regarding the
Ridgefield Park property with the petitioner and her family when repairs are completed at
the residence.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, homeless children are
defined as “individuals who lack a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence,” which
includes “children and youths who are sharing the housing of other persons due to loss
of housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.” 42 U.S.C.A. § 11434a(2). Similarly,
under state law, homeless children are defined as “child[ren] or youth who lack[] a fixed,
regular and adequate residence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 and N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.2,”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
6
which includes children living in the “residence of relatives or friends where the homeless
child resides out of necessity because the child’s or youth’s family lacks a regular or
permanent residence of its own.” N.J.A.C. 6A:171.2, N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.2(a)(3).
“[D]omicile attaches immediately if a student’s dwelling is found to be fixed, regular and
adequate.” Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Egg Harbor v. Bd. of Educ. of Mainland Reg. Sch.
Dist., Commissioner Decision No. 555-10 (Dec. 30, 2010), at 4 (citing N.J.S.A.
18A:17B12(c)). The Commissioner has previously held that homelessness “is best
viewed in a continuum.” St.-Op. Sch. Dist. of Camden v. C. Ann Volk, Commissioner
Decision No. 172-17R (June 20, 2017), at 11. Conducting a homelessness evaluation to
determine whether a child’s home is considered fixed, regular and adequate requires a
fact-specific analysis and “cannot rest upon a simple calculation of the amount of time
that children have spent in a particular location or municipality.” M. O’K. v. Bd. of Educ.
of Borough of Cresskill, Commissioner Decision No. 32514 at 3 (August 12, 2014), aff’d,
No. A-0828-14T4 (App. Div. Sept. 8, 2016). In conducting such a fact-specific inquiry,
the Commissioner must consider the totality of the circumstances, as “[t]he 6 reasons for
the children’s homelessness, their living conditions, and the resources and intentions of
the parents or custodians are relevant.” Ibid.
In this case, I agree with the parties that the petitioner and her family have lacked
a fixed, regular and adequate nighttime residence since the residence in Ridgefield Park
was foreclosed upon in early 2023.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the petitioner and her family, including her
children, have been homeless since the residence in Ridgefield Park was foreclosed in
early 2023.
Once it is determined whether a child is homeless, the question becomes which
district is financially responsible for the child’s education. Ordinarily, a student is eligible
for a free public education in a school district if he or she is domiciled within the school
district. N.J.S.A. 18A:381(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a). A student’s domicile is determined
by the domicile of his or her parents. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1). When a child becomes
homeless, the school district in which the child resided before becoming homeless –
remains responsible for the cost of the child’s education, including when the child is

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
7
temporarily living and attending school in another school district. N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.3;
N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12.
Again, I agree with the parties that the last residence that the petitioner had before
their homelessness was in Ridgefield Park. Accordingly, I conclude that the Board is
financially responsible for the cost of the public-school education of C.C., D.C., S.C., A.C.,
V.C., and A.C.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that that petitioner’s
Petition of Appeal is GRANTED.
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 13584-24
8
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. 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.
June 19, 2025
DATE DANIEL J. BROWN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: June 19, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: June 19, 2025
dr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13584-24
9
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
J.C.
For Respondent:
None
Exhibits
Joint:
J-1 Settlement Agreement and Release
J-2 Joint Stipulation of Facts
For Petitioner:
P-1 Not In Evidence
P-2 Not In Evidence
P-3 Not In Evidence
For Respondent:
R-1 Petitioner’s Responses to Interrogatories
R-2 Petitioner’s Communications with Landlord
R-3 Petitioner’s Proof of Temporary Housing
R-4 Petitioner’s Paystubs