Isabel G. Castro-Hidalgo v. New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection, 5/8/25 (#255-25)

255-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00408-25
Agency Dkt. No. 366-11/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Isabel Castro-Hidalgo,
Petitioner,
v.
New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) have been
reviewed and considered. The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge that petitioner violated
N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28 when a child was left on her bus after she concluded her transportation route.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition of appeal
is dismissed. Petitioner’s “S” endorsement is hereby suspended for six months from the date of this decision.
Respondent is directed to notify the Motor Vehicle Commission of its obligation to suspend petitioner’s school
bus endorsement pursuant to N.J.S.A.18A:39-26 et seq., and to notify petitioner’s employer that she is ineligible
during the period of suspension for continued employment as a school bus driver.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	May 8, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	May 9, 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
SUMMARY DECISION-DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
AGENCY REF NO. 366-11/24
ISABEL CASTRO-HILDAGO,
Petitioner,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCTION, OFFICE OF
STUDENT PROTECTION,
Respondent.
Isabel Castro-Hildago, petitioner pro se
Luke Hertzel-Lagonikos, Esq., Deputy Attorney General for respondent (Matthew
J. Platkin, Attorney General, State of New Jersey)
Record Closed: April 8, 2025 	Decided: April 11, 2025
BEFORE ELAINE B. FRICK, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent, New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Student Protection
(OSP), notified petitioner, Isabel Castro-Hildago (Castro-Hildago) that it intended to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
2
suspend her “S” endorsement to drive a school bus due to Castro-Hildago having left a
child on the bus. 	Castro-Hildago challenged the action, asserting she was distracted
when she arrived at the school when staff members boarded the bus looking for another
student, had another student disable the no student left behind alarm for her, drove to the
bus yard and upon realizing there was a student on board, she immediately returned to
the school and dropped off the child.
OSP filed a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer, which has been converted to a
summary decision motion. 	Castro-Hildago admits she did not visually inspect the bus
before leaving the school and driving to the bus yard with the undiscovered child onboard.
The motion must be granted in favor of OSP, as the applicable statutes mandate that if a
school bus driver has not visually inspected the bus and leaves a pupil on the school bus
at the end of the transportation route, the driver’s school bus endorsement shall be
suspended for six months for a first offense.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
OSP notified petitioner on October 30, 2024, that it intended to impose suspension
upon her bus licensing due to leaving a child on the bus. Petitioner submitted her appeal
request on November 6, 2024. The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) on January 8, 2025, where it was filed to be heard as a contested case.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to 14B-15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to 14F-13.
A motion in lieu of answer was filed by OSP in response to Casto-Hildago’s petition
for an appeal. 	During the initial pre-hearing telephonic conference with the parties, the
DAG re-transmitted OSP’s motion to petitioner via email and a schedule was set for the
submission of petitioner’s opposition to the motion and OSP’s reply motion filing. 	An
email submission in opposition to the motion was made by petitioner. The DAG submitted
written confirmation thereafter that there would be no further reply filed on behalf of OSP,
relying upon their initial motion filing. 	The motion to dismiss in lieu of answer has been
converted to a motion for summary decision, given that there are no material facts in
dispute.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
3
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Based upon a review of the parties’ motion submissions and the petition of appeal
request by Castro-Hildago, I FIND as FACTS the following:
Castro-Hildago was employed as a bus driver for the Washington Township School
District in Gloucester County. On October 10, 2024, petitioner arrived at a district school
to drop off students for the start of their school day. Some staff members from the school
boarded the bus, looking for a student, whom they removed from the bus This distracted
Castro-Hildago.
Castro-Hildago admittedly did not complete a visual check of the bus before she
left the school. 	She asked an “older child” to “hit the button so the no child left behind
alarm deactivate[d.]” 	(Petition of Appeal.) 	That child told Castro-Hildago there was no
one “back there.” (Petition of Appeal.)
Castro-Hildago proceeded to drive from the school to the bus yard, estimated to
be approximately one mile from the school. At the bus yard, Castro-Hildago noticed the
child behind her seat. She immediately drove back to the school with the student. When
she arrived at the school, a staff member and the police were there to meet her. 	The
child was dropped off at the school. She admittedly made “a terrible mistake” and does
not want this incident to reflect negatively on her record.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In an administrative law matter, a “party may move for summary decision upon all
or any of the substantive issues in a contested case.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion
“shall be served with briefs and with or without supporting affidavits.” 	N.J.A.C. 1:1-
12.5(b). The judge may grant the motion if the documents and information filed, together
with any submitted affidavits, “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.” Ibid. The
non-moving party will prevail if they “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine
issue which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding.” Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
4
The School Bus Safety Act contains a provision that a “school bus driver shall
visually inspect the school bus to which he is assigned at the end of the transportation
route to determine that no pupil has been left on the bus.” N.J.S.A. 18A:39-28. The “end
of the transportation route” is not defined in the statutes encompassing the School Bus
Safety Act. 	It has been declared by the Commissioner of Education in a final agency
decision that the end of the route as used in the Act “terminates at the point where all of
the children in that group leave the bus to enter their school and the bus is empty of riders,
and before the driver moves on to her next route.” 	Klein v. Department of Education,
Criminal History Review Unit, EDU 00852-2011, Commissioner decision (February 21,
2012).
The Commissioner has consistently affirmed their declaration that the end of the
transportation route is where the students are to be discharged at their assigned
destination. 	It is not the final location that is the end of the shift for the driver, such as
after all assigned routes are completed, nor the final location that is the end of the workday
for the driver, such as at the bus yard. See Arcos v. Department of Education, Criminal
History Revision Unit, EDU 01752-2018, Initial Decision (November 7, 2018), adopted,
Commissioner (September 20, 2018); Pedi v. Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection, EDU 04317-2021, Initial Decision (October 13, 2021), adopted, Commissioner
(November 18, 2021); and Severe v. Department of Education, Office of Student
Protection, 	EDU 	01502-2021, 	Initial 	Decision 	(September 	19, 	2022), 	adopted
Commissioner (October 31, 2022).
The School Bus Safety Act imposes a mandatory penalty upon a school bus driver
who has left a student on their bus at the end of the route. The driver must be provided
notice and opportunity to be heard. If it is then determined that a student was left on the
bus 	at 	the 	end 	of 	the 	bus 	driver’s 	transportation 	route, 	the 	driver’s 	school 	bus
endorsement shall be “suspended for six months, for a first offense; or . . . permanently
revoked, for a second offense.” N.J.S.A. 18A:39-29. There is no ability to circumvent this
penalty by apology, or demonstrate that the driver was simply careless in their inspection
or relied upon someone else to conduct the inspection, or if the student was unharmed
or unaffected by having been left on the bus.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
5
OSP seeks the entry of summary decision in its favor, to impose suspension upon
Castro-Hildago’s bus driver’s “S” endorsement for a period of six months. OSP asserts
that petitioner did not conduct her visual inspection of the bus at the end of her route and
a child was still on the bus when she drove away from the school to the bus yard.
Petitioner admittedly did not conduct a visual inspection at the school at the end of her
route. She relied upon a student on the bus who told her there was no one “back there”
and had that student shut off the no student left behind alarm. 	Petitioner admits there
was a student still on her bus when she drove away from the school, whom she
discovered when she arrived at the bus yard. The material facts to be applied to the law
are thus not in dispute.
I CONCLUDE petitioner failed to perform a visual inspection of the bus at the end
of 	her 	transportation 	route, 	which 	was 	at 	the 	school 	where 	the 	other 	students
disembarked from the bus. I CONCLUDE that since Castro-Hildago did not conduct an
inspection and a student was on her bus after she departed from the end of her
transportation route, she has violated the School Safety Bus Act.
This is the first offense for Casto-Hildago. 	I CONCLUDE that the Act mandates
the imposition of a penalty of a six month period of suspension upon Castro-Hildago’s
school bus driver’s endorsement. I CONCLUDE that OSP’s motion for summary decision
shall be GRANTED and the petition for relief is DISMISSED.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that Castro-Hildago’s bus driver “S” endorsement shall be
suspended for a period of six months for petitioner having violated the School Bus Safety
Act.
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
6
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.
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.
April 11, 2025
DATE 	ELAINE B. FRICK, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
EBF/gd

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00408-25
7
APPENDIX OF MOTION SUBMISSIONS
• 	OSP’s motion to dismiss in lieu of answer dated January 3, 2025
• 	Petitioner’s email opposition, March 28, 2025
• 	OSP’s submission April 8, 2025, affirming reliance upon motion papers filed