S.G.S., on behalf of minor child, S.S. V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE NORTHERN VALLEY REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, BERGEN COUNTY, 3/4/11, (#74-11)

#74-11 (OAL Decision: Not yet available online)
S.G.S. on behalf of minor child S.S., 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	: 	DECISION
NORTHERN VALLEY REGIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	:
BERGEN COUNTY,
:
RESPONDENT.
____________________________________:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her daughter, S.S., was not
eligible for a free public education in the Northern Valley Regional High School district during
the 2009-2010 school year. The respondent contended that S.S. was domiciled with her father in
Cresskill during the time period in question. 	Petitioner contends that S.S. was domiciled with
her in Closter – a town within the Northern Valley district – and spent limited time in Cresskill
with her father, from whom petitioner is separated.
The ALJ found that: the weight of the evidence indicates that petitioner and her daughter were
domiciled within the school district, in an apartment in Closter, during the 2009-2010 school
year; petitioner and S.S. then moved into a home in Demarest – another town within the district –
in 	June 2010; and the occasional presence of S.S. at the Cresskill home of her father does not
amount to residency at that address. 	Accordingly, the ALJ ordered that the respondent’s
determination that S.S. was not domiciled in the Northern Valley Regional High School district
for the 2009-2010 school year be reversed; and further ruled that the respondent Board is not
entitled to tuition reimbursement from petitioner.
Upon a full and independent review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ and adopted the
Initial Decision as the final decision in this matter.
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.
March 4, 2011

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12412-09
AGENCY DKT. NO. 345-11/09
S.G.S. on behalf of minor child S.S., 	:
PETITIONER, 	:
V. 	: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE 	: 	DECISION
NORTHERN VALLEY REGIONAL
HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 	:
BERGEN COUNTY,
:
RESPONDENT.
____________________________________:
The 	record 	of 	this 	matter 	and 	the 	Initial 	Decision 	have 	been 	reviewed.
Respondent submitted exceptions which reiterate the arguments it presented in its post-hearing
brief – which arguments are unpersuasive in light of the record as a whole. Accordingly, and for
the following reasons, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter.
In this controversy, petitioner challenges respondent’s determination that during
the 2009-2010 school year, her minor child, S.S., was ineligible to receive a public education in
the Northern Valley Regional High School District. 	In the Commissioner’s view, the facts
support the conclusions that 1) petitioner provided sufficient evidence of her own residency in
respondent’s district during the 2009-2010 school year, 2) petitioner provided evidence that her
minor child, S.S., lived with her in the district during the 2009-2010 school year, and

2
3) respondent presented insufficient evidence to support its position that S.S. lived outside the
district with her father during the 2009-2010 school year.1
Accordingly, the petition is granted. 	To the extent that the third affirmative
defense in respondent’s answer – in which respondent stated that it would seek tuition
reimbursement – can be regarded as a counterclaim, that counterclaim is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: March 4, 2011
Date of Mailing: 	March 4, 2011
1 The testimony of respondent’s investigator – upon which respondent’s cast primarily relies – was not thorough.
He did not keep accurate records of his reconnaissance. He could not provide specific dates, times, or the exact
number of occasions that he observed each of the addresses given to him, and he provided testimony – such as the
date of his first encounter with S.S.’s father at the out-of-district home – which was discrepant with certain
correspondence between himself and school administrators. Further, assuming arguendo that respondent’s
investigator – who admittedly spent no more than 21 hours over the course of nine months on the instant case – saw
S.S. with her father on the occasions described in his testimony, it would still not rebut the prima facie case
presented by petitioner that S.S. was domiciled with her mother, S.G.S., in an apartment in respondent’s district for
all but a few days of the 2009-2010 school year.
2 This decision may be appealed to the Superior Court, Appellate Division, pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).