Steven Eget v. Board of Education of the Borough of Mountain Lakes, Morris County, 5/16/2023, (#145-23)

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00702-23
Agency Dkt. No. 378-12/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
Stephen Eget,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of
Mountain Lakes, Morris County,
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.
Petitioner seeks the release of his estranged daughter’s student records from the high school
that she attended. Petitioner’s daughter is 18 years old and no longer a student in the Mountain Lakes
School District (District), but petitioner sought the records because his ex-wife would not disclose if or
where their daughter was attending college. According to petitioner, a 2018 court order from his
divorce proceedings granted him “equal and unfettered access” to his child’s health and education
records. The Board denied petitioner’s request, informing him that a parent does not have access to a
graduate’s student records once they have reached the age of majority. Petitioner filed the instant
appeal challenging the denial of access to his daughter’s records.
Following the Board’s motion for summary decision,1 the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found
that petitioner is not authorized to obtain his daughter’s school records. N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5(e) provides,
in relevant part:
1 Petitioner did not file opposition to the motion.
145-23

2
Organizations, agencies, and persons authorized to access student
records shall include only the following: . . .
3. An adult student and/or a parent who has the written permission of
an adult student, except that the parent shall have access without the
adult student's consent, as long as the adult student is financially
dependent on the parent and enrolled in the public school system, or if
the adult student has been declared legally incompetent by a court of
appropriate jurisdiction. The parent of a financially dependent adult
student may not disclose information contained in the adult student's
record to a second or third party without the adult student's consent;
. . .
The ALJ found that since petitioner’s daughter is an adult who has graduated from the District, has not
been declared legally incompetent, and has not provided written permission for the release of her
student records, petitioner does not have the authority to access those records.
The Commissioner agrees with the ALJ, for the reasons stated in the Initial Decision, that
petitioner is not entitled to access his adult child’s student records. Accordingly, the Initial Decision of
the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter and the petition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
May 16, 2023
May 17, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00702-2023
AGENCY DKT. NO. 378-12/22
STEPHEN EGET,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MOUNTAIN
LAKES, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
Steven Eget, petitioner, pro se
Robert D. Lorfink, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty and Hara, attorneys)
Record Closed: March 24, 2023 	Decided: April 4, 2023
BEFORE SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner Steven Eget (Eget or petitioner) seeks the release of his eighteen-year-
old daughter’s school records. The Board of Education of the Borough of Mountain Lakes
(the Board or respondent) has denied Eget’s request for records.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00702-23
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal with the Commissioner of Education on or
around December 27, 2022, and the Commissioner transmitted the matter to the Office
of Administrative Law, where it was filed as a contested case on January 23, 2023.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
A prehearing conference was held on February 10, 2023, during which a hearing
was scheduled for March 27, 2023. 	During the prehearing conference, counsel for the
Board indicated that he intended to file a motion for summary decision. In the prehearing
order filed on February 13, 2023, the pro se petitioner was informed that he had twenty
calendar days to file a written opposition to the motion.
The Board filed a motion for summary decision on or around February 23, 2022.
When the petitioner failed to file a timely response to the motion, the undersigned sent
the parties a letter on March 20, 2023 adjourning the March 27, 2023 hearing date and
informing the parties that the deadline to file an opposition to the motion would be
extended to March 24, 2023. The petitioner never filed an opposition to the motion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the submissions presented, and the uncontroverted background facts, I
FIND the following:
Petitioner’s daughter, L.E., attended the Mountain Lakes School District. 	He is
estranged from his daughter. L.E. is over eighteen years old.
On December 16, 2022, petitioner contacted the Director of School Counseling for
the Mountain Lakes School District, to request disclosure of L.E.’s school records.
Petitioner informed the Director that he was in a long and drawn out divorce matter with
his former spouse who was refusing to disclose where L.E. was attending college, or even
confirm that she was, in fact, attending college. 	Petitioner’s request to access L.E.’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00702-23
3
records was denied. The Director informed the petitioner: “When a graduate has reached
the age of majority, her parents no longer have rights to her records; only she can request
records and/or release those records.”
The petitioner then cited to a provision of a 2018 court order stemming from his
divorce proceeding that was issued by the Superior Court, Chancery Division of the
County of Morris, that granted him “equal and unfettered access to both the children’s
health and education records.” That court order was entered before L.E. even began high
school. 	When petitioner made this request, L.E. was no longer attending the Mountain
Lakes school district, and had reached the age of eighteen.
The Director again responded to petitioner’s request, stating:
Under state law, N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5, access to an adult
student’s records can only be granted to the parent if the
parent has a written permission of the adult student, except
that the parent shall have access without the adult student’s
consent, as long as the adult student is financially dependent
on the parent and enrolled in the public school system, or if
the adult student has been declared legally incompetent by a
court of appropriate jurisdiction. 	Since your daughter is no
longer enrolled in the Mountain Lakes School District, and you
have 	not 	presented 	me 	with 	your 	daughter’s 	written
permission, you are not permitted access to her records.
The petitioner never provided the Board with L.E.’s written consent for her school records.
In his Petition of Appeal, Eget appears to rely on the aforementioned court order
from 2018. 	He also references N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.2, and states that, to the best of his
knowledge, the court has not emancipated L.E.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
In its motion, the Board asserts that there are no genuine issues of material fact in
the matter, and that its motion for summary decision must be granted as a matter of law.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00702-23
4
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b), summary decision “may be rendered if the
papers and discovery which have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, 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.” 	This rule is substantially similar to the summary
judgment rule embodied in the N.J. Court Rules, R. 4:46-2. See Judson v. Peoples bank
& Trust Co. of Westfield, 17 N.J. 67, 74 (1954). In connection therewith, all inferences of
doubt are drawn against the movant and in favor of the party against whom the motion is
directed. Id. at 75. In Brill v. Guardian Life Insurance Co., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995), the
New Jersey Supreme Court addressed the appropriate test to be employed in determining
the motion:
[A] determination whether there exists a “genuine issue” of
material fact that precludes summary judgment requires the
motion judge to consider whether the competent evidential
materials presented, when viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, are sufficient to permit a rational fact
finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of the non-
moving party. 	The “judge’s function is not . . . to weigh the
evidence 	and 	determine 	the 	truth 	of 	the 	matter 	but 	to
determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.”
[Citation omitted.]
Having reviewed the Board’s motion and supporting documents, I CONCLUDE
that this matter is ripe for summary decision as there are no genuine issues of material
fact. The facts presented by the Board are straightforward and undisputed.
The New Jersey State Legislature has conferred upon the Commissioner of
Education “jurisdiction to hear and determine . . . all controversies and disputes arising
under the school laws . . . or under the rules of the State board or of the commissioner.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9. Here, to the extent that Eget seeks relief pursuant to an order that was
issued five years ago by a Superior Court Judge in connection with a matrimonial matter,
that clearly falls outside the scope of the Commissioner’s jurisdiction as it does not involve
a dispute arising under the school laws. The Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to enforce
or interpret a Family Part court order.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00702-23
5
Eget’s Petition also references N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.2,1 which addresses parental access
to children’s records. 	It appears that Eget maintains that he is entitled to L.E.’s school
records because she has not been emancipated by any Court. 	Again, counsel for the
Board is correct to note that the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to enforce this statutory
provision, as it does not arise under the school laws.
N.J.A.C. 6A:32-7.5, which addresses access to student records, applies here. 	It
provides, in relevant part:
(a) 	Only authorized organizations, agencies, or persons, as
defined in this section, shall have access to student records,
including student health records.
. . .
(c) 	Each district board of education shall control access to,
disclosure 	of, 	and 	communication 	regarding 	information
contained in student health records to assure access only to
people permitted by Federal and State statute and regulations
or as stated at (e) below.
. . .
(e) 	Organizations, agencies, and persons authorized to
access student records shall include only the following:
1. 	The student who has the written permission of a
parent and the parent of a student under the age of 18,
regardless of whether the child resides with the parent, except
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 9:2-4;. . .
2. . . .
3. An adult student and/or a parent who has the written
permission of an adult student, except that the parent shall
have access without the adult student’s consent as long as
the adult student is financially dependent on the parent and
enrolled in the public school system, or if the adult student has
been declared legally incompetent by a court of appropriate
jurisdiction. 	The 	parent 	of 	a 	financially 	dependent 	adult
student may not disclose information contained in the adult
1 N.J.S.A. 9:2-4.2 provides in relevant part: “Every parent, except as prohibited by federal and State law,
shall have access to records and information pertaining to his or her unemancipated child, including, but
not limited to, medical, dental, insurance, child care and educational records, whether or not the child
resides with the parent, unless that access is found by the court to be not in the best interest of the child or
the access is found by the court to be sought for the purpose of causing detriment to the other parent.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 00702-23
6
student’s record to a second or third party without the adult
student’s consent;
. . .
14. 	Organizations, 	agencies, 	and 	persons 	from
outside the school if they have the written consent of the
parent or adult student. Organizations, agencies, and persons
shall not transfer student record information to a third party
without the written consent of the parent or adult student;
15. 	Organizations, agencies and individuals outside
the school, other than those specified in this section, upon the
presentation of a court order; . . .
Of the approximately sixteen categories of authorized agencies, organizations or
persons who may gain access to student records, there is no evidence that petitioner
would satisfy any of these categories. Since Eget’s daughter is an adult who no longer
attends school in the district; there is no indication that she has ever been declared legally
incompetent by any court; and as she never provided written permission for the release
of her school records, Eget is not authorized to obtain her records pursuant to N.J.A.C.
6A:32-7.5(e). Given the uncontroverted facts in this matter, and drawing all inferences of
doubt in favor of the petitioner, and against the Board, as the moving party, I CONCLUDE
that the Board must prevail as a matter of law.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the motion for summary decision filed by the Board is
GRANTED, and that the petition be dismissed.
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 00702-23
7
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, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO 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.
April 4, 2023
DATE 	SUSANA E. GUERRERO, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
jb