K.P. on behalf of minor child, I.M. v. Board of Education of the Pascack Valley Regional High School District, Bergen County, 10/8/24 (#364-24)

364-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09166-23
Agency Dkt. No. 223-8/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
K.P., on behalf of minor child, I.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Pascack 	Valley
Regional High School District, Bergen County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioner pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Board’s reply thereto,
have been reviewed and considered.1
Petitioner and her daughter, I.M., have lived in the Township of Saddle Brook since at
least 2011, in a home she owns. Beginning in January 2021, I.M. attended school in respondent’s
district as a non-resident student pursuant to a discretionary Special Education Tuition Contract
Agreement (agreement) between respondent and the Saddle Brook Board of Education (Saddle
Brook).2 Per the agreement’s terms, Saddle Brook agreed to reimburse the Board for educating
I.M., a Saddle Brook resident, at Pascack Valley Regional High School (PVRHS) from January 11,
1 Petitioner’s response to the Board’s reply was not considered by the Commissioner because N.J.A.C. 1:1-
18.4 does not permit the filing of a response to a reply.
2 Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-3(a) and N.J.A.C. 6A:22-2.2, school districts have the discretion to admit
nonresident students with consent of the board of education.

2
2021, through June 16, 2021. Saddle Brook and the Board entered into subsequent agreements
for school years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
In July 2023, Saddle Brook submitted another agreement to the Board for the 2023-2024
school year, which was I.M.’s final year of high school. 	The related admission application,
completed by petitioner and dated June 23, 2023, states that petitioner and I.M. reside in
Saddle Brook as they had in prior years. On July 27, 2023, the Board informed Saddle Brook that
it rejected the agreement for the 2023-2024 school year. Petitioner was informed of same in
writing on August 4, 2023, and requested a statement of reasons for the Board’s decision. On
August 7, 2023, the Board provided a written statement to petitioner which cited numerous
reasons for their decision to reject the agreement, including her lack of civility and repeated,
belligerent behavior toward the school dance coach, guidance counselor, and other staff
members which created a substantial disruption at PVRHS.
Two days later, on August 9, 2023, petitioner attempted to enroll I.M. at PVRHS as a
resident of Montvale by claiming that she and I.M. lived in Montvale with Fatima Spiradinova in
Spiradinova’s home. In support of the application, petitioner submitted Residency Affidavit #1:
Oath of Non-Support by Non-Resident Parent (petitioner’s affidavit), which contained conflicting
statements. 	Petitioner’s affidavit states that she and I.M. had resided in Spiradinova’s home
since August 2023, and that she was not capable of caring for or supporting her child due to her
health. 	Her affidavit states in one section that Spiradinova was supporting I.M. without any
financial contributions from her, and yet, in the same affidavit, she also states that she was
supporting I.M. and remained responsible for her. Spiradinova submitted Residency Affidavit #2:
Oath of Support for Non-Resident Child by District Resident (Spiradinova’s affidavit), which states

3
that she was supporting I.M. due to financial hardship without any financial contribution from
petitioner and that I.M. lived in her home.
On August 10, 2023, PVRHS notified petitioner in writing that they denied the enrollment
application. Via letter dated August 22, 2023, PVRHS gave petitioner the opportunity to appear
before the Board at an upcoming meeting to provide information to support her claim that she
was now domiciled in Montvale. In that letter, PVRHS informed petitioner that “the timing of
[her] alleged ‘residency’ in Montvale, being represented only three days after notification of the
termination of the prior tuition contract relationship with the Saddle Brook School District, raises
significant questions regarding [its] validity.” Exhibit P-166.
On September 12, 2023, after considering additional information petitioner presented to
the Board at its meeting, PVRHS issued petitioner a Notice of Final Ineligibility (Notice) regarding
I.M. In the Notice, PVRHS concluded that: petitioner was not domiciled in Montvale; petitioner
was domiciled in Saddle Brook; and—even assuming petitioner was temporarily living in
Montvale, despite the Board’s conclusion to the contrary—the reason for doing so was solely to
receive a free public education at PVRHS, contrary to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.2(c)(1). Accordingly, I.M.
was not entitled to a free public education at PVRHS. The Notice informed petitioner that tuition
for I.M.’s period of ineligible attendance could be assessed against her by the Commissioner, to
be calculated at the approximate rate of $134.38 per day.
Petitioner appealed, and the matter was transmitted to the OAL for a hearing which took
place on May 14, May 21, and June 4, 2024. Petitioner submitted hundreds of pages of exhibits,
called numerous witnesses, and also testified on her own behalf. 	As indicated in the
Initial Decision, petitioner testified that she began living with Spiradinova in July 2023 because of

4
her health and her inability to live alone.3 	Petitioner’s testimony was contradicted by her
therapist, who testified that petitioner has suffered from illness since at least 2006, does not
need constant supervision by an adult, and can live alone. Petitioner further testified that she
was living with Spiradinova because of financial issues. For her part, Spiradinova initially testified
that she has helped three other family members who lived with her enroll at PVRHS and that she
is very familiar with the required forms. However, she later testified that she is not very fluent
in English, and that the forms were confusing to her. Spiradinova did not testify that she was
supporting I.M. financially as if she were her own child, or that I.M. intended to live with her for
any period longer than her final year of high school.
Ultimately, the ALJ held that petitioner failed to meet her burden, by a preponderance of
credible evidence, to demonstrate that she was domiciled in Montvale. 	Specifically, the ALJ
found that: 	(1) petitioner and I.M. are not domiciled in Montvale and remain domiciled in
Saddle Brook; (2) because the Board declined to renew the tuition agreement with Saddle Brook
for the 2023-2024 school year, petitioner applied for enrollment for I.M. at PVRHS as a resident
of Montvale; and (3) petitioner used Spiradinova’s Montvale address for the sole purpose of
receiving a free education at PVRHS for I.M., in violation of law. Accordingly, the ALJ determined
that petitioner owes the Board tuition payments for I.M. for the 2023-2024 school year in the
amount of $24,322.78.
In 	her 	exceptions, 	petitioner 	expresses 	her 	strong 	disagreement 	with 	the 	ALJ’s
determination. She reiterates the arguments she made during the OAL hearing – primarily, that
various documents in the record (including bank statements, motor vehicle licenses, and
3 The parties have not provided the Commissioner with copies of the hearing transcripts.

5
registrations) coupled with witness testimony establish that she and I.M. moved to Spiradinova’s
home in Montvale in August 2023 due to her financial and health issues. Petitioner’s exceptions
also include vitriol toward the ALJ.
In response, the Board argues that the ALJ’s factual findings, credibility determinations,
and conclusions are supported by the record and should be adopted. The Board reiterates its
position that petitioner’s purported temporary residence in Montvale with Spiradinova—which
commenced just days after receiving notice that I.M.’s non-residency student application for the
2023-2024 school year was denied—was for the sole purpose of receiving a free education in the
Pascack Valley Regional High School District in violation of N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.2(c)(1).
Upon careful review, the Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s comprehensive Initial Decision
as the final decision in this matter. 	Under New Jersey law, I.M. is entitled to a free public
education in the school district in which she is domiciled. 	N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a). 	“A student is
domiciled in the school district when he or she is the child of a parent or guardian whose domicile
is located within the school district.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1). 	See Somerville Bd. of Educ. v.
Manville Bd. of Educ., 332 N.J. Super. 6, 12 (App. Div. 2000) (“A child’s domicile is normally that
of his or her parents.”), aff’d, 167 N.J. 55 (2001). “Domicile” in this context means a “true, fixed,
permanent home.” D.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Princeton Reg’l Sch. Dist., 366 N.J. Super. 269, 273 (App.
Div. 2004). “[A] person may have several residences or places of abode, but only one domicile at
a time.” 	Id. at 274. 	The parent “’shall have the burden of proof by a preponderance of the
evidence’ to prove domicile in the school district.” Ibid. (quoting N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2)).
With respect to I.M.’s ineligibility under N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) to attend school free of
charge at PVRHS, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that the documentary evidence in the

6
record coupled with the hearing testimony confirms that petitioner remains domiciled in
Saddle Brook, not in Montvale. 	Her true, fixed, and permanent home is in Saddle Brook. 	A
temporary stay with Spiradinova in Montvale does not equate to a true, fixed, and permanent
home in Montvale. Contrary to the assertions petitioner makes in her exceptions, nothing in the
record supports a finding that petitioner relinquished her domicile in Saddle Brook at any point
during the 2023-2024 school year.
More specifically, the fact that petitioner might have intended to list her home for sale in
July 2024 fails to support her position that she was not domiciled in Saddle Brook during the
2023-2024 school year. Similarly, the fact that she might have leased certain rooms of her Saddle
Brook home to other individuals fails to support her position that she was not domiciled in Saddle
Brook. Additionally, having mail delivered to Spiradinova’s Montvale address does not establish
that petitioner is no longer domiciled in Saddle Brook. 	Furthermore, the fact that petitioner
provided bank statements, motor vehicle licenses, and registrations listing the Montvale address
as her own does not establish that she is no longer domiciled in Saddle Brook when considering
the record as a whole. Accordingly, the Commissioner holds that I.M. was ineligible to attend
school free of charge at PVRHS pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) because petitioner, with whom
I.M. lives, was domiciled in Saddle Brook.
That said, relevant to the facts at issue herein, the Commissioner must consider two
related exceptions to the general rule expressed in N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) that permit a student to
attend school at a district in which they are not domiciled under certain circumstances. First, if
the student is living with a person other than his parent or guardian, and that person is domiciled
in the school district and is supporting the student “without renumeration as if the student were

7
his or her own child,” then the student is eligible to attend school in the district pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b). N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.2(a). However, N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) “requires a showing
by the child’s parent or guardian that he or she is incapable of caring for the child due to ‘family
or economic hardship’ and that the child is not residing in the district solely for purposes of
receiving a free public education in the district.” P.B.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Tenafly, 343
N.J. Super. 419, 428 (App. Div. 2001).
To satisfy the requirements of N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b), the student’s parent or guardian must
file, “together with documentation to support its validity, a sworn statement that he or she is not
capable of supporting or providing care for the student due to family or economic hardship and
the student is not residing with the other person solely for the purpose of receiving a free public
education,” and the person who is providing care for the student must provide “[a] sworn
statement that he or she is domiciled within the school district, is supporting the child without
renumeration and intends to do so for a time longer than the school term, and will assume all
personal obligations for the student pertaining to school requirements.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:22-
3.2(a)(1)(ii)(1), (2).
Second, “[a] student is eligible to attend the school district pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-
1(d) if the student’s parent or guardian temporarily resides within the school district and elects
to have the student attend the school district of temporary residence, notwithstanding the
existence of a domicile elsewhere.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.2(c). However, “no student shall be eligible
to attend school based upon a parent or guardian’s temporary residence in a school district
unless the parent demonstrates, if required by the district board of education, the temporary

8
residence is not solely for purposes of a student’s attending the school district.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-
3.2(c)(1), (2).
The Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that I.M. is not entitled to attend PVRHS free of
charge pursuant to either N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) or N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d). Petitioner has failed to
demonstrate that she is incapable of caring for I.M. due to a family or economic hardship, or that
her temporary residence in Montvale with Spiradinova was not solely for purposes of I.M.
attending PVRHS. Initially, the timing of the commencement of petitioner’s temporary residency
in Montvale cannot be overlooked. It occurred suddenly, just days after the Board rejected the
tuition agreement with Saddle Brook for the 2023-2024 school year. 	And although petitioner
claimed that she was living in Montvale with Spiradinova out of necessity due to her health and
financial issues, the record as a whole lacks credible evidence to support those claims.
While petitioner’s affidavit states that she was unable to provide care for I.M. due to her
health, nothing in the record establishes that her health problems rendered her unable to provide
care for I.M., a high school student. As for any alleged economic hardship, petitioner’s financial
situation is unclear at best. The extent of her income, assets, and liabilities is unknown. The
record suggests that she might have been receiving unemployment benefits of unknown
amounts at some point during 2023. However, she did not provide bank statements or other
documents to demonstrate whether her income could support her expenses. The record lacks
any documentation to suggest that she had fallen behind on her mortgage payments or other
bills.
Moreover, petitioner has failed to establish that Spiradinova was supporting I.M. without
renumeration, with the intent to do so for a time longer than the school term. 	As noted,

9
petitioner’s conflicting affidavit states both that Spiradinova was supporting I.M. without any
financial contributions from her, and also that petitioner was supporting I.M. and remained
responsible for her. While Spiradinova’s affidavit states that she was supporting I.M. without any
financial contribution from petitioner, she testified at the hearing that she is not very fluent in
English, and that the forms were confusing to her. Neither petitioner nor Spiradinova produced
any documentation to demonstrate that Spiradinova was supporting I.M. Petitioner also testified
that I.M. would be leaving New Jersey for college at the conclusion of the school year, which
undercuts any claim that Spiradinova intended to support I.M. for a time longer than the school
term. Accordingly, the Commissioner holds that I.M. was not entitled to attend PVRHS pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) or N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d), as she has not demonstrated that she is incapable
of caring for I.M. due to a family or economic hardship, or that her temporary residence in
Montvale with Spiradinova was not solely for purposes of I.M. attending PVRHS.
It is important to recognize that the ALJ’s conclusions in this matter are intertwined with
credibility determinations that are entitled to deference. Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c), the
Commissioner “may not reject or modify any findings of fact as to issues of credibility of lay
witness testimony unless it is first determined from a review of the record that the findings are
arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or are not supported by sufficient, competent, and credible
evidence in the record.” “When such a record, involving lay witnesses, can support more than
one factual finding, it is the ALJ’s credibility findings that control, unless they are arbitrary or not
based on sufficient credible evidence in the record as a whole.” Cavalieri v. Bd. of Trs. of Pub.
Empl. Ret. Sys., 368 N.J. Super. 527, 537 (App. Div. 2004). “[I]t is not for . . . the agency head to
disturb [the ALJ’s] credibility determination, made after due consideration of the witnesses’

10
testimony and demeanor during the hearing.” H.K. v. Dep’t of Human Servs., 184 N.J. 367, 384
(2005).
The ALJ found that petitioner “was loud and belligerent, and many times during the
hearing she would digress with long monologues, which would increase in volume, speaking over
everyone else. 	Many times, she would make disparaging comments about the witnesses,
including offensive comments about their appearance.” Initial Decision, at 7. And although the
record is replete with threatening emails sent by petitioner to various staff members at PVRHS,
the ALJ found that petitioner “denies being threatening in her emails to Pascack and states that
her language is not threatening—that it is just words.” Ibid. The Commissioner also finds that
petitioner’s affidavit discussed herein, which contains conflicting information, is of questionable
veracity. 	The Commissioner finds no reason to disturb the ALJ’s assessment of petitioner’s
credibility.
Consequently, the Commissioner shall assess tuition against petitioner for the time period
during which I.M. was ineligible to attend school at PVRHS. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a), if
“petitioner does not sustain the burden of demonstrating the student’s right to attend the school
district, . . . the Commissioner may assess tuition for the period during which the hearing and
decision on appeal were pending, and for up to one year of a student’s ineligible attendance in a
school district prior to the appeal’s filing and including the 21-day period to file an appeal.”
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) 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 number of days
of ineligible attendance.” As found by the ALJ, based upon a daily rate of $134.38 and 181 days

11
of ineligible attendance, the total amount of tuition owed by petitioner to the Board is
$24,322.78.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed. 	The Board’s claim for tuition payments is granted.
Petitioner shall pay the Board for I.M.’s tuition costs for the 2023-2024 school year in the amount
of $24,322.78.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	October 8, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	October 9, 2024
4 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.