S.M. on behalf of minor child, J.C. v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, 11/20/2023, (#341-23)

341-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
S.M., on behalf of J.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
In this matter on remand, pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her
daughter – who has now reached the age of majority and graduated – was not entitled to a free public
education in Elizabeth schools during the period from February 2023 through the end of June 2023. The Board
contended that J.C. lived in Roselle during this period. Petitioner asserted that she and her daughter were
domiciled in Elizabeth during the period in question; however, J.C. spends time before and after school at her
grandmother’s home in Roselle because there is no internet service in the Elizabeth apartment. The Board
sought tuition reimbursement for the period of J.C.’s alleged ineligible attendance in Elizabeth schools. The
Commissioner remanded the matter to the OAL for the limited purpose of allowing the ALJ to make factual
findings regarding two of the Board’s exhibits which were not addressed in the Initial Decision and which the
Board contends prove that J.C. was living in Roselle and not Elizabeth during the period in question.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: J.C.’s testimony regarding the exhibits in question indicated that
Roselle was listed as the address on her driver’s license and bank account because her vehicle is leased and her
mother wanted her to park the car at her grandmother’s house where parking is easier; 	further, J.C.
experienced some issues with mail getting lost when sent to the Elizabeth address; J.C. used her Elizabeth
address on other documents such as employment records; J.C.’s testimony made sense and was very credible;
and there was no intent on the part of the petitioner and her daughter to evade school officials. 	The ALJ
concluded that the petitioner met her burden of proof regarding J.C.’s residency in Elizabeth. Accordingly, the
ALJ reversed the Board’s determination that J.C. was not entitled to a free public education in Elizabeth
schools and denied the Board’s counterclaim for tuition.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings and conclusions of the ALJ on remand and
adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this case. Accordingly, the petition of appeal
was granted, and respondent’s counterclaim for tuition was dismissed.
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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09106-23 (EDU 02774-23 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 80-3/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
S.M., on behalf of J.C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)
issued July 19, 2023, respondent Board’s exceptions thereto, and the Initial Decision of the OAL
on remand issued October 13, 2023, have been reviewed and considered.
This matter concerns the Board’s determination that J.C., who has reached the age of
majority, was not domiciled in Elizabeth from February 2023 through the end of June 2023 and
the resultant demand for payment of tuition in the amount of $4,084.43. The petitioner
appealed the Board’s determination, claiming that she and her daughter resided in Elizabeth
during the time period at issue, and the matter was transmitted to the OAL for a contested
hearing. S.M., J.C., and the Board’s investigator testified at the hearing.
In an Initial Decision issued July 19, 2023, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded
that the very credible testimony of S.M. and J.C., coupled with documents in evidence presented
by both parties, constituted sufficient credible evidence to establish that J.C. resided in Elizabeth
341-23

2
during the time period in question even though she also spent time at a relative’s home in Roselle
before and after school. Consequently, the ALJ granted petitioner’s appeal and denied the
Board’s counterclaim for tuition.
In their exceptions, the Board contended, among other things, that prior to the hearing,
“J.C. provided her driver’s license and bank statement,” marked in evidence as R-11 and R-12,
“which indicated her address was [in] Roselle.”1 Respondent’s Exceptions, at 3. The Board
further contended that neither S.M. nor J.C. addressed these documents during their hearing
testimony; however, the Commissioner could not verify same because the record does not
contain the hearing transcripts. For these reasons, the Commissioner remanded the matter to
the OAL pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.7(a) for the purpose of allowing the ALJ to render factual
findings pertaining to R-11 and R-12, to explain the weight she assigned to those exhibits, and to
discuss the effect, if any, those exhibits had on her ultimate conclusions of law.2
In response to the remand, the ALJ issued a supplemental Initial Decision on October 13,
2023, in which she rendered the additional factual findings requested by the Commissioner.
Specifically, the ALJ found as fact that J.C. testified that she used her grandmother’s Roselle
address on her driver’s license (as shown on R-11) and bank account (as shown on R-12) because
1 R-11 is a photograph of J.C.’s New Jersey Probationary Auto License, issued July 11, 2022, and lists her address as
a relative’s home in Roselle. R-12 is a copy of J.C.’s monthly bank statement for April 2023 which also lists the same
Roselle address.
2 The Commissioner finds the remaining contentions in respondent’s exceptions to be unpersuasive. Respondent
seeks to rely primarily upon physical and electronic surveillance activities conducted by its investigator—some of
which took place on weekends, holidays, and even after the school year ended. The Commissioner agrees with the
ALJ, who thoroughly considered the relevant documentary evidence as well as the investigator’s testimony, that his
investigation was incomplete. The Commissioner finds that the information obtained by the investigator was, at
best, inconclusive. Furthermore, the Commissioner rejects respondent’s contention that petitioner’s failure to call
S.N. as a witness should result in an adverse inference. Aside from the fact that it does not appear from the record
that respondent ever asked the ALJ to draw an adverse inference, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
anything prevented respondent from calling S.N. as a witness had it wished to do so.

3
of where her mother wanted her to park her vehicle and because she experienced some issues
with mail getting lost when sent to the Elizabeth address.3 The ALJ also found that J.C.’s Elizabeth
address appeared on various documents including a pay stub, a W-2, and a job application, as
shown on exhibits marked P-1, P-2, and P-3 in evidence. Moreover, the ALJ found that J.C.’s
testimony regarding R-11 and R-12 was “very credible” and “made sense.” Initial Decision
(supplemental), at 2. In addition, the ALJ found that “J.C. made conscious, thought-out decisions
every time she was required to provide an address to a third party” and that “[n]one of this was
done to evade school officials.” Ibid.
The Commissioner adopts the ALJ’s Initial Decision issued July 19, 2023, as supplemented
by the Initial Decision issued October 13, 2023, as the final decision in this matter. Upon
consideration of the additional factual findings made by the ALJ, coupled with the ALJ’s
determination that J.C. testified very credibly regarding R-11 and R-12, the Commissioner is
satisfied that petitioner’s residency appeal should be granted.
When reviewing an ALJ’s Initial Decision, 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.” N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10(c);
Parsells v. Bd. of Educ. of Borough of Somerville, Somerset Cnty., 254 N.J. 152, 159 (2023) (holding
that the ALJ’s credibility findings are entitled to deference). “When such a record, involving lay
witnesses, can support more than one factual finding, it is the ALJ’s credibility findings that
3 In the Initial Decision issued July 19, 2023, the ALJ found that S.M. very credibly testified that she required J.C. to
park her leased vehicle at the Roselle address because parking was insufficient or unsafe at the Elizabeth address,
and S.M. was concerned about the vehicle acquiring damage.

4
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).
Following a careful review of the entire record, the Commissioner has identified nothing
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable about the ALJ’s findings, which are adequately supported
by sufficient, competent, and credible evidence. The Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that
J.C. was domiciled in Elizabeth between February 2023 through the end of June 2023, and that
J.C. was therefore entitled to a free education in Elizabeth’s public schools during that time
period. Thus, the Board is not entitled to reimbursement from the petitioner for tuition costs.
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby granted, and respondent’s counterclaim for
tuition is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
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.
November 20, 2023
November 22, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
(SUPPLEMENTAL)
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09106-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 80-3/23
, 	(ON REMAND)
OAL DKT. EDU 02774-23
S.M., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD J.C.,
Petitioner
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________________________
S.M. and J.C., pro se
Brian Kane, Esq., for respondent Elizabeth Board of Education (LaCorte, Bundy,
Varady and Kinsella, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 9, 2023 	Decided: October 13, 2023
BEFORE GAIL M. COOKSON, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter involved an appeal by S.M. from the non-residency determination
made by the Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth (Board) with respect to her
daughter J.C., who has now reached the age of majority and graduated. 	Petitioner

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09106-23
2
challenged the finding of the Board that they were not domiciled in the district and that
J.C. was not entitled, therefore, to a free education.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By Initial Decision dated July 19, 2023, I ruled in favor of petitioner’s appeal of the
Board’s residency determination. 	The matter was then reviewed by the Commissioner
who determined on August 22, 2023, that the factual record was unclear as to two exhibits
(R-11, R-12) that related to the assertion of residency in the district of Elizabeth.
Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the OAL on September 13, 2023.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION
I will not burden the record with duplicative information from the record already
admitted during the prior plenary hearing and evaluated in the Initial Decision.
I apologize to the Commissioner and the parties that I did not comment on and
refer to Exhibits R-11 and R-12. In reviewing the record, it is clear to me and I FIND that
J.C. testified that she used her grandmother’s Roselle address on her driver’s license (R-
11) and bank account (R-12) because of where her mother wanted the vehicles parked
and some issues with mail getting lost when addressed to 1422 Lower. She did use her
1422 Lower address on her job applications, and for her payroll and tax information.
I FIND the testimony of J.C. to have been very credible with respect to Exhibits R-
11 and R-12. They made sense and it was clear that J.C. made conscious, thought-out
decisions every time she was required to provide an address to a third party. 	None of
this was done to evade school officials and I so FIND.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner S.M. has met the burden of proof on her
appeal of the Board’s non-residency and de-enrollment determinations. Therefore, I also

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09106-23
3
CONCLUDE that the Board is not entitled to an award in its favor on the counterclaim for
the full amount of the partial school year tuition cost.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is ORDERED
that the relief requested by S.M. on behalf of J.C. be and the same is GRANTED and her
residency appeal is UPHELD. The decision of the Board with respect to J.C.’s right to a
free public education in Elizabeth is REVERSED. 	Accordingly, it is further ORDERED
that 	respondent 	City 	of 	Elizabeth 	Board 	of 	Education’s 	counterclaim 	for 	tuition
reimbursement be and the same is DENIED.
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.
October 13, 2023
DATE 	GAIL M. COOKSON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	10/13/23
Date Mailed to Parties: 	10/13/23
id

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09106-23
4
APPENDIX
LIST OF EXHIBITS
All Exhibits were provided with the original Initial Decision EDU 02774-23
For Petitioner:
P-1 	J.C. Paystub
P-2 	J.C. W-2
P-3 	Elizabeth Department of Recreation Application, Summer 2022
For Respondent:
R-1 	Petitioner J.C.’s Demographics
R-2 	Residency Affidavit C – Temporary Housing, dated September 9, 2021
R-3 	S.N. CLEAR Background Check
R-4 	Electronic data of J.C.’s school laptop locations
R-5 	Notice of Initial Determination of Ineligibility, dated February 23, 2023
R-6 	Documents submitted by S.M. on behalf of J.C.
R-7 	Notices of Final Ineligibility for J.C., dated March 8, 2023
R-8 	Summary of Residency File Report, dated March 28, 2023
R-9 	Petitioner J.C.’s CLEAR Background Check
R-10 	Petitioner J.C.’s CLEAR Background Check for Elizabeth, NJ
R-11 	Petitioner J.C.’s Driver’s License
R-12 	Petitioner J.C.’s Bank Statement S.M. on behalf of minor children, J.C.
R-13 	Photograph Surveillance, dated June 7, 2023