B.M. on behalf of minor children, D.W. and A.W., V. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF UNION, 8/9/18, (#234-18)

234-18 (OAL Decision: Not available online)
B.M., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN, 	:
D.W. AND A.W.,
:
PETITIONER,
: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V.
: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF UNION, UNION COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
SYNOPSIS
Petitioner challenged the residency determination of the respondent Board that her minor
children are not entitled to a free public education in the Union Township School District.
Petitioner asserted that she and her children live with extended family in Union. 	The Board
contended that the results of a residency investigation showed that the children are domiciled
out-of-district, 	with 	their 	father, 	in 	Irvington. 	Accordingly, 	the 	Board 	sought 	tuition
reimbursement for both children for the entire 2017-2018 school year. 	The matter was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law as a contested case, and a hearing was held on
June 20, 2018.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	the issue herein is whether petitioner’s minor children are
eligible to attend Union Township school free of charge, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1;
petitioner and her two children – aged 10 and 18 – reside, for financial reasons, with B.M.’s
sister, N.E., in a three bedroom home in Union; petitioner works the night shift – from 11 pm to
7 am – as a nurse’s aide; the father of the children, who resides in Irvington, helped care for ten-
year-old A.W. at his apartment when B.M. was not be able to take her to school in the morning;
this situation existed because B.M. worked a second job as a morning baby sitter until the job
ended in March of 2018; thereafter, the children stayed in Union every night; despite the results
of the Board’s residency investigation, B.M. and her sister, N.E., testified credibly that B.M. and
her two children moved into N.E.’s home in Union after experiencing hard times when B.M. and
her husband separated. The ALJ concluded that it is clear from the documentary and testimonial
evidence that B.M. and her children have been domiciled within the Union school district since
the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year, and are therefore entitled to attend the Board’s
public schools free of charge.
Upon review of the record in this matter, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings
and conclusion, 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.
August 9, 2018

1
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04439-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 57-3/18
B.M., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILDREN, 	:
D.W. AND A.W.,
:
PETITIONER,
: 	COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
V.
: 	DECISION
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF UNION, UNION COUNTY, 	:
RESPONDENT. 	:
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed, as have the exceptions filed pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 by the Board.
Petitioner did not file a reply.
In its exceptions, the Board urges the Commissioner to reject the Initial Decision,
which found that petitioner and the minor children were domiciled in Union Township and were
therefore entitled to attend school in Union Township free of charge. 	The Board argues that the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) discounted the evidence submitted by the Board’s investigator, who
– between October 2017 and June 2018 – conducted surveillance fifty-eight times on the
Union Township address, where petitioner claims she lives with her sister, and the Irvington address,
where the children’s father lives. The Board notes that the investigator did not observe petitioner or
her children leave the Union Township home in the morning or return from school in the afternoon,
except for a few occasions when petitioner’s car would drive up in the afternoon, a child would run
into the house and back out to the car, which would then drive away. The investigator did, however,
observe petitioner’s car parked at the Irvington address on fifteen dates from October 2017 to
January 2018, but not after. The Board maintains that petitioner did not submit any evidence besides

2
her testimony and that of her sisters, which the Board argues is self-serving. 	As such, the Board
contends that in light of the evidence, petitioner did not meet her burden of demonstrating that she
lives in Union Township.
Upon review, the Commissioner notes that the ALJ had the opportunity to assess the
credibility of the various witnesses who appeared before her and make findings of fact based upon
their testimony, and the ALJ found the testimony of petitioner and her sisters to be credible. Despite
evidence submitted by the Board, the ALJ found the testimony and explanation by the witnesses
concerning their living situation and whereabouts on the dates in question to be credible. 	In this
regard, the clear and unequivocal standard governing the Commissioner’s review is:
The agency head 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)].
The Commissioner finds no basis in the record to disturb the ALJ’s credibility assessments. As such,
the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner is domiciled in Union Township and
therefore the minor children are entitled to attend school in the District free of charge.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: August 9, 2018
Date of Mailing: August 9, 2018
1 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36
(N.J.S.A. 18A:6-9.1).