J.A., on behalf of minor children, A.A. and T.A. v. Board of Education of the Township of Hamilton, Mercer County, 1/17/19, (#22-19)

22-19
J.A., on behalf of minor children, A.A. and T.A., 	:
Petitioner, 	:
Commissioner of Education
V. 	:
Decision
Board of Education of the Township of 	:
Hamilton, Mercer County,
:
Respondent.
:
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her child, A.A., was not entitled
to a free public education in Hamilton Township schools. The matter concerning petitioner’s other minor
child, T.A., was resolved prior to hearing, and is not included herein. 	Petitioner contended that she is
domiciled with her children in Hamilton and is separated from T.A., the children’s father, who lives in
Trenton. The Board argued that a residency investigation indicated that J.A. is not domiciled in Hamilton
Township. Petitioner asserted that she and the children are legally domiciled in Hamilton, but because of
her work schedule, she often relies on T.A. to assist with childcare. 	Petitioner sometimes works night
shifts, during which the children sleep at their father’s home in Trenton. A hearing in this matter was held
in October 2018, and an Initial Decision was issued thereafter.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioner produced substantial evidence of her residence in Hamilton,
including government-issued identification and court records; petitioner credibly testified that she relies
upon T.A.’s assistance with child care, and during the times that T.A. is caring for his children, they are at
T.A.’s house in Trenton; otherwise, J.A. is the primary caretaker of the children; there is no evidence that
this child care arrangement alters the domicile of J.A. and her children; the Board’s argument that the
residency investigation establishes that A.A. resides at the Trenton address rather than the Hamilton
address is without merit, as A.A. was seen exiting T.A.’s Trenton house only eleven times over a period
of sixty-three school days, and the Hamilton address was surveilled on only two occasions; the evidence
is insufficient to support a finding that A.A. resided in Trenton. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner
and her children are domiciled in Hamilton Township. Accordingly, A.A. was entitled to a free public
education in the District’s schools, and ordered that the respondent Board’s residency determination in
this matter be reversed.
Upon review of the record of this matter, as well as the ALJ’s decision, the Commissioner concurred that
A.A. was entitled to attend school in Hamilton Township. According, the Initial Decision was adopted as
the final decision in this matter, and the Board’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.
January 17, 2019

1
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 13235-18
Agency Dkt. No. 201-8/18
J.A., on behalf of minor children, A.A. and T.A., 	:
Petitioner, 	:
Commissioner of Education
V. 	:
Decision
Board of Education of the Township of 	:
Hamilton, Mercer County,
:
Respondent.
:
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL) have been reviewed.1 The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) that
petitioner sustained her burden of demonstrating that she was a domiciliary of Hamilton from
February 13, 2018 through the end of the 2017-18 school year. Accordingly, the minor child A.A. was
entitled to a free public education in the in the District’s schools during that time.2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this
matter. The Board’s counterpetition for tuition is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 17, 2019
Date of Mailing: January 17, 2019
1 The Commissioner was not provided with a transcript of the October 22, 2018 hearing at the OAL.
2 The matter concerning the minor child T.A. was resolved prior to the hearing. Accordingly, this matter only involves A.A.’s
enrollment in the District’s schools.
3 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).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
AGENCY DKT. NO. 201-8/18
J.A., ON BEHALF OF MINOR
CHILDREN, A.A. AND T.A.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF HAMILTON, MERCER
COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________________________
J.A., on behalf of minor children, A.A. and T.A., petitioner, pro se
Patrick F. Carrigg, Esq., for respondent (Lenox, Socey, Formidoni, Giordano,
Cooley, Lang and Casey, attorneys)
Record Closed: October 22, 2018 	Decided: December 6, 2018
BEFORE JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, J.A., appealed the decision of the Hamilton Township Board of Education
(Board or respondent) that her children were ineligible to attend school in Hamilton, New

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
2
Jersey. The petitioner also appealed the Board’s determination that she is responsible for
the payment of tuition for the period her children attended school in Hamilton, New Jersey,
while they were ineligible.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 25, 2018, the Board issued a second notice of ineligibility, for attendance
commencing February 13, 2018. 	The petitioner filed a timely appeal on August 20, 2018.
The Board filed an Answer and Counterpetition for an Order Assessing Tuition on
September 6, 2018. The Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes
transmitted the matter to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed
September 11, 2018, as a contested case pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13 and
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15. 	The matter was heard on October 22, 2018. 	During the
hearing, counsel for the Board advised that the only issue to be decided was the
petitioner’s residency from 	February 13, 2018, though the end of the 2017-2018
calendar year, with respect to only A.A.’s enrollment. 	The matter concerning child T.A.
had been resolved prior to the hearing date. The record closed October 22, 2018.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The following is undisputed and I, therefore, find the following as FACT:
1. 	Petitioner, 	J.A., 	had 	a 	daughter, 	A.A., 	who 	was 	registered 	to 	attend
kindergarten at Greenwood Elementary School (Greenwood) in Hamilton,
New Jersey.
2. 	On 	February 	6, 	2017, 	the 	Board 	Residency 	Committee 	(Committee)
conducted a residency hearing concerning A.A.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
3
3. 	The Committee determined A.A. resided in Trenton and not in Hamilton.4
She was therefore ineligible to attend school in Hamilton from November 15,
2016, through December 15, 2016, twenty school days.
4. 	The Committee determined the petitioner was responsible for the tuition for
the twenty school days, at the per diem rate of $64.19. 	The total amount
owed was $1,283.80.
5. 	The 	Board 	subsequently 	determined 	that 	A.A. 	resided 	primarily 	at 	the
Hamilton address.
6. 	The Board initiated a second investigation on April 6, 2018. 	It found A.A.
resided in Trenton, not Hamilton.
7. 	A residency hearing was conducted June 21, 2018.
8. 	On August 3, 2018, the Board determined A.A. resided in Trenton and was
ineligible to attend school in the Hamilton Township School District.
Testimony
For the respondent
Michael Celentana, a residency investigator for the respondent, testified an
investigation was initiated in response to a call from a “tipster”, a private citizen who
made a complaint. 	(R-3 at 5.) 	A.A., who was in first grade, was registered to attend
Greenwood, with the Hamilton address listed as her home address. Celentana testified
that 	A.A.’s 	parents 	resided 	at 	the 	Trenton 	address. 	The 	Hamilton 	and 	Trenton
residences were approximately one-half mile apart.
4 For ease of reference, the two addresses at issue will be referred to as the “Hamilton address” and “Trenton
address” throughout this decision.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
4
As part of his investigation, Celentana surveilled the Hamilton and Trenton
addresses. 	Because school started at 8:50 a.m., he surveilled the residences between
8:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 	Celentana recorded his observations in an April 6, 2018,
“Residency Investigation” report. (R-3 at 2-4.)
Celentana surveilled the Hamilton address on February 13, 2018, between 8:00
a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 	He did not see A.A. exit the residence. 	He confirmed that she
attended school that day. He was not advised that she arrived late that day.5
On February 15, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at 7:55 a.m.
At approximately 8:32 a.m., he observed A.A. leave the residence and enter a red
Cadillac car driven by her mother, J.A. 	They drove to Greenwood and A.A. exited the
car and entered the school building. He confirmed that A.A. attended school that day.
On February 21, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at 8:00 a.m.
At approximately 8:34 a.m., he observed A.A. exit the residence and she entered the
same Cadillac. 	The petitioner drove the car to Greenwood. 	A.A. exited the car and
entered the school. He confirmed that A.A. attended school that day.
On February 22, 2018, Celentana surveilled the Trenton address, starting at
approximately 8:05 a.m. 	At approximately 8:35 a.m., A.A. exited the residence and
entered the Cadillac. 	The petitioner drove the car to Greenwood; A.A. exited the car
and entered the school. Celentana confirmed that A.A. attended school that day.
On February 23, 2018, he surveilled the Hamilton address from 8:05 a.m. to 9:00
a.m. 	He did not observe A.A. exit the residence. 	He later confirmed A.A. reported to
school late.
On 	February 	26, 	2018, 	he 	surveilled 	the 	Trenton 	address, 	starting 	at
approximately 8:06 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:34 a.m. and
entered a white Dodge van driven by T.A., her father. 	Celentana followed the van to
5 He would have been advised if A.A. had arrived late to school.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
5
Greenwood. 	A.A. exited the van and entered the school. 	He confirmed she attended
school that day.
On March 14, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:05 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:25 a.m. and entered the white
van, which was driven by T.A. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A. exited
the van and entered the school. He confirmed she attended school that day.
On March 15, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:05 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:30 a.m. and entered the white
van. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A. exited the van and entered the
school. He confirmed she attended school that day.
On March 23, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:05 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:35 a.m. and entered the red
Cadillac, which was driven by J.A. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A.
exited the van and entered the school. He confirmed she attended school that day.
On March 27, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:05 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:35 a.m. and entered the red
Cadillac, which was driven by J.A. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A.
exited the van and entered the school. He confirmed she attended school that day.
On March 28, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:05 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:35 a.m. and entered the red
Cadillac, which was driven by J.A. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A.
exited the van and entered the school. He confirmed she attended school that day.
On April 5, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:20 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:37 a.m. and entered the white
van, which was driven by T.A. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A. exited
the van and entered the school. He confirmed she attended school that day.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
6
On April 6, 2018, he surveilled the Trenton address, starting at approximately
8:15 a.m. 	A.A. exited the residence at approximately 8:28 a.m. and entered the white
van. 	Celentana followed the van to Greenwood. 	A.A. exited the van and entered the
school. He confirmed she attended school that day.
The Trenton address was approximately two miles from Greenwood. 	A person
leaving the Trenton address at 8:35 a.m. could arrive to Greenwood on time. Celentana
did not observe A.A. leave the Hamilton address during his investigation.
Donald Ellison was the Supervisor of Central Registration for the Board since
February 2018. 	He was responsible for supervising investigative staff and overseeing
and reviewing cases and investigative reports. 	He was previously a detective with the
Mercer 	County 	Prosecutor’s 	Office 	for 	twenty-nine 	years 	and 	Mercer 	County
Undersheriff for five years. 	Ellison spoke with J.A. after he received Celentana’s
investigation 	report. 	He 	wanted 	to 	provide 	her 	an 	opportunity 	to 	challenge 	the
observations and ask any questions she might have. 	She “acknowledged” that A.A.
exited the Trenton address and referenced her child care needs. 	She also stated that
her mother owns both properties and paid taxes on both.
Ellison directed investigator Clarence Stockton to investigate, to provide a “fresh”
review of the facts. Stockton surveilled the Trenton address and prepared a Residency
Investigation report. (R-3 at 15-28.) He wrote that he arrived at the Trenton address on
May 16, 2018 “after the . . . family entered a red Cadillac [license plate number], I was
unable to get a photograph of them entering or exiting but have one of the vehicle
leaving the school[.]” (R-3 at 15.)
On 	May 	18, 	2018, 	he 	surveilled 	the 	Trenton 	address 	at 	8:00 	a.m. 	At
approximately 8:27 a.m., he observed the petitioner, A.A., and a juvenile male exit the
residence and get into a red Cadillac with the same license plate as on May 16, 2018.
He followed the car to Greenwood. They entered the school. Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
7
Stockton surveilled the Trenton address on June 5, 2018, June 13, 2018, June
15, 2018, and June 20, 2018. 	He did not see the petitioner or A.A. exit the home. 	He
learned that A.A. did not attend school those days. Ibid.
Stockton appended to his report photographs taken May 16, 2018, May 18, 2018,
June 5, 2018, June 13, 2018, June 15, 2018, and June 20, 2018. 	(R-3 at 16-28.)
Ellison testified that the photographs were compelling evidence that A.A. did not reside
in the Hamilton School District. 	Ellison did not testify concerning the substance of the
photographs.
Ellison 	referenced Stockton’s testimony during a 	June 21, 2018, residency
eligibility hearing before a committee of the Board of Education. 	The petitioner was
present during the hearing. 	Ellison did not refer to specific portions of Stockton’s
testimony or discuss the contents of the photographs. (P-4.)
Ellison concluded, based on the two investigative reports, that A.A. did not reside
in Hamilton Township. 	He noted there was no evidence of a custody agreement that
would impact his assessment. The respondent determined the petitioner owed $14,034
for the 2017-2018 school year.
For the petitioner:
J.A. testified that her children resided with her. 	Their father, T.A., from whom
she was separated, helped her by watching the children when J.A.’s work schedule
prevented her from getting them to school. 	Her job required her to work late nights
during its peak seasons.6
J.A. and T.A. are not divorced and there was not a consent order governing
custody of their children. 	A restraining order prohibited T.A. from going to J.A.’s home
in Hamilton. (P-7.) However, the order permitted him to “have contact with his children
6 At the time of the hearing, she was not working late nights but expected that she would be required to
do so in November, when the holiday season began.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
8
at any time at his place of residence.” Ibid. T.A. previously owed over $12,000 in child
support. 	Despite this, he had begun to address his problems with addiction and mental
health, and “started stepping up” with respect to helping with the children. 	J.A.
reasoned that it would work to her advantage to allow T.A. to provide child care when
she needed it, rather than paying a considerable sum of money to a stranger. 	In
exchange, she relinquished her entitlement to the past due child support payments,
which T.A. had not paid. 	(P-4.) 	She noted that, in addition to providing her with
necessary child care, this arrangement helped “keep the drama down” between her and
T.A.
J.A.’s mother owned the homes at the Hamilton and Trenton addresses. 	(P-3,
10, 12.) J.A. rented the Hamilton house from her mother. T.A. and two roommates7, all
of whom were listed on the lease, rented the Trenton house from J.A.’s mother. Ibid.
In addition to both leases, J.A. produced multiple records to document that she
resided in Hamilton and T.A. resided in Trenton. They included:
J.A.’s records
• 	Driver’s license
• 	Medicare Card
• 	Vehicle registration8
• 	Car insurance
• 	Car loan
7 J.A. produced records documenting that the two roommates resided at the Trenton address. (P-13, 15.)
8 The registration indicated the vehicle was a Cadillac with same license plate as observed by investigator Celentana.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
9
• 	Banking statements
• 	Income tax records
• 	Credit card records
• 	Investment account statement9
(P-2.)
T.A.’s records
• 	Court documents
• 	Board of Social Service records
• 	Tax records
• 	Motor Vehicle Commission records
• 	Utility bills
• 	Credit card bills
• 	Employment records
(P-6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 16-22.)
J.A. produced a September 13, 2018, letter written by T.A. 	(P-9.) He wrote that
he 	moved 	to 	the 	Trenton 	address 	in 	2014, 	after 	he 	and 	J.A. 	separated. 	He
acknowledged difficulties in their marriage and that law enforcement had become
involved and that he is not permitted to visit the Hamilton home. 	He wrote that the
9 The above records concern only J.A.; there is no indication that T.A. is registered or otherwise affiliated with these
accounts. The records bear varied dates. The driver’s license and Medicaid card were issued March 24, 2017, and
May 1, 2008, respectively. The other documents are dated from February 22, 2018, through July 13, 2018.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
10
Board “is insisting that I am not allowed to spend parenting time with my children
because I reside in the City of Trenton.” Ibid.
J.A. did not dispute that her children left the Trenton home some mornings. 	She
stressed, however, that they did not live there. 	Rather, their caretaker, who happened
to be their father, watched the children when J.A.’s job required her to work night shifts.
She noted that she does not work a regular “9:00 to 5:00 job” and does not have the
freedom to make her own work schedule. 	She must accept the work hours she is
assigned, including overnight hours. 	On those occasions, she would need assistance
with child care and her children, including A.A., who would sleep at the Trenton
address. She would drive them to school, if she got out of work in time, and then go to
her home in Hamilton. Otherwise, T.A. would drive them.
Additional Findings
It is the obligation of the fact finder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. 	Credibility is the value that a fact finder gives to a witness’ testimony.
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence that makes it worthy
of belief. “Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself. 	It must be such as the common experience and
observations of mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.” In re Estate of
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). 	To assess credibility, the fact finder should consider
the witness’ interest in the outcome, motive, or bias. A trier of fact may reject testimony
because it is inherently incredible, or because it is inconsistent with other testimony or
with common experience, or because it is overborne by other testimony. 	Congleton v.
Pura-Tex Stone Corp, 53 N.J. Super. 282, 287 (App. Div. 1958).
As the fact finder, I had the ability to observe the demeanor, tone, and physical
actions of the petitioner during the hearing. 	She testified calmly and clearly throughout
the hearing, while expressing appropriate concern about her circumstances. 	Her
explanation was consistent and comported with the realities associated with having a
job that creates child care challenges. 	Her testimony concerning her difficult history
with her spouse and their efforts to improve the relationship bolsters her account further.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
11
It is reasonable that she would seek to resolve her child care needs while attempting to
improve 	her 	relationship. 	Further, 	the 	petitioner 	provided 	numerous 	records
documenting that she and T.A. resided separately. 	T.A,’s letter, although hearsay,
corroborated J.A.’s account. 	He explained that he lived separately from J.A., was
prohibited from visiting the Hamilton house, but wanted to spend time with his children.
His time with them was necessarily spent in the Trenton house.
Based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence, and having had the
opportunity to observe the appearance and demeanor of the witnesses, I FIND the
following as FACT:
1. 	J.A. resided at the Hamilton address with her children, including A.A., during the
months at issue.
2. 	T.A. resided at the Trenton address during the time at issue.
3. 	The children did not live with T.A.
4. 	The children stayed with T.A. when J.A. was unable to be with them due to her
work schedule.
5. 	The two Board investigators conducted their investigations over a period of sixty-
three school days.10
6. 	Celentana surveilled the Hamilton house twice. A.A. did not exit the house either
time. 	She reported to school late one of those days and was absent the other
day.
7. 	Stockton did not surveil the Hamilton house.
10 Celentana’s investigation was conducted from February 16, 2018, through April 6, 2018. Judicial notice is taken
that there were thirty-seven school days during this period, not considering holidays. Stockton’s investigation began
May 16, 2018, and ended June 20, 2018, during which there were twenty-six school days, not considering holidays.
Thus, their combined investigations spanned sixty-three school days.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
12
8. 	Celentana observed A.A. exit the Trenton house and be driven to Greenwood
eleven times.
9. 	Stockton observed A.A. exit the Trenton house and be driven to Greenwood
twice. 	A.A. did not exit the Trenton house the four other times he observed the
house. A.A. did not attend school those days.
10. A.A. exited the Trenton house and was driven to Greenwood a total of thirteen
times during the sixty-three-day investigation.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
Any child between the ages of five and twenty years old is entitled to a free public
education in the district in which he is a resident. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-
3.1(a). 	A student is a resident of a school district if his parent or guardian has a
permanent home in the district such that “the parent or guardian intends to return to it
when absent and has no present intent of moving from it, notwithstanding the existence
of homes or residences elsewhere.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1). 	A student may attend
school in a district in which he is a non-resident, with or without payment of tuition, at
the discretion of the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-3(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-2.2.
Domicile has been defined as the place where a person has his true, fixed,
permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he
has the intention of returning. State v. Benny, 20 N.J 238, 250 (1955). The domicile of
an unemancipated child is that of his or her parent, custodian or guardian. P.B.K. o/b/o
minor child E.Y. v. Board of Ed. of Tenafly, 343 N.J. Super 419, 427 (App. Div. 2001).
The question of domicile is one of fact and must be determined on a case-by-case
basis. Lea v. Lea, 18 N.J. 1, 7 (1955). A person may have multiple residences but may
have only one domicile at a time; as such, the residence may coincide with domicile, but
does not alone determine domicile. Ibid.
The regulations contemplate that parents may not reside in the same school
district. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)1.i provides, “When a student’s parents are domiciled in
different school districts, and there is no court order or written agreement between the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
13
parents designating the school district of attendance, the student's domicile is the
school district of the parent or guardian with whom the student lives for the majority of
the school year. 	This subparagraph shall apply regardless of which parent has legal
custody.” 	The regulations also contemplate that a student may live with both of his
parents an equal amount of time. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)1.ii provides:
When a student's physical custody is shared on an equal-
time, alternating week/month or other similar basis so the
student 	is 	not 	living 	with 	one 	parent 	or 	guardian 	for 	a
majority of the school year and there is no court order or
written 	agreement 	between 	the 	parents 	designating 	the
school district of attendance, the student's domicile is the
present domicile of the parent or guardian with whom the
student resided on the last school day prior to the October
16 preceding the application date.
Here, the petitioner produced substantial evidence of her residence, including
government-issued identification and court records. 	There is not a consent order or
other written agreement designating A.A.’s school district and there is neither an
assertion nor evidence suggesting that T.A. shared equal custody or responsibility for
A.A. Rather, J.A. credibly testified that she avails herself of T.A.’s assistance with child
care. 	The children are with T.A. at those times. 	Otherwise, J.A. is their primary
caretaker. There is no evidence that this child care arrangement alters their domicile.
The Board argued that the investigators’ findings establish that A.A. was not
merely visiting the Trenton house but, rather, that she resided there. 	A.A. exited the
house eleven times over a period of sixty-three school days. 	They surveilled the
Hamilton address only two times. The substance of the photographs taken by Stockton
was 	not 	discussed 	during the 	hearing and 	was 	not 	self-explanatory. 	Given 	the
petitioner’s credible testimony about her family needs and caretaking arrangement, I
FIND the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that A.A. resided in Trenton.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the petitioner established that she and
her daughter, A.A. were domiciled in Hamilton and that A.A. is eligible to attend school

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
14
there. Accordingly, I hereby ORDER that: (1) A.A. was properly enrolled in the Hamilton
Township School District for the period commencing February 13, 2018, through the
end of the 2017-2018 school year; and (2) the Board's Counterpetition for tuition
reimbursement 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.
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.
December 6, 2018
DATE 	JUDITH LIEBERMAN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
/vj

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
15
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For petitioner:
J.A.
For respondent:
Michael Celentana
Donald Ellison
Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-1 	Letter from petitioner to Commissioner of Department of Education
P-2 	Copies of petitioner’s driver’s license, Medicare card, vehicle registration,
car 	insurance, 	car 	loan 	statements, 	banking 	statements, 	income 	tax
records, credit card records, investment account statement
P-3 	Rental agreement
P-4 – 8 Court orders
P-9 	Letter from T.A.
P-10 	Rental agreement
P-13 – 22 Copies of T.A.’s records reflecting his address

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 13235-18
16
For respondent:
R-1 -2 	None
R-3 	Board investigatory file, including Residency Investigation reports
R-4 	Transcript of June 21, 2018 Residency Hearing before Board Committee