E.H., On Behalf of Minor Child, K.H. V. Board of Education of The Village of Ridgefield Park, Bergen County, 8/6/2024, (#299-24)

299-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
E.H., on behalf of minor child, K.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Village of Ridgefield Park,
Bergen County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that she and her minor child, K.H., are
no longer domiciled in the Village of Ridgefield Park and that K.H. is therefore no longer entitled to a free
public education in Ridgefield Park Schools. The Board contended that E.H. and K.H. have moved to Ridgefield,
which is a different school district. The Board filed a motion for summary decision; no tuition reimbursement
was sought for the period of K.H.’s ineligible attendance in Ridgefield Park schools.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: there are no material facts at issue here, and the matter is ripe for summary
decision; the respondent district held a residency appeal hearing on February 21, 2024; its decision, finding
that petitioner and her daughter no longer resided within the district, was issued on February 22, 2024; the
petitioner did not dispute that she has relocated; the family in this matter suffered a tragic loss that occurred
soon after the Board issued the within residency decision; pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3(a), tuition may be
assessed for the period of a student’s ineligible enrollment; 	however, nothing in the chapter precludes an
equitable determination, by the district board of education or the Commissioner, that, when the particular
circumstances of a matter so warrant, tuition shall not be assessed; here, the respondent Board submitted no
information as to tuition; 	therefore, no determination as to tuition can be made. 	The ALJ concluded that
petitioner’s residency appeal must be dismissed with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter and
dismissed the petition for the reasons expressed therein. The petition 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.

299-24
OAL Dkt. No. 05122-24
Agency Dkt. No. 62-3/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
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.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) finding that
petitioner and her minor child, K.H., were not domiciled in Ridgefield Park as of February 2024. The
Commissioner further concludes that K.H. was, therefore, not entitled to a free public education in the
Ridgefield Park School District during that time.1
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	August 6, 2024
Date of Mailing: 	August 7, 2024
1 The respondent did not seek reimbursement of tuition for the period of K.H.’s ineligible attendance.
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.
E.H., on behalf of minor child, K.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Village of Ridgefield Park,
Bergen County,
Respondent.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05122-24
AGY. DKT. NO. 62-3/24
E.H. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD K.H.,
Petitioner,
vs.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
VILLAGE OF RIDGEFIELD PARK,
BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
________________________________
E.H., on behalf of K.H., petitioner, pro se
David L. Disler, Esq., for respondent (Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C.,
attorneys)
Record Closed: July 1, 2024 	Decided: July 1, 2024
BEFORE THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner appeals the Final Notice of Determination of Ineligibility by Respondent
school district, dated February 22, 2024, wherein Respondent determined that the minor
child was ineligible to attend school in Respondent school district.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05122-24
2
Petitioner filed a pro se residency appeal with the Office of Controversies and
Disputes in the New Jersey Department of Education on March 11, 2024.
Respondent filed its Answer via letter from its counsel, dated April 2, 2024.
The matter was transferred to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it
was filed on April 15, 2024, as a contested case.
A prehearing conference Order was held on May 1, 2024, and a Prehearing
Order was entered on May 2, 2024.
The matter was listed for a hearing on June 12, 2024, but was adjourned to
permit respondent to file a motion for summary decision. 	Said motion was received on
May 13, 2024. 	Petitioner did not submit a reply to said motion. 	The matter was
scheduled for oral argument on July 1, 2024, should either party request the same.
Neither party did so.
ISSUE
Is the minor child eligible to attend school in the Village of Ridgefield Park school
district.
I FIND the following undisputed FACTS:
At the time of the filing of the residency appeal K.H. was a senior attending
Ridgefield Park High School. (see residency appeal)
The respondent Board had determined that petitioner and K.H. no longer resided
in the Village of Ridgefield Park and had relocated to Ridgefield, New Jersey, which is a
different school district. (See residency appeal and answer)
Petitioner filed a residency appeal with the respondent Board. 	Said appeal was
heard on February 21, 2024. 	The Board’s Final Notice Determination of Ineligibility,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05122-24
3
dated February 22, 2024, found that petitioner and her daughter did not reside in the
Village of Ridgefield Park and not entitled to a free education in said district. (see
residency appeal and answer)
On March 3, 2024, petitioner and her family suffered a terrible tragedy when
K.H.’s older sister committed suicide. (See residency appeal)
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application,
show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to
prevail as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported,
the non-moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact
which can only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding, in order to prevail in such
an 	application. Ibid. These 	provisions 	mirror 	the 	summary 	judgment 	language 	of
R. 4:46-2(c) of the New Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “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.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
And even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must
grant summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must
prevail as a matter of law.” Id. at 536 (citation omitted).
The material facts, as noted above, are entirely undisputed and the matter is ripe
for summary decision.
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.3 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05122-24
4
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.
If a school district discovers that a non-resident child is attending one of its
schools, 	the 	district 	may 	act 	to 	remove 	the 	child. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-
1(b)(2); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-4.3. If so, the chief school administrator must first issue a notice
of ineligibility. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-4.2, -4.3. The notice shall inform
the parent of the right to a hearing before the school district and the right to appeal the
school 	district’s 	decision 	to 	the 	Commissioner 	of 	Education. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-
1(b)(2); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-5.1. The notice shall also inform the parent whether the district’s
policy allows for continued attendance, with or without tuition, for students who move
out of the district during the course of the school year. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-4.2(b)(7)(i). If, on
appeal to the Commissioner, the parent fails to demonstrate his child’s entitlement to
attend the schools of the district, the parent may be liable for tuition for any period of
ineligible attendance. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-4.2; N.J.A.C.6A:22-6.2, -
6.3.
In the instant matter the respondent district held a residency appeal hearing on
February 21, 2024, and issued its decision on February 22, 2024, finding that petitioner
and her daughter no longer resided within the district. 	Petitioner does not dispute that
she has relocated.
According to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3(a), “[t]uition assessed pursuant to the provisions
of this section shall be calculated on a per student basis for the period of a student’s
ineligible enrollment, by applicable grade/program category and consistent with the
provisions of N.J.A.C. 6A:23-3.1. The individual student’s record of daily attendance
shall not impact on such calculation.” However, “[n]othing in this chapter shall preclude
an equitable determination, by the district board of education or the Commissioner, that,
when the particular circumstances of a matter so warrant, tuition shall not be assessed

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05122-24
5
for 	all 	or 	part 	of 	any 	period 	of 	a 	student’s 	ineligible 	attendance 	in 	the 	school
district.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.3(b).
The 	respondent 	submitted 	no 	information 	as 	to 	tuition. 	Accordingly, 	no
determination as to tuition can be made.
ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that Petitioner’s residency appeal is DISMISSED, with
prejudice.
I hereby FILE this initial decision with the ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is
authorized to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Acting 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 05122-24
6
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed 	to 	the 	parties, 	any 	party 	may 	file 	written 	exceptions 	with 	the 	ACTING
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. 	Exceptions may be
filed by email to ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of
Controversies and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton,
New Jersey 08625-0500. 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to
the other parties.
July 1, 2024
DATE 	THOMAS R. BETANCOURT, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05122-24
7
APPENDIX
List of Moving Papers
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision
Letter brief in support of motion
Pleadings:
Residency Appeal
Answer