Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional School District, Burlington County v. Raymond Marini, Interim Executive County Superintendent, New Jersey State Department of Education;Board of Education of the Northern Burlington County Regional School District, Burlington County; and Z.L. and T.L., on behalf of minor children, J.L. and B.L., 7/6/2023, (#202-23)

202-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional
School District, Burlington County,
Petitioner,
v.
Raymond Marini, Interim Executive County Superintendent,
New Jersey Department of Education, Board of Education
of the Northern Burlington County Regional School District,
Burlington County, and Z.L. and T.L., on behalf of minor
children, J.L. and B.L.,
Respondents.
Synopsis
In this matter on remand, the Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional School District (Bordentown)
appealed the determination of respondent Raymond Marini, Interim Executive County Superintendent (ECS), that
Z.L. and T.L. and their minor children are homeless. Bordentown contended that Z.L. and T.L. are domiciled in
Bordentown, as they have resided in the Bordentown home of T.L.’s mother since they lost their housing within
the Northern Burlington County Regional School District (Northern Burlington) due to financial hardship, and
further argued that Bordentown is therefore not financially responsible for tuition costs related to J.L. and B.L.’s
attendance in Northern Burlington schools for the 2020-2021 school year and beyond. Following issuance of an
Initial Decision on July 22, 2022, in which the ALJ found that the L family was no longer homeless, the
Commissioner remanded the matter to the OAL for further development of the record to determine whether the
family’s housing was regular, fixed and adequate, as well as a factual determination as to the date when the
family were no longer homeless.
On remand, the ALJ found, inter alia, that: Z.L. and T.L. have lived in Bordentown with T.L.’s mother for five years
and have no plans to relocate; the family has full access to the Bordentown home’s kitchen and second
bathroom; while the space is tight, all family members have a bed; and the Bordentown home is a fixed, regular,
and adequate place to live; accordingly, the children can no longer be considered homeless. The ALJ concluded
that the family have become residents of Bordentown; the ECS’s determination of homelessness should be
reversed; and Bordentown has no financial responsibility for the children’s attendance in Northern Burlington
schools; further, Northern Burlington has no basis for tuition reimbursement for the school years prior to 2020-
2021.
Upon review, the Commissioner, inter alia, agreed with the ALJ that the L family is no longer homeless and
adopted the Initial Decision with modification, finding that Bordentown is responsible for the cost of educating
the L children during the 2020-2021, 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 school years and may seek reimbursement from
Z.L. and T.L. for certain costs that exceed the cost Bordentown would have incurred to educate them in its own
schools.
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 09659-22
(EDU 01639-22 On Remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 7-1/22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board of Education of the Bordentown
Regional School District, Burlington County,
Petitioner,
v.
Raymond Marini, Executive County
Superintendent, New Jersey Department of
Education, Board of Education of the
Northern Burlington County Regional School
District, and Z.L. and T.L., on behalf of minor
children, J.L. and B.L.,
Respondents.
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 respondents
Northern Burlington County Regional Board of Education (Northern Burlington) and Z.L. and T.L.,
and the reply thereto filed by petitioner Bordentown Board of Education (Bordentown).
The L. family resided in Chesterfield, which is part of the Northern Burlington school district,
until they lost their housing due to financial hardship. They moved in with T.L.’s mother in
Bordentown. The children continued to attend school in Northern Burlington, and Bordentown
assumed responsibility for the cost of their tuition and transportation for the 2018-2019 and 2019-
202-23

2
2020 school years. On October 14, 2021, after Bordentown challenged the family’s homelessness
status, Executive County Superintendent (ECS) Raymond Marini issued a determination that the
family was still homeless. Bordentown filed an appeal challenging this ECS decision and seeking a
determination that Bordentown had become the family’s permanent residence, and that
Bordentown is not responsible for the cost of educating the children for the 2020-2021 school year
and future years. J.L. continued to attend school in Northern Burlington through the 2021-2022
school year, then transferred to an online private school for the 2022-2023 school year; the record
indicates that he is scheduled to graduate in 2023. B.L. continues to attend school in Northern
Burlington through the present; Z.L. testified that B.L. is on track to graduate in June 2024 although,
as a special education student, he may be able to continue his education beyond the standard four
years of high school.
On July 22, 2022, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued an Initial Decision finding that
the family was no longer homeless. On October 19, 2022, the Commissioner remanded the matter
to the OAL for further development of the record. Following a hearing, the ALJ found that the
Bordentown home is a fixed, regular, and adequate place to live and that the children can no longer
be considered homeless. The ALJ noted that the family has lived in Bordentown for five years and
has made no effort to find other housing. Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that the children have
become residents of Bordentown and that Bordentown has no financial responsibility for their
attendance in Northern Burlington for the 2020-2021 or 2021-2022 school years. The ALJ also
concluded that Northern Burlington has no basis for tuition reimbursement for the school years
prior to 2020-2021.
In their exceptions, Z.L. and T.L. argue that they were uprooted when Z.L. got sick and was
unable to keep his job, leading to the loss of the family’s house. They note that B.L. has special

3
needs and that it is in his best interests to remain in Northern Burlington schools for his senior year,
as requiring him to switch schools will result in him becoming violent and inconsolable to the point
that he would simply be unable to attend school and therefore would not graduate in June 2024 as
anticipated.
In its exceptions, Northern Burlington argues that Bordentown failed to prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that the L. family is no longer homeless. According to Northern
Burlington, Bordentown did not seek any discovery from the L. family and improperly placed the
burden on the L. family to show that they were homeless. Northern Burlington also contends that
the family’s living arrangements are not fixed, regular, or adequate, with two children sharing a
bed, an adult child sharing a room with a parent, and the other parent sleeping on an air mattress in
a common area, with the rooms so small that their dressers line the hallways. Northern Burlington
notes that Z.L. testified that he sent in seven apartment applications but was denied based on his
credit score, demonstrating that the family does not have the ability to find alternate housing.
Furthermore, Northern Burlington argues that Bordentown is fiscally responsible for the
children’s education regardless of whether the family was homeless. Northern Burlington contends
that if the family remained homeless, Bordentown would be responsible for their costs once they
had resided in Bordentown for one year, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d). If the family was not
homeless, Bordentown would still be responsible for their costs, pursuant to J.G., o/b/o T.G. and
C.G. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Twp. of Edison, Middlesex Co., and Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of
Milltown, Middlesex Co., Commissioner Decision No. 125-20 (June 15, 2020), which held that the
district where the G. family lived when they became homeless was not responsible for the costs of
the children’s tuition after they became domiciled in a new district.

4
In its reply, Bordentown argues that there is ample evidence in the record to support the
ALJ’s conclusion that the Bordentown home is fixed, regular, and adequate, and that the L. family is
no longer homeless. Bordentown notes that Z.L. testified that he had only applied for housing
seven times in the more than five years since the family moved to Bordentown – with the most
recent application occurring in the summer of 2022 – and that the family has refused to look in any
districts other than Northern Burlington. According to Bordentown, the parents’ preference to
have their children remain in Northern Burlington schools is insufficient to support a finding of
homelessness. Bordentown argues that the family’s income, in combination with their lack of
housing expenses or bills since 2017 should allow them to obtain another residence and that there
is no necessity to their remaining in Bordentown.
Bordentown also argues that Northern Burlington incorrectly relies on J.G., supra, to
support its contention that Bordentown is responsible for the children’s costs even if they are no
longer homeless. Bordentown distinguishes this matter from J.G., noting that J.G. was initiated as a
residency case, which entitled the parents to keep their children enrolled in their school during the
pendency of the appeal. The student’s original district had attempted to disenroll the children and
thereby put a stop to its accrual of tuition and transportation costs – something that Northern
Burlington never attempted to do here. Additionally, the district where the G. family moved never
notified them that it was disputing their continued homeless status – something that Bordentown
did do here. Bordentown also argues that it would not have incurred any costs if the L. children
attended school in Bordentown, as it owns and operates its own fleet of buses and is currently
experiencing declining enrollment that would have allowed adequate space for the L. children.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the L. family is no longer homeless.
Under the McKinney-Vento Act, homeless children are defined as “individuals who lack a fixed,

5
regular and adequate nighttime residence,” which includes “children sharing housing with other
persons due to loss of their own housing, economic hardship, or a similar reason.” 42 U.S.C.A. §
11434a. Similarly, under state law, homeless children are defined as “child[ren] or youth who lack[]
a fixed, regular, and adequate residence pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 and N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.2,”
which includes children living in the “residence of relatives or friends where the homeless child
resides out of necessity because his or her family lacks a regular or permanent residence of its
own.” N.J.A.C. 6A:17-1.2 and 2.2.
Thus, conducting a homelessness evaluation to determine whether a child’s home is
considered fixed, regular, and adequate requires a fact-specific analysis and “cannot rest upon a
simple calculation of the amount of time that children have spent in a particular location or
municipality.” M. O’K. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Cresskill, et al, Commissioner
Decision No. 325-14, decided August 12, 2014, at 3, aff’d, A-0828-14T4 (App. Div. September 8,
2016). In conducting such a fact-specific inquiry, the Commissioner must consider the totality of
the circumstances, as “[t]he reasons for the children’s homelessness, their living conditions, and the
resources and intentions of the parents or custodians are relevant.” Ibid.
The Commissioner has previously addressed the fact-specific nature of a homelessness
inquiry. In M. O’K., supra, following the foreclosure of their home in Cresskill, the O’K family
occupied the bottom floor of their relatives’ house in Little Ferry, which consisted of one small
bedroom and a common area, without a bathroom or kitchen. The parents and two of the children
shared the bedroom, while their third child slept in the common area. At the time of the litigation,
neither parent was employed, and the family’s sole income consisted of Social Security Disability
benefits. During the pendency of the litigation, the O’K family represented that they were actively
searching for a house in Cresskill. The Commissioner found, and the Appellate Division affirmed,

6
that the O’K family became homeless due to the foreclosure of their home in Cresskill, and although
they had been deemed domiciled in Little Ferry as a result of their residence in the district for over
one year, they continued to remain homeless due to their shared living conditions and the parents’
economic hardship.
In contrast, in State-Operated School District of the City of Camden, Camden County v. C.
Ann Volk, Executive County Superintendent, New Jersey Department of Education, and E.H., on
behalf of minor child, K.M., Commissioner Decision No. 172-17R, decided June 20, 2017, the family
relocated from Voorhees to Camden due to economic hardship that prevented them from
continuing their lease. In the Camden residence, the family was able to use the entire residence
and was not relegated to a portion of the home that would otherwise be considered inadequate.
E.H., the children’s mother, argued that the residence was inadequate because the siblings had to
share a room, which the Commissioner found was not uncommon. Furthermore, given E.H.’s
ongoing employment at an annual salary of $65,000, the Commissioner was not persuaded that she
was unable to find suitable housing in Voorhees, particularly in light of her testimony that she had
stopped looking for apartments. The Commissioner found that the family was not residing in the
Camden residence of out necessity and that it qualified as a “fixed, regular, and adequate”
nighttime residence, such that the family was not homeless. Ibid.
Similar to Camden, in J.G., on behalf of minor children, T.G. and C.G. v. Board of Education of
the Township of Edison, et al, Commissioner Decision No. 125-20, decided June 15, 2020, the G.
family moved in with J.G.’s mother in Edison after being evicted from their home in Milltown. The
family was able to use three of the four bedrooms, the kitchen, bathrooms, all common areas, and
utilities in the Edison home. J.G. and his wife were both employed, with an income of $71,000 a
year, but they did not pay rent or contribute to housing costs, other than food and a storage facility.

7
While they stated that their intent was to move back to Milltown, there was no documentation of
their search for a new home, and J.G. admitted that he had not submitted a rental application in at
least six months. The Commissioner found that, while J.G.’s intention may be to eventually move
back to Milltown, the totality of the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the family is no
longer homeless.
Here, the L. family’s circumstances demonstrate that while their living situation may not be
ideal due to tight quarters, it is fixed, regular, and adequate. The Commissioner does not find
Northern Burlington’s exceptions to be persuasive.1 The testimony demonstrates that the family
has full access to two bedrooms, the kitchen and a full bathroom, with T.L.’s mother also having her
own full bathroom. Petitioners have an income of approximately $62,000 per year but do not pay
rent or any other expenses for the Bordentown home except for the television bill. Z.L. testified
that he had applied for rental apartments in Northern Burlington but was denied due to his credit
score. However, he also testified that he had applied for rental apartments only seven times over
more than five years, had not applied for any rentals since the summer of 2022, and had not
applied for housing in any other school districts because he and T.L. wanted the children to remain
in Northern Burlington’s schools. These facts are comparable to those in Camden, supra, in which
the parents had poor credit and debts, including default judgments, and had been rejected for
rentals. Additionally, the siblings shared a room, as B.L. and J.L. do here, and one parent slept in the
living room, as Z.L. does here. However, they had full access to the home where they were residing;
had an income of $65,000 per year; and had stopped looking for other housing. The family in
Camden was found not to be homeless. See also J.G., supra.
1 Z.L. and T.L.’s exceptions do not specifically argue that the ALJ incorrectly concluded that they were no longer
homeless, but rather address what they believe to be in the best interests of the children. However, that analysis
is only applicable when the children have been determined to be homeless. N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12.1.

8
The L. family has resided in the Bordentown home for more than five years. “[W]hen a
homeless family moves into a relative’s home that is adequate – and the adults in the family are
sufficiently employed with the financial means to find alternative housing, and the family continues
to live in the home for an extended period of time without any imminent or foreseeable risk of
losing their place in that home, and they share the space as a cohesive unit – a finding of
homelessness would be improper.” Camden, supra. While the L. family may eventually intend to
leave the Bordentown home, that intent alone is insufficient to support a finding of homelessness;
the totality of the facts in this case demonstrate that the family is no longer homeless and has not
been homeless since at least the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year.2
As J.L. and B.L. were neither homeless nor residents of Northern Burlington, they were not
entitled to a free public education in Northern Burlington’s schools during the 2020-2021, 2021-
2022, or 2022-2023 school years. However, as the children did attend Northern Burlington schools,
the Commissioner must determine who bears the financial responsibility for their attendance.
Northern Burlington is not the responsible party, as its obligation to provide the children with a free
public education ceased when the family became domiciled in Bordentown in 2018, after one year
of living with T.L.’s mother, in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d) and N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.3. On the
other hand, the purpose of the McKinney-Vento Act and the related state law is to ensure that a
homeless child is not denied a free public education; it is not meant to enable a child to receive an
education in a school district of preference by circumventing residency requirements. Camden,
supra.
2 Because Bordentown has already paid Northern Regional for the children’s tuition for the 2018-2019 and 2019-
2020 school years, and is not contesting payment for those years, it is not necessary for the Commissioner to
determine whether the family’s residence in Bordentown became fixed prior to the 2020-2021 school year.

9
In Camden, supra, once the Commissioner determined that the children resided in Camden
and were not homeless, Camden was held responsible for paying tuition to Voorhees, where the
children attended school. However, Camden was permitted to recover from the parent the
difference between the per pupil cost of education and transportation in Camden and the costs
paid to Voorhees for the children. Ibid. Similarly, in J.G., supra, once the Commissioner determined
that the children resided in Edison and were not homeless, Edison was held responsible for paying
tuition to Milltown, where the children attended school. Edison was permitted to recover the
difference in costs. Ibid.
This case presents a similar scenario. Bordentown is the district where the children were
domiciled for the 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years and is therefore the district
responsible for their education. Accordingly, Bordentown must reimburse Northern Burlington for
the cost of educating the children in Northern Burlington.
Bordentown may seek reimbursement from Z.L. and T.L. for certain costs that exceed the
cost Bordentown would have incurred to educate the children in its own schools. This amount shall
be calculated as the total of 1) the difference between the cost of the children’s transportation to
Northern Burlington and any cost of transportation Bordentown may have incurred had the
children attended school in Bordentown, and 2) the difference between Northern Burlington’s
annual per pupil cost for the 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years and Bordentown’s
per pupil cost for each of those years.
The Commissioner acknowledges that the amount Bordentown will be required to pay to
Northern Burlington includes special education tuition and related costs for B.L., making those
payments significantly higher than the per pupil cost that a district incurs to educate a general
education student. However, the Commissioner has previously concluded in student residency

10
matters that a board of education’s ability to recover tuition costs from a parent is limited. N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1(b) provides that if a parent loses a residency appeal, the Commissioner shall assess 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.” The statute does not specify that the assessed tuition
be equal to the actual costs incurred by the district for educating the student at issue. Instead, it
uses the measure of annual per pupil cost, which is based on the district’s overall costs and
enrollment and is not specific to any individual student. See N.J.-B., on behalf of minor child, I.T. v.
Board of Education of the Township of Union, Union County, Commissioner’s Decision No. 112-20,
decided April 24, 2020 (finding that tuition reimbursement is limited to 1/180 of the per pupil cost
and does not include the assessment of special education and related costs). While this matter was
not opened as a residency matter, because this decision assesses tuition costs against respondents
Z.L. and T.L. for the cost of their children’s ineligible attendance in Northern Burlington, the
Commissioner concludes that it is appropriate to apply the statute and case law related to residency
assessments to this matter.
Bordentown argues that it should not be responsible for any costs for the 2020-2021, 2021-
2022, or 2022-2023 school years and attempts to distinguish J.G because that case was initiated as
a residency matter and because the district where the G. family moved never notified them that it
was disputing their homelessness status. However, Bordentown fails to acknowledge that the
Commissioner ordered a similar reimbursement structure in Camden, which was initiated as an
appeal of a homelessness determination by an ECS, just as this case was. Accordingly, the
Commissioner does not find Bordentown’s exceptions persuasive. The Commissioner also rejects
Bordentown’s argument that since it was under its targeted enrollment, the district would incur no
additional cost for educating J.L. and B.L. This argument mischaracterizes the costs of education as

11
being solely those arising from hiring a teacher to provide instruction to students. However, school
funding and student tuition payments are based on many categories of expense that are averaged
across all students. See, e.g., N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-17.1 (establishing the means of determining the
“actual cost per student” for determining tuition rates and including the cost of textbooks,
instructional equipment, teaching supplies, land and building rentals, school-sponsored activities,
administration services, technology, training, and numerous other types of expenses in addition to
teacher salaries). Furthermore, as noted above, because B.L. is a special education student, his
educational costs exceed those of a general education student, and such costs would have been
incurred by Bordentown if B.L. had attended school in its school district, as Bordentown wished, for
those school years.3
Regarding Northern Burlington’s cross-petition for tuition for the 2015-2016, 2016-2017,
and 2017-2018 school years, the claim rests on a handwritten note from T.L.’s mother indicting that
the family had been living with her, which is dated October 13, 2014. However, during the hearing,
counsel for Northern Burlington agreed that the family became homeless in 2017, not in 2014.
Additionally, Z.L. testified that the family moved to Bordentown in April 2017. Therefore, the
Commissioner finds that Northern Burlington has no basis for tuition reimbursement and the cross-
petition is dismissed.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as modified herein. Bordentown is ordered to
reimburse Northern Burlington for the costs of J.L. and B.L.’s attendance at Northern Burlington
County Regional High School for the 2020-2021, 2021-2022, and 2022-2023 school years.
3 Bordentown has presented no argument that the additional services provided for B.L. were inappropriate or
excessive, and, indeed, Bordentown paid those costs to Northern Burlington for the 2018-2019 and 2019-2020
school years.

12
Bordentown may seek reimbursement from Z.L. and T.L. as outlined herein. B.L. shall be enrolled in
Bordentown for the 2023-2024 school year.
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.
July 6, 2023
July 7, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09659-22
AGENCY DKT. NO. 7-1/22
(ON REMAND EDU 01639-22)
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
BORDENTOWN REGIONAL SCHOOL
DISTRICT, BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Petitioner,
v.
RAYMOND MARINI, INTERIM EXECUTIVE
COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT, NEW
JERSEY STATE DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, BOARD OF EDUCATION OF
THE NORTHERN REGIONAL COUNTY
SCHOOL DISTRICT, BURLINGTON
COUNTY; AND Z.L. AND T.L ON BEHALF
OF MINOR CHILDREN, J.L. AND B.L.,
Respondents.
_______________________________
Cameron R. Morgan, Esq., for petitioner, Bordentown Regional Board of
Education (Cleary, Giacobbe, Alfieri and Jacobs, LLC, attorneys)
William C. Morlok, Esq., for respondent, Northern Regional County School District
Board of Education (Parker McCay, P.A., attorneys)

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
2
Colin G. Klika, Deputy Attorney General, for respondent, Raymond Marini, Interim
Executive County Superintendent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of
New Jersey, attorneys)
Z.L. and T.L., respondents, pro se
Record Closed: March 22, 2023 Decided: April 21, 2023
BEFORE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, Board of Education of the Bordentown Regional School District
(Bordentown), challenges the homelessness determination by the Northern Burlington
County Regional Board of Education (Burlington) and the Interim Executive County
Superintendent (ECS). Petitioner contends that J.L. and B.L., are not homeless, but are
domiciled in the Bordentown School District, having lived with Z.L.’s mother-in-law in
Bordentown for the last five years. At issue is whether the children and their parents are
“homeless,” under the applicable law. Burlington determined that the family was still
homeless and thus, Bordentown had an obligation to pay tuition and bus the children to
Burlington, where they resided prior to becoming homeless in 2017. The ECS affirmed
the homelessness determination.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arose with the filing of a petition of appeal by Bordentown on January
10, 2022, challenging the homelessness determination by the ECS. The matter was
transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) as a contested matter on March 4,
2022. N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. The matter was remanded
after summary decision in favor of Bordentown had been granted. The remand requests
a factual inquiry into the nature of the housing, i.e. is it “regular, fixed and adequate,” and
a factual determination as to when the family was no longer homeless. The matter was

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
3
heard via Zoom on January 30, 2023, and the record closed after written submissions by
the parties.
TESTIMONY AND FACTUAL FINDINGS
For Bordentown
Tina Zach (Zach) is the homelessness liaison for the Bordentown school district.
She has had training and has held this position for approximately ten years. She was
familiar with the L. family who had moved in with family in Bordentown after losing their
home in 2017. The family initially advised that they were staying with family in
Bordentown but wanted to remain in the Burlington school district, and they did not need
transportation. They advised that the housing was temporary and that they were living
with the children’s grandmother. There were originally three children in school, but the
daughter (M.L.) graduated last year and B.L. is a senior this year and is finishing high
school online through a private school. P.L. is a junior at Northern Burlington High School.
After the first year in which they lived in Bordentown and continued to go to
Burlington, Bordentown assumed the cost. Bordentown paid for all three children to
attend school in Northern Burlington during the 2018–2019, and 2019–2020 school years.
Bordentown continued to receive updated information, but the family maintained that they
were in transitional housing and were homeless. The district has a residency
questionnaire that needs to be filled out annually. At the end of 2020, another
questionnaire was sent to the family and they advised that they were still living with family
in Bordentown. They provided no information about trying to secure other housing, or
indicating that the housing was inadequate, and thus, the district determined that they no
longer met the definition of homeless.
Ms. Zach attempted to speak to Z.L. about the situation and he was pretty agitated
by the conversation. He indicated that the housing was not comfortable, but they had no
plans to move, and he was still not employed full time. Zach testified that based upon the
information that Bordentown had received, they determined that the family no longer meet
the definition of homeless was made. They were living in a three-bedroom house, they

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
4
all had beds, access to a full bathroom and kitchen and had no plans to move. Zach does
not know about the annual application for state aide but would assume that if Bordentown
was paying for the L. family to go to school in Northern Burlington, it would be reflected
in the state aide application, and when this changed, the state aid would change
accordingly. Zach testified that the determination was not just based on the duration of
their stay at the grandmother’s home, but the fact that they had no plans to move.
Moreover, they were in fixed and adequate housing.
Vanessa Bekarciak, is the Director of Special Services for Bordentown. She also
oversees homelessness and residency issues for the district. She was familiar with the
L. family. She understood that initially the L. family’s housing in Bordentown was
temporary, but they began to question this due to the duration of the stay and the
admission that they were not seeking alternate housing. In addition, they had not moved
around at all, since they left their home in Burlington, they had been in one house. She
believed that where they were living was adequate and had become a fixed and
permanent situation for them. She testified that just because Z.L. wanted to reside
somewhere else did not mean they remained homeless. She testified that it was very
fact sensitive, and it is not just duration that determines homelessness. They looked at
the adequacy of the housing situation and if it was stable. The L. family was not in
jeopardy of being removed from this housing and were not making any plans to move
back into the Burlington District.
For Burlington
Z.L. testified on behalf of himself and the minor children. He advised that he lost
his job and the home in Chesterfield, Burlington County, was foreclosed on in 2016.
Thereafter, they moved in with his mother-in-law in Bordentown Township. The children
continued to attend school in Burlington, and he filled out the paperwork necessary for
this to continue. He and his wife have three children. Their oldest, M.L. graduated last
year. She is in college at Rowan/Burlington Community College and takes classes online.
The older son is now a senior and he attends high school online. They pay for him to
attend private high school online, as they were concerned that he would not be able to
complete his senior year at Burlington. Their youngest is at Burlington. He is a junior

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
5
and has an IEP due to some learning differences. They have every reason to believe
that he will graduate next year. They do not know if he will go on to college or need
additional services due to his disabilities.
Z.L. was terminated from his job in 2015 and was unable to keep the family home
when it was foreclosed on. He indicated that he had some health issues, including a
stroke which may have led to his unemployment. He testified that he had looked at some
housing in Northern Burlington but was declined due to his bad credit with the foreclosure.
His wife works and makes approximately $40,000 a year. They do not pay rent or any
other expenses at his mother-in-law’s house except for the cable TV bill.
He testified that he is currently working as a consultant has but only makes about
$20,000 a year. No documentation of employment, unemployment or inability to work
was provided. He testified that they have not looked in any other districts because he
wants his son to remain at Northern Burlington, but he really could not afford any housing
there.
His mother-in-law’s home has three bedrooms. His wife currently shares a
bedroom with their daughter, who is in college now. The boys share a bedroom and Z.L.
has a blow-up mattress in the den. His mother-in-law has the master bedroom and her
own bathroom. The L. Family shares the other full bathroom and has full access to the
kitchen. There are dressers in the hallway due to limited room in the bedrooms and the
situation. They have no plans to move out and do not want to leave the district before
their son graduates from high school.
Richard Kaz is the business administrator at the Northern Burlington Regional
School District. He has been employed there for twenty-two years. He testified that
based upon their calculations, Bordentown owes them $234,113.60 for the years of 2021,
2022 and 2023, for the education of the L children who have been residing in Bordentown
due to homelessness but continued to attend school in Northern Burlington. He testified
that they had submitted the appropriate documentation to Bordentown but had not been
paid.

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
6
Based upon the documentary evidence and testimony, I FIND the following as
FACT:
1. The children were attending school in the Northern Burlington Regional
School District at that time they became homeless due job loss and
foreclosure on their home in 2016.
2. The family moved in with R.B., the children’s maternal grandmother, along
with their mother and father at the Deerfield Court home in Bordentown,
New Jersey.
3. Northern Burlington was advised of the relocation by the grandmother in
October 2017, at which point Burlington put Bordentown on notice of their
potential responsibility under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance
Act.
4. They attended school in Northern Burlington and arranged for their own
transportation for the 2017–2018 school year.
5. Thereafter, Bordentown assumed responsibility and provided tuition and
transportation to Northern Burlington pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d).
6. Bordentown paid the tuition and transportation for the children in the 2018–
2019 and 2019–2020 school years.
7. When Northern Burlington sent the invoice to Bordentown for the 2020–
2021 school year, Bordentown filed a Notice of Dispute with the Executive
Superintendent challenging the homelessness status of the family.
8. On October 14, 2021, the County Superintendent concluded that the family,
who had been residing with the grandmother in Bordentown since 2017,
was still “homeless.”

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
7
9. The family is living in a three bedroom home with their grandmother. They
have access to a full bathroom and have full access to the kitchen. The two
boys share a bedroom as does the mother and daughter. The father Z.L.
has a blow-up mattress in the den. Their family has dressers in the hallway
due to limited space in the bedrooms.
10. The mother works and earns approximately $40,000 a year, and Z.L. is
working as a consultant earning $20,000 a year. They pay no rent or
expenses to live in the home with the exception of the cable bill.
11. They have made no efforts to find other housing.
12. The family has a fixed, regular and adequate dwelling, where they have
resided for over five years.
13. The family is not homeless and was not homeless in the 2020–2021, 2021–
2022 or 2022–2023 school years.
I FIND the foregoing as FACT.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
It is well settled in this jurisdiction that parents may not simply choose the school
district that they wish their children to attend: the general rule is that school districts are
responsible for providing a free education to children “domiciled” within the school district.
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) states that public schools shall be free to any person over five and
under twenty years of age who is domiciled within the school district. “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).
Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Education Assistance Improvement Act of
2001, 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq., state educational agencies must ensure that each
homeless child and youth has equal access to the same public education as every other

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
8
child and youth. The protections offered to homeless students and their parents under
the federal McKinney-Vento Act and New Jersey’s corresponding state law represent an
exception to otherwise applicable residency rules. In contrast to the basic premise that
students must change schools when they leave a school district, the laws protecting
homeless students generally allow parents the choice to keep their children enrolled in
their original school district if the parents relocate to another school district as the result
of being homeless. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(f); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.2(d). The district of residence
for children whose parents temporarily move from one school district to another as the
result of being homeless shall be the district in which the parent or guardian last resided
prior to becoming homeless. N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(c).
Under the federal McKinney-Vento Act and New Jersey’s corresponding law, the
term “homeless” refers to individuals who lack a fixed, regular, and adequate residence.
Federal law refers to the lack of an adequate “nighttime” residence. 42 U.S.C. § 11434a
(referring to 42 U.S.C. Sec.11302(a)(1)); N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(c); N.J.A.C. 6A17-1.2.
N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.2 states that:
(a) A district board of education shall determine that a child
is homeless for purposes of this subchapter when he or
she resides in any of the following:
1. A publicly or privately operated shelter designed to
provide temporary living accommodations, including:
i. Hotels or motels;
ii. Congregate shelters, including domestic violence
and runaway shelters;
iii. Transitional housing; and
iv. Homes for adolescent mothers;
2. A public or private place not designated for or
ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation,
including:
i. Cars or other vehicles including mobile homes;
ii. Tents or other temporary shelters;
iii. Parks;
iv. Abandoned buildings;
v. Bus or train stations; or

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
9
vi. Temporary shelters provided to migrant workers
and their children on farm sites;
3. The residence of relatives or friends where the
homeless child resides out of necessity because his
or her family lacks a regular or permanent residence
of its own;
4. Substandard housing; or
5. Any temporary location wherein children and youth
are awaiting foster care placement.
[N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.2.]
This subchapter and subsection, however, must be read, in conjunction with 42
U.S.C. § 11302(a)(1), which defines “homeless” for the McKinney-Vento Act, and N.J.S.A.
18A:7B-12(c), which defines “homeless” for school-funding purposes. Under the former,
“homeless” means lacking “a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence.” Under
the latter, “homeless” means temporarily lacking “a fixed, regular and adequate
residence.” Thus, both definitions have at their core the concept of a fixed, regular, and
adequate place to live with regular sleeping accommodations. This shared concept is not
a coincidence, as the New Jersey regulatory scheme, looks to the federal regulatory
scheme for its definition of terms. See N.J.A.C. 6A:17-2.1 (“Nothing in this subchapter
shall limit the educational rights of homeless children and youth or school district
responsibilities under Subtitle VII-B of the Stewart B. McKinney-Vento Homeless
Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.)”.)
Financial responsibility of the district of residence terminates when the family is
deemed “domiciled” in another district, which occurs when the family has lived in another
district for a full year or longer. At this time, financial responsibility shifts to the school
district in which the student now resides. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(d) states:
Any person whose parent or guardian, even though not
domiciled within the district, is residing temporarily therein, but
any person who has had or shall have his all-year-round
dwelling place within the district for one year or longer shall
be deemed domiciled within the district for the purposes of this
section.

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
10
Northern Burlington, as the original district of residence, was responsible for the
children’s tuition when they first became homeless, and they continued to go to school
there throughout the 2017–2018 school year. However, after residing in Bordentown for
more than one year, they were deemed domiciled in Bordentown pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1(d) and financial responsibility shifted to Bordentown. Bordentown provided
tuition and transportation for an additional two years. When they received the tuition bill
for the two remaining children in the Northern Burlington Regional School District in 2021,
they requested a review by the County Superintendent claiming that the Bordentown
residence had become “regular, fixed and adequate” home and they could no longer be
deemed “homeless,” having resided in this regular fixed and adequate housing for more
than four years (and now five years), and by their own admission had no plans, nor have
they made any effort to secure affordable housing in Northern Burlington or elsewhere.
The petitioner is still essentially unemployed, has bad credit, very little income.
Respondents argue that the family remains homeless, and they are entitled to
continue school in Northern Burlington at Bordentown’s expense because they are in a
“doubled-up living arrangement” and continue to “experience financial hardship.” The
testimony from Z.L. which is not disputed is that they moved in with his mother-in-law five
years ago, and they have no current plans to leave. He does not have a full-time job, has
bad credit and they do not want to pull their son out of the district. They live in a three-
bedroom home with their mother-in-law. The children are all in a bedroom and have their
own beds. The father sleeps in the den. They have full access to the kitchen and a full
bath. The mother-in-law has her own full bathroom. They have dressers in the hallway
and the living conditions are tight and not ideal. However, it is “fixed, adequate, and
permanent” and they have no immediate plans to relocate.
The determination of whether a student is considered “homeless,” triggering the
protections for homeless students available under the law, is fact sensitive. In M. O’K.
and S. O’K., A. O’K. and C. O’K. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Borough of Cresskill and Bd. of
Educ. of the Borough of Little Ferry, OAL No. EDU 14830-13, Agency No. 214-9/13 (N.J.
Comm’r of Educ. Aug. 12, 2014); aff’d, 2016 WL, 4699166 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. Sept.
8, 2016, the school district argued that the students who lived with their parents in the

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
11
grandparents’ home were no longer “homeless” as they had lived there for over a year.
The family prevailed in their argument that they were still “homeless” in part because five
people occupied the bottom floor of the house which had no shower, sink or kitchen. This
was found to be less than a regular and adequate nighttime residence. This case is
clearly distinguishable from the facts in the present case as the family has a shower, sink
and kitchen as well as bedrooms for the children, and the father sleeps in the den.
More recently, an administrative law judge (ALJ) wrote that “homelessness is best
viewed in a continuum.” State-Operated Sch. Dist. of Camden v. Volk, EDU 4521-16,
Initial Decision (March 22, 2017), modified, Comm’r (June 20, 2017), at *11,
http://njlaw.rutgers.edu/collections/oal/. In that case, the ALJ thoroughly examined
whether a family in a borderline situation was homeless and considered the totality of the
circumstances. Among the factors the ALJ considered were intent, fixed location, regular
use, and adequacy. The ALJ determined that the family intended to stay in their current
living situation because they stopped looking for another place to live; that the location
was fixed and that the use was regular because the family had lived in the same place
for several years; and that their living situation was adequate because the children had a
designated sleeping area and access to a kitchen and bathroom facilities, despite the
sharing of rooms and limited space. To the extent that homeless status is identified as
one without a “fixed, regular and adequate” living place, given the very lengthy period of
residence, the adequacy of the living place and the regularity of occupation, the ALJ found
that the child did live in a “fixed, regular, and adequate residence” and concluded that she
was not homeless. See also L.C. on behalf of her Minor Child B.C. v. Bd of Educ. of the
Twp. of Branchburg, Somerset County, 96 N.J.A.R. 2d (EDU)1003 (Commissioner found
that “while her living arrangements with her brother [in his apartment] may not be
permanent in the sense that she may wish to eventually return to Branchburg, the
evidence shows them to have become sufficiently fixed, regular, and adequate so as to
preclude a finding of homelessness.”)
Similar to Volk, in J.G., on behalf of minor children, T.G. and C.G. v. Board of
education of the Township of Edison, et al, Commissioner’s Decision No. 125-20, decided
June 15, 2020, the G. family was evicted from their home in Milltown and moved in with
J.G.’s mother in Edison. The family had the use of three of the four bedrooms, the kitchen,

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
12
bathrooms, all common areas and utilities in the Edison home. Although both J.G. and
his wife were employed, with an income of $71,000 a year, they did not pay rent or
contribute to the housing costs, other than food and a storage facility. While they stated
that their intent was to move back to Milltown, there was no documentation of their search
for a new home. The Commissioner found that while J.G.’s intentions may be to
eventually move back to Milltown, the totality of the facts and circumstances
demonstrated that the family was no longer homeless.
The County Superintendent’s determination that respondents are McKinney-Vento
eligible, and that Bordentown is fiscally responsible for the students was based on the fact
that the family lost their home due to financial hardship and that the family is residing with
friends/relatives out of necessity. He found that they were doubled up and hoped to move
out eventually, with no current plans to relocate. There was no other analysis undertaken
with regards to homelessness. There was no analysis of whether the housing was fixed,
adequate or permanent. It does not appear that any consideration was given to the fact that
the family had been living there for five years and is making no efforts to find other housing.
Moreover, they are in a fixed and adequate home. The totality of the facts and
circumstances demonstrate that the L. family was not homeless in the 2020–2021, 2021–
2022 school years and are no longer homeless and have become permanent residents
in Bordentown and are entitled to enroll and attend school in that district.
For the reasons stated, I CONCLUDE that the family has “fixed, permanent and
adequate” housing and is no longer homeless. I further CONCLUDE that Bordentown is
their District of Residence. I further CONCLUDE that Bordentown has no financial
responsibility for the respondents’ attendance at Northern Burlington Regional High
School, and respondents should be placed in the Bordentown Public School District. I
further CONCLUDE that Northern Burlington has no basis for tuition reimbursement for
the school years prior to 2020–2021. I further CONCLUDE that the ECS’s determination
of homelessness should be REVERSED, and judgment entered in favor of the petitioner,
Bordentown Township Board of Education.

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
13
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that the relief requested in the
petition is GRANTED, and the homelessness decision of the Interim Executive County
Superintendent is REVERSED.
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.
April 21, 2023 _______________________________
DATE SARAH G. CROWLEY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: April 21, 2023
Date Mailed to Parties: April 21, 2023
SCG/nn/am

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
14
APPENDIX
WITNESSES
For petitioner
Tina Zach
Vanessa Bekarciak
For respondent
Z.L.
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
P-1 Letter from R.S. regarding the Z. family
P-2 Email from Kaitlin Mallory (NBRSD), dated October 16, 2017
P-3 Norther Burlington homelessness forms
P-4 Email from Tina Zach, dated August 9, 2014
P-5 Northern Burlington correspondence and tuition contracts
P-6 Letter from Bordentown, dated October 18, 2018
P-7 Purchase Orders 2018−2019
P-8 Purchase Order 2019−2020
P-9 Letter from Northern Burlington to Parent, dated December 7, 2018
P-10 McKinney-Vento Permission Form, dated December 18, 2018
P-11 Residency Questionnaire for 2018−2019 school year
P-12 Residency Questionnaire for 2019−2020 school year
P-13 Email from Caitlin Mallory, dated September 2, 2020
P-14 Student Residence Questionnaire, dated September 2, 2020
P-15 Email between Bordentown and Northern Burlington, dated September 14,
2020
P-16 Email between Bordentown and Northern Burlington, dated August 11,

OAL DKT. NO EDU 09659-22
15
2021
P-17 Notice of Dispute and Request for Redetermination, dated September 14,
2021
P-18 County Superintendent decision, dated October 14, 2021
P-21 NJ Property Tax records
P-22 Residency Certification
P-23 Contact Logs from Tina Zach
P-24 Supplemental Residence Information Forms, dated September 2, 2021
P-25 Memorandum from Tina Zach to Vanessa Bekarciak, dated September
24, 2021
P-28 CV of Venessa Bekarciak
For respondent
R-1 Emails to Samantha Crean, Homeless liaison for Northern Burlington, dated
September 23, 2021 (Exhibit A and B)
R-2 invoices for tuition (Exhibit C)
R-3 invoices for tuition (Exhibit D)
R-4 invoices for tuition (Exhibit E)
R-5 invoices for tuition (Exhibit F)