M.D. and W.J., on behalf of minor child, B.D. v. Mahwah Township Public Schools, Bergen County, 6/5/26 (#225-26)

225-26
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 02697-26
Agency Dkt. No. 018-01-26
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.D. and W.J., on behalf of minor child, B.D.,
Petitioners,
v.
Mahwah 	Township 	Public 	Schools, 	Bergen
County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by petitioners pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the Mahwah Township
Public Schools Board of Education’s (Board) reply thereto, have been reviewed and considered.1
The threshold procedural issue in this case is whether the petition should be dismissed
pursuant to the 90-day rule, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i). See also Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of Berkeley Twp.,
131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993). On January 20, 2026, petitioners filed an appeal alleging that their child,
B.D., was wrongfully disciplined and subject to discrimination and other misconduct at school
between November 2022 and October 2025.2 The Board filed a motion to dismiss the petition
pursuant to the 90-day rule and on mootness grounds, which petitioners opposed.
1 The Commissioner did not consider petitioners’ sur-reply as such submissions are not permitted under
N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4.
2 Due to their continuing dissatisfaction with the district, petitioners withdrew B.D. from Mahwah
Township Public Schools on October 9, 2025.

2
After considering the papers and conducting oral argument, the Administrative Law Judge
(ALJ) concluded that the petition was time-barred pursuant to the 90-day rule. Citing N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3(i) and Kaprow, the ALJ determined that petitioners documented various disagreements
over disciplinary determinations made by the district between November 2022 and October 2025
but did not file their petition until January 20, 2026, which was beyond the 90-day window. For
instance, the ALJ found that the most recent disciplinary action imposed upon B.D. was on May
26, 2025, which meant that the petition should have been filed by August 24, 2025. 	The ALJ
further found that even if October 9, 2025—the date petitioners withdrew B.D. from the
district—is used as a starting point, the petition was due by January 7, 2026, and is still untimely.
In their exceptions, petitioners do not challenge the ALJ’s factual findings. Rather, they
argue multiple reasons why the 90-day rule should not preclude their requests for relief,
including: (1) they were subject to a continuing course of conduct by the Board between
November 30, 2022, and October 16, 2025; (2) they delayed litigation in good faith while
attempting to work cooperatively with the Board; (3) equitable considerations, specifically that
the matter involves the well-being of a child whose parents are self-represented litigants, weigh
in favor of adjudication on the merits; (4) proceedings initiated by the Department of Child
Protection and Permanency (DCPP) during this timeframe limited their ability to proceed; and (5)
they filed complaints in other venues against the Board between October 2025 and January 2026,
which shows that the conflict was ongoing. Petitioners also supplied multiple exhibits that are
not part of the record below and were not considered by the ALJ.
In response, the Board argues that the Commissioner should adopt the ALJ’s Initial
Decision and dismiss the petition. They contend that the ALJ properly applied the 90-day rule

3
and has already considered and rejected the equitable arguments made by petitioners.
Furthermore, the Board asserts that petitioners have improperly attempted to expand the record
via the submission of new exhibits with their exceptions. The Board also argues that the matter
can be dismissed on mootness grounds since B.D. is no longer a student in the district and does
not intend to return.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter. 	The Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s factual findings and conclusion that the
petition was untimely filed. N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i) mandates that petitions shall be filed “no later
than the 90 th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final . . . action by the district board
of education.” 	The 90-day limitation period “represents a fair and reasonably-necessary
requirement for the proper and efficient resolution of disputes under the school laws.” Kaprow,
131 N.J. at 582. 	It “provides a measure of repose” and “gives school districts the security of
knowing that administrative decisions regarding the operation of the school cannot be
challenged after ninety days.” Ibid.
As noted by the ALJ, the most recent disciplinary determination regarding B.D. occurred
on May 26, 2025, and the petition was not filed until January 20, 2026—well beyond the 90-day
timeframe. The fact that petitioners continued communicating with the district after May 26,
2025, and expressing their displeasure does not extend their time to appeal. See Giannetta v.
Bd. of Educ. of Egg Harbor, Commissioner Decision 147-05 (April 25, 2005). 	Furthermore,
contrary to the claims made in petitioners’ exceptions, the filing deadline is not subject to change
based upon a petitioner’s legal strategy or a decision to pursue lawsuits in a different forum; that
would defeat the measure of repose to which school districts are entitled. See generally Nissman

4
v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of Long Beach Island, Ocean Cnty., 272 N.J. Super. 373, 382 (App. Div. 1994)
(affirming State Board decision to dismiss petition as time barred and explaining that while
petitioner may have opted not to file a petition earlier for tactical reasons, the Board “was
entitled to know within 90 days of its action whether its [decision] was going to be challenged”).
Additionally, petitioners acknowledge that the DCPP restrictions were substantially reduced by
May 6, 2025, and there is no basis upon which to conclude that those proceedings prevented
them from filing a petition.
“While the Commissioner has the discretion to relax the [90-day] rule . . . this
extraordinary relief has been reserved only for those situations where a substantial constitutional
issue is presented or where a matter of significant public interest is involved, beyond that of
concern only to the parties.” Smith v. State-Operated Sch. Dist. of City of Paterson, OAL Dkt. No.
EDU 06076-14, Initial Decision at 6 (Nov. 6, 2014), adopted, Commissioner Decision No. 491-14
(Dec. 18, 2014). Here, petitioners’ claims are based upon the treatment of their child, B.D., and
while those claims are undoubtedly of importance to them as parents, they do not concern broad
constitutional issues or matters of significant public interest. Petitioners have not cited any legal
authority which supports relaxation of the strict 90-day timeframe for self-represented litigants,
or in matters involving children; both of those circumstances are regularly present in matters
before the Commissioner, but they do not meet the high standard of a constitutional issue or
significant public interest. 	Therefore, the Commissioner holds that relaxation of the 90-day rule
is unwarranted in this case.
Finally, as for petitioners’ submission of exhibits in support of their exceptions that are
not part of the record below, the Commissioner has not considered them. See N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4(c)

5
(“Evidence not presented at the hearing shall not be submitted as part of an exception, nor shall
it be incorporated or referred to within exceptions.”).
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.3
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	June 25, 2026
Date of Mailing: 	June 25, 2026
3 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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
DISMISSAL
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02697-26
AGENCY DKT. NO. 018-01-26
M.D. and W.J. ON BEHALF OF B.D.,
Petitioners,
v.
MAHWAH 	TOWNSHIP 	PUBLIC 	SCHOOLS,
BERGEN COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
M.D. and W.J. on behalf of B.D., appearing pro se
Marc H. Zitomer, Esq., for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith, King, LLP,
attorneys)
Record Closed: April 14, 2026 	Decided: May 28, 2026
BEFORE LUBNA QAZI-CHOWDHRY, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 26, 2025, respondent Mahwah Township Public Schools took disciplinary
action against a student, B.D. 	On January 20, 2026, petitioners M.D. and W.J., B.D.’s

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02697-26
2
parents, filed a petition of appeal challenging this discipline, and all other prior discipline,
taken against their son. Did petitioners file their appeal timely? No. A petitioner must file
a petition no later than ninety days from the date of receipt of a final action. See N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3(i).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On May 26, 2025, respondent, verbally and in writing, notified petitioners of an
incident during which B.D. struck another student in the stomach.
On January 20, 2026, petitioners filed a petition of appeal with the Commissioner
of the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Controversies and Disputes,
contesting the disciplinary action, as well as all prior disciplinary action taken against their
son.
On February 13, 2026, respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to file the
petition of appeal within the statute of limitations.
On February 18, 2026, the Bureau of Controversies and Disputes transmitted this
case 	to 	the 	Office 	of 	Administrative 	Law 	(OAL) 	as 	a 	contested 	case 	under 	the
Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL,
N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules,
N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
On February 23, 2026, petitioners filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss.
On March 10, 2026, I held a pre-hearing conference. 	During the conference,
petitioners requested oral argument, which I scheduled for April 14, 2026, and respondent
requested time to file a reply to petitioners’ opposition. 	I allowed respondent to file its
reply to petitioners’ opposition by March 20, 2026.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02697-26
3
On March 20, 2026, respondent filed its reply, and on April 14, 2026, I held oral
argument and closed the motion record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the documents submitted in support of and in opposition to the motion
to dismiss, and assuming that all the factual allegations in the petition of appeal are true,
I FIND the following as FACT for purposes of this motion only:
B.D. is a third-grade student who attended Mahwah Township Public Schools from
the start of the 2025–26 school year on September 4, 2025, until his parents withdrew
him from school on October 9, 2025.
From November 30, 2022, to May 26, 2025, B.D. engaged in the following
behaviors for which he was disciplined:
• 	On November 30, 2022, B.D. was disciplined for taking toys from his classroom
without permission.
• 	On November 28, 2023, B.D. was disciplined for a physical altercation with other
students on a school bus.
• 	On May 10, 2024, B.D. was disciplined for engaging in sexually inappropriate
behavior with another classmate.
• 	On October 7, 2024, B.D. was disciplined for physically attacking one student and
mocking another.
• 	On October 16, 2024, B.D. was disciplined for negative physical behavior towards
a student.
• 	On October 18, 2024, B.D. was disciplined for inappropriately hugging a teacher
around her neck.
• 	On October 25, 2024, B.D. was disciplined for calling a student names and
preventing the student from attending school.
• 	On May 26, 2025, B.D. was disciplined for striking another student in the stomach.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02697-26
4
From November 30, 2022, through October 16, 2025, petitioners engaged in
multiple e-mail, in-person, and telephonic communications with respondent regarding the
disciplinary actions. 	Petitioners, however, did not appeal any of the disciplinary actions
until this petition, which they filed on January 20, 2026. On October 9, 2025, petitioners
withdrew B.D. from Mahwah Township Public Schools.
B.D. is currently attending private, virtual instruction at home, and does not intend
to return to Mahwah Township Public Schools.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under 	N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), 	a party must file 	a petition of appeal 	with the
Commissioner of Education no later than the ninetieth day from the date of receipt of the
notice of a final order, ruling, or other action by the district board of education, individual
party, or agency that is the subject of the requested contested case hearing. 	This rule
provides 	a 	measure 	of 	repose, 	an 	essential 	element 	in 	the 	proper 	and 	efficient
administration of the school laws, giving school districts the “security of knowing” that an
aggrieved party cannot challenge its actions after ninety days. Kaprow v. Bd. of Educ. of
Berkeley Twp., 131 N.J. 572, 582 (1993). Courts strictly construe and consistently apply
the ninety-day limitation period. Id. at 588–89; Nissman v. Bd. of Educ., 272 N.J. Super.
373, 380–81 (App. Div. 1994); Riely v. Bd. of Educ., 173 N.J. Super. 109, 112–14 (App.
Div. 1980).
The ninety-day period begins when the petitioner “learn[s] from the Local Board
the existence of that state of facts that would enable him to file a timely claim.” Kaprow,
131 N.J. at 588–89.
Notably, a petitioner does not need to receive official and formal notification that
they may have a valid claim to initiate the ninety days. Id. at 588.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02697-26
5
In this case, petitioners list every date with specific detail on which respondent took
final action, yet petitioners never filed a petition of appeal until the current petition of
appeal; the appeals for each of the incidents are well after the ninety-day period.
Petitioners, in their twenty-four-page petition, including the certifications, as well as in
their ten-page response to the motion to dismiss, repeat that disagreements regarding
the discipline had been ongoing from November 2022 to October 2025, which are further
documented in countless emails, telephone calls, and in-person meetings between the
petitioners and respondent. As such, petitioners were aware of the final action for all the
discipline that is the subject of this appeal within the ninety-day statute of limitations.
If we use May 26, 2025, the last of the discipline, as the latest final action, then
petitioners had until August 24, 2025, to file their petition of appeal. Petitioners, however,
did not file their petition until January 20, 2026. That is more than ninety days after final
action. Even if we use October 9, 2025, the date petitioners withdrew their son from the
school district, as the date of final action, then petitioners had until January 7, 2026, to
file their petition of appeal. 	Again, petitioners did not file their petition of appeal until
January 20, 2026. 	Therefore, I CONCLUDE that petitioners are outside the statute of
limitations and that respondent’s motion to dismiss this case for failure to file a petition of
appeal within the statute of limitations should be granted.
ORDER
Given my findings of fact and conclusions of law, I ORDER that respondent’s
motion to dismiss for failure to file a petition of appeal within the statute of limitations is
GRANTED and that this case is 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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 02697-26
6
to make a final decision in this case. 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 becomes 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.
May 28, 2026
DATE 	LUBNA QAZI-CHOWDHRY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	May 28, 2026
Date Mailed to Parties: 	May 28, 2026
id