A.G.-F. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Mountain Lakes, Morris County, 12/4/25 (#549-25E)

549-25E
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 18852-25
Agency Dkt. No. 367-10/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Order on Emergent Relief
A.G.-F.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Borough of Mountain
Lakes, Morris County,
Respondent.
The record of this emergent matter, the sound recording of the hearing held at the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL), and the recommended Order of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) have been
reviewed and considered.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner has failed to demonstrate
entitlement to emergent relief pursuant to the standards enunciated in Crowe v. DeGioia, 90 N.J. 126,
132-34 (1982), and codified at N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.6.
Accordingly, the recommended Order denying petitioner’s application for emergent relief is
adopted. This matter shall continue at the OAL with such proceedings as the parties and the ALJ deem
necessary to bring it to closure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	December 4, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	December 4, 2025

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
ORDER
DENYING EMERGENT RELIEF
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
AGENCY DKT. NO. 367-10/25
A.G.-F.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH
OF MOUNTAIN LAKES, MORRIS COUNTY,
Respondent.
_______________________________________
A.G.-F., petitioner, pro se
Vittorio LaPira, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty Hara LaPira & Cherry, attorneys)
Record Closed: November 12, 2025 	Decided: November 13, 2025
BEFORE ANDREA PERRY VILLANI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 10, 2025, the Board of Education of Mountain Lakes (Board),
prohibited A.G.-F. from entering her son’s middle school. 	A.G.-F. now seeks an
emergency order lifting the prohibition, but she has not demonstrated irreparable harm.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
2
Is A.G.-F. entitled to emergency relief? 	No. 	Emergency relief may only be ordered
when irreparable harm will otherwise result. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6(a).
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 10, 2025, the Board prohibited A.G.-F. from entering Briarcliff
Middle School in Mountain Lakes.
On September 12, 2025, the Board prohibited A.G.-F. from entering any school
property in Mountain Lakes.
On 	October 	30, 	2025, 	A.G.-F. 	filed 	a 	petition 	of 	appeal 	and 	request 	for
emergency relief with the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of Controversies
and Disputes.
On November 3, 2025, the New Jersey Department of Education, Office of
Controversies and Disputes, transmitted the case as a contested case to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) 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 -23.
On 	November 	12, 	2025, 	I 	heard 	oral 	argument 	on 	A.G.-F.’s 	request 	for
emergency relief and closed the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the oral arguments and documents presented by the parties, I FIND
the following as FACT for purposes of this application only:
On September 10, 2025, the Board notified A.G.-F.’s husband, N.F., via phone
that he and A.G.-F. (the parents) must pick up their twelve-year-old son from Briarcliff
Middle School because he was suspended. 	The Board claims that the child stated, “If
nobody else tells me why I need to go to the Nurse’s office, I am going to shoot up the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
3
school,” and that several people witnessed the incident. A.G.-F. maintains that the child
stated, “I’m going to crash out if she continues to ignore me.”
That same day, school personnel advised the parents to wait outside the building
for staff to escort their son out. 	However, according to the Board, N.F. used physical
force to gain entry into the building while arguing with Principal Erik Carlson and a
school resource officer. 	The school then issued a shelter-in-place and called Mountain
Lakes Police for assistance. 	The police wrote a report of the incident. 	N.F. denies
using physical force to enter the building.
Later that day, the Board notified N.F. via email that the parents were prohibited
from entering Briarcliff School. 	The Board issued the prohibition pursuant to Board
Policy 9150, which states in relevant part, “The Board may bar the attendance at school
functions or access to school property of any visitor whose conduct, in the opinion of the
Board, may constitute a disruption.”
After 	receiving 	notice 	of 	the 	prohibition, N.F. 	emailed 	Superintendent 	Brad
Siegal. 	At approximately 7:40 p.m., N.F. wrote, “New Jersey state and federal law
allows me to be in the school and since there no LAWS broken I cannot be banned from
a public building. 	So when I have to be in that school I will be and threats of police
action leads to the harassment.”
The 	next 	day, 	September 	11, 	2025, 	A.G.-F. 	appeared 	at 	Briarcliff 	School.
According to Siegel, A.G.-F. attempted to enter the building before being stopped by a
school resource officer. 	According to A.G.-F., she arrived with a medical clearance
letter for her son, remained outside the building, and did not attempt to enter. 	A.G.-F.
provided video of Principal Carlson raising his voice saying, “Your son is suspended!”
and abruptly closing the door. She did not enter the building.
On September 12, 2025, the Board notified the parents that they were now
prohibited 	from 	all 	Mountain Lakes schools 	and campuses, unless 	they received
express written permission from Siegel. Siegel explained in his letter to the parents that

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
4
this was due to N.F.’s statement that he would not comply with the prior prohibition and
A.G.-F.’s attempt to violate that prohibition.
On October 8, 2025, A.G.-F. emailed Siegel asking when the parents would be
allowed to return to campus. 	On October 9, 2025, Siegel emailed back stating that the
decision would be re-evaluated in six months from the date of restriction. He also noted
that N.F. recently caused a disruption at the homecoming dance. 	Siegel claims that
N.F. arrived at the dance thirty minutes late and demanded that the assistant principal
meet him in the parking lot to address an issue. 	A.G.-F. explained that N.F. was not
late, he was simply confused about where to pick up their daughter, and the assistant
principal came out to speak to N.F. of his own accord about their daughter, who had
been crying.
On October 27, 2025, A.G.-F. emailed Siegel again. 	This time, she said she felt
six months was excessive, and she asked about an appeal process.
On October 31, 2025, the parents appeared at Wilkins Field, which is Mountain
Lakes school property, for the school’s Halloween parade. 	Mountain Lakes Police and
school resource officers told the parents to leave. 	The parents initially complied, but
they returned to the field shortly after.
Since the prohibition was implemented, the Board has permitted the parents to
attend certain school meetings virtually. 	For instance, the school conducted a Special
Education Initial Eligibility meeting for one of the parties’ children via Google Meet so
the parents could participate.
A.G.-F. reports that the Board has not allowed her to attend certain meetings
because of the prohibition. Specifically, she identified a School Security Parent Meeting
on September 15, 2025, and Back to School Night. 	At oral argument, A.G.-F. added
that her son received an audiology exam at school that she could not attend, and she
missed a parent-teacher conference because the audio/visual equipment failed.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
5
Also at oral argument, A.G.-F. alleged that her children are being bullied because
their parents are prohibited from Mountain Lakes school property, but she did not
provide any proof connecting the bullying to the prohibition. 	For instance, A.G.-F.
submitted a photo from Snapchat that was purportedly posted by her older son’s cross-
country teammates. 	The photo is a screenshot of her son with the word “execution”
added to the photo in the background. 	However, there is nothing about the photo that
connects it to the school’s restriction on the parents. 	Meanwhile, the school offered to
arrange a phone conference or Zoom meeting for the parents with the high school
principal to discuss the photo.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Under N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.6, an Administrative Law Judge may order emergency
relief pending a final decision on the whole contested case where authorized by law and
where irreparable harm will result without an expedited decision. 	The harm must be
substantial and immediate, Judice’s Sunshine Pontiac, Inc. v. Gen. Motors Corp., 418 F.
Supp. 1212, 1218 (D.N.J. 1976), and more than a risk of irreparable harm must be
demonstrated, Cont’l Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614 F.2d 351, 359 (D.N.J.
1980).
In this case, A.G.-F. has not demonstrated that she will suffer irreparable harm.
Indeed, the only harm A.G.-F. has specifically identified is that she was unable to attend
a School Security Parent Meeting, Back to School Night, a parent-teacher conference,
and a hearing test. 	A.G.-F. did not allege that she wasn’t given the information shared
at 	these 	meetings; 	and, 	while 	her 	exclusion 	from 	such 	events 	was 	undoubtedly
inconvenient and upsetting, it does not rise to the level of substantial, immediate, and
irreparable harm. 	Therefore, I CONCLUDE that A.G.-F. is not entitled to an expedited
decision for emergency relief and, instead, this case will proceed to a final decision on
the whole contested case in due course.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
6
ORDER
Given my Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, I ORDER that A.G.-F.’s
request for emergency relief is DENIED.
This order on application for emergency relief 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. The final decision shall
be issued without undue delay, but no later than forty-five days following the entry of
this order. If the Acting Commissioner of the Department of Education, does not adopt,
modify or reject this order within forty-five days, this recommended order shall become
a final decision on the issue of emergent relief in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10
November 13, 2025 	________________________________
DATE 	ANDREA PERRY VILLANI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	November 13, 2025
Date Mailed to Parties: 	November 13, 2025
sej

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 18852-25
7
APPENDIX
DOCUMENTS RELIED ON
A.G.-F.’s October 30, 2025 Letter Brief with Exhibits
Board’s November 11, 2025 Certification of Brad Siegel with Exhibits
Board’s November 11, 2025 Letter Brief