M.D., on behalf of minor child, D.G. v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth, Union County, 8/21/2023, (#250-23)

250-23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.D., on behalf of minor child, D.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her minor child was not entitled to
a free public education in Elizabeth schools during the 2022-2023 school year. Based on device export records
linked to D.G.’s school-issued computer and a subsequent residency investigation, the Board contended that
D.G. and her family were not living in Elizabeth but rather at an address in Union, New Jersey. 	The Board
sought tuition reimbursement for the period of D.G.’s alleged ineligible attendance in Elizabeth schools.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: petitioner M.D. testified credibly that prior to August 2022, she and her family
lived in Elizabeth at a home they purchased in 1999; 	in March 2022, the family purchased a home on
Park Place in Union, NJ, as an investment property with the intention of renting the house to tenants; because
the house was in need of significant remodeling, the family moved to the Union house temporarily in
August 2022 to oversee the ongoing construction; 	M.D.’s documentation all reflects her address as the
Elizabeth house and the family was able to immediately return to living there once they realized that their
occupancy at the Union house was endangering their residency status in Elizabeth; 	the family lived in the
Union house from August 2022 until March 6, 2023, which was not long enough to trigger N.J.A.C. 6A:22-
3.1(a)(4). Accordingly, the ALJ concluded that petitioner satisfied her burden to prove by a preponderance of
evidence that she was domiciled in Elizabeth during the 2022-2023 school year; D.G. was therefore eligible for
a free education in Elizabeth during the same time period.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion and adopted the
Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. Accordingly, the petition of appeal was granted,
and no tuition reimbursement is due to the Board.
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. 03077-23
Agency Dkt. No. 87-3/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
M.D., on behalf of minor child, D.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County,
Respondent.
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 that M.D. and her
minor child D.G. were domiciled in Elizabeth during the period from August 2022 to March 6, 2023 and
that D.G. was therefore entitled to a free education in Elizabeth’s schools during that period. Thus, the
Board is not entitled to reimbursement from petitioner for tuition costs.
Accordingly, the petition of appeal is hereby granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
250-23
August 21, 2023
August 23, 2023

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 87-3/23
M.D. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, D.G.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY
OF ELIZABETH, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____________________________________
M.D. and S.G.,1 petitioners, pro se
Brian Kane, Esq., for respondent (LaCorte, Bundy, Varady & Kinsella, attorneys)
Record Closed: June 15, 2023 Decided: July 14, 2023
BEFORE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner M.D. challenges the action of the Board of Education of the City of
Elizabeth (Board) removing her daughter, D.G., from the Elizabeth Public Schools.
1 Although not reflected on the petition, S.G., the student’s father, also appeared.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
2
By letter dated March 6, 2023, Elizabeth Public Schools notified M.D. that its
review of D.G.’s domicile/residency status indicated that she was not entitled to a public
education in Elizabeth and that an investigation revealed that D.G. did not reside in
Elizabeth. (R-8.) By letter dated March 13, 2023, Elizabeth Public Schools notified
M.D. that D.G. was ineligible to attend Elizabeth Public Schools and would be removed.
(R-11.) On March 29, 2023, petitioner filed a Pro Se Petition of Appeal with the
Department of Education. The Board filed its answer on March 31, 2023. On April 10,
2023, the Department transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law under the
Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the
office, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing under the Uniform Administrative
Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6, and the rules of procedure established by
the Department of Education to hear and decide controversies and disputes arising
under school laws, N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.1 to -1.17. Jurisdiction is conferred under N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9.
The hearing was held on May 23, 2023. The Board submitted its post-hearing
brief on June 14, 2023, and petitioner submitted her post-hearing letter on June 15,
2023, on which date the record closed.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
M.D. testified on behalf of petitioner. Timothy Kirk testified on behalf of the Board.
Preliminary Facts
After due consideration of the testimonial and documentary evidence presented
at the hearing, and having had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of the
witnesses and assess their credibility, I FIND the following preliminary facts:
M.D. is married to S.G. Their daughter, D.G., was enrolled in grade 11 at
Elizabeth High School for the 2022–2023 school year. (R-1.) Prior to August 2022,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
3
M.D., S.G., and their children (the family) were living at 500 Main Street, Elizabeth, New
Jersey2 (the Elizabeth house), which M.D. and S.G. purchased on April 5, 1999. (R-6.)
On March 30, 2022, M.D. and S.G. purchased 200 Park Place, Union, New
Jersey3 (the Union house). (R-5.) The family began living at the Union house in August
2022.
Device export data records reflect that from December 1, 2022, to March 1,
2023, D.G.’s school-issued laptop was pinging from school and from the Union house,
but not from the Elizabeth house. (R-2.)
Timothy Kirk has been employed by the Board as an investigator for
approximately twenty months, and prior thereto he was an Elizabeth police officer for
thirty-four years. On March 1, 2023, he commenced an investigation of the residency of
D.G. after the legal department was advised by the technology department that D.G.’s
laptop was pinging from Union and not from Elizabeth. On March 3, 2023, at 7:10 a.m.,
Kirk observed M.D. and D.G. exit the Union house and enter a 2009 Toyota registered
to S.G. (R-3; R-7; R-14.) On March 6, 2023, at 7:12 a.m., Kirk observed M.D. and D.G.
exit the Union house. (R-7.) Kirk prepared a Residency Investigation Report, dated
March 31, 2023. (R-13.)
By Notice of Initial Determination of Ineligibility, dated March 6, 2023, Elizabeth
Public Schools notified M.D. that its review of D.G.’s domicile/residency status indicated
that she was not entitled to a free education in the district because of
“Domicile/Residency not in the district” and that its investigation revealed that D.G. did
not reside at the Elizabeth house. (R-8.) The notice further notified M.D. that she
should contact Kirk on or before March 13, 2023, or email her proofs to indicate whether
D.G. would be removed from the school and educated elsewhere, or if she would be
requesting a hearing before the Board to demonstrate that D.G. was entitled to attend
school in the district. (R-8.)
2 A fictitious address is used for privacy.
3 A fictitious address is used for privacy.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
4
On March 8, 2023, M.D. completed the district’s Residency Verification Form and
submitted the form, along with the required verifications. (R-9.) The verifications
submitted included a “current property tax bill,” “government issued identification,”
“current gas bill,” “current water bill,” and “pay stub from employer.” (R-9; R-10.) The
2023 1st & 2nd Quarter Tax Bill for the Elizabeth house reflects the mailing address as
the Elizabeth house. (R-10.) M.D.’s Auto Driver License, issued in November 2020 and
expiring in January 2024, reflects the Elizabeth house as her address. (R-10.) The
January 20, 2023, Elizabethtown Gas bill for the Elizabeth house reflects M.D.’s name,
reflects the Elizabeth house as the mailing address, and reflects current charges of
$287.72. (R-10.) The January 27, 2023, Liberty Water Company bill reflects M.D.’s
name, reflects the Elizabeth house as the mailing address, and reflects current charges
of $85.71. (R-10.) A paycheck stub for M.D., dated February 24, 2023, reflects the
Elizabeth house as her mailing address. (R-10.) Petitioner did not request a hearing
before the Board.
By Notice of Final Ineligibility, dated March 13, 2023, Elizabeth Public Schools
notified M.D. that after review of the information she submitted it determined that D.G.
was ineligible to attend school in Elizabeth, because:
YOUR DOMICILE/RESIDENCY IS NOT IN THE DISTRICT.
OUR INVESTIGATION REVEALS THAT YOU LIVE
OUTSIDE OF ELIZABETH.
[R-11.]
The notice further notified M.D. of her right to appeal, and of the daily tuition rate of
$99.63. (R-11.)
On March 29, 2023, petitioner filed a Pro Se Petition of Appeal (Petition) with the
Department of Education. (R-12.) The Petition states, in pertinent part:
The Elizabeth School District has determined that my
daughter . . . is no longer eligible to attend the . . . High
School. This came to us as a surprise as our intentions

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
5
were not to move to the other house permanently. We have
realized this was a mistake on our part.
In April 2022, we decided to purchase another house as an
investment for the purpose of renting out the house. This
house is located in Union and needs a lot of remodeling and
fixing, therefore, we contracted staff to make those changes.
In the meantime, we also remained at our home in Elizabeth.
Initially, we thought it would be a smoother and quicker
process, but unfortunately, we had a few hiccups along the
way. This prompted the need to supervise and monitor the
work being done in the new purchase. In order to do so, we
had to make changes to our living arrangements for the
months to come. We understand this took longer than we
initially planned. In reality, it was more of a commodity for
me as I work from home, and it was more comfortable for me
to work and supervise the work being done in the Union
house at the same time.
We truly did not know that by staying temporarily in the
Union house while fixing it for rent, we were violating any
rules. We still own and are living in our home in Elizabeth.
Since receiving the letter, we realized that our actions may
have led the Elizabeth School District to believe this was our
permanent home and therefore, we have since left the Union
house.
We really were not conscious of what effect staying in the
Union house would have on our daughter’s education. Her
mental health is the most important thing for us and since
receiving the news we have seen a great amount of stress
added into her life. She is a junior in high school and has
made many friends which gives her great happiness. We
feel responsible for causing this confusion and making her
feel unsure of what will happen due to our actions.
Please see attached for the supporting documents where it
shows that nothing has been changed from our residency in
Elizabeth. Feel free to request any other information
needed.
. . . .
I would like to please request that [D.G.] is reinstated at . . .
High School. This is a learning experience for me and my
family and we hope she does not get punished for a mistake
we made to occupy two places at the same time. I confirm
that we have been staying in Elizabeth since the notice we

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
6
received. I hope you find it in your heart to understand that
this was not intentional and will not be repeated.
[R-12.]
The February 15, 2023, Elizabethtown Gas bill for the Elizabeth house reflects
M.D.’s name, reflects the Elizabeth house as her mailing address, and reflects current
charges of $191.81. (R-12.)
An Individual Report Plus Associates (IRPA) printout reflects the Union house as
a possible address associated with M.D. and reflects an absentee owner. (R-3.) The
registration for S.G.’s 2009 Toyota reflects the Elizabeth house. (R-3.) The Union
house Property Detail record reflects the Elizabeth house as the mailing address for the
owner. (R-4.) The Elizabeth house Property Detail record also reflects the Elizabeth
house as the mailing address for the owner. (R-4.)
Device export data records reflect that from December 1, 2023, through March 6,
2023, D.G.’s school-issued laptop was pinging at the Union house. (R-2; R-15.) Device
export data records further reflect that from March 7, 2023, to May 1, 2023, D.G.’s
school-issued laptop pinged from school and the Elizabeth house, and never pinged
from the Union house, or from outside of Elizabeth. (R-15.)
Testimony
Timothy Kirk
The August 16, 2022, date reflected on the IRPA printout coincides with the
dates the student’s laptop started pinging from the Union house. The residency
verifications submitted by M.D. were not sufficient to establish residency in Elizabeth
because his investigation revealed that despite owning the Elizabeth house the family
was staying at the Union house. He concluded that D.G. resided at the Union house.
He still believes that the family’s primary domicile was the Union house.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
7
He drove by the Union house approximately three or four times in April and May
before school but never saw the parents’ cars at the Union house. He does not know if
a vehicle was in the one-car garage. He never saw anyone inside the Union house. He
has not seen anyone at the Union house since March 6, 2023, when petitioner received
the notice, and there were no more laptop pings from Union. Since March 6, 2023, a
few of the laptop pings are from the Elizabeth house and the others are from school.
The laptop cannot be pinged if it is turned off.
Once the family received the March 6, 2023, notice, they may have returned to
the Elizabeth house. He does not know for sure if the petitioner is back in Elizabeth, but
the Board has not changed its position regarding residency. His determination was that
from August 2022 to March 6, 2023, the family resided in Union. He visited the
Elizabeth house once in April, between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m., but he did not
observe the family vehicles there. He does not have any evidence that would refute
petitioner’s assertion in the Petition that since receipt of the notice the family is no
longer living in the Union house. The laptop pings from Elizabeth, though not as
frequently as it had pinged from Union. In Union, it pinged every day, but in Elizabeth,
there are no pings sometimes for several days.
M.D.
They had initially intended for a contractor to manage the renovations, but the
renovations commenced in June 2022, and it became too expensive, and they instead
had to find various contactors for each project. She is employed full time, 9:00 a.m. to
5:30 p.m., but she has been working from home since the pandemic. The family began
temporarily living in Union so she could manage the renovations work. She does not
deny that her family started living in Union in August, but it was only temporary to
manage the work being done, which she had expected to be completed in October.
She apologizes to the Board because she did not know they were not allowed to do
that. Work was being done on the first floor and basement, but not on the second floor.
The basement was just finished, and she expects all the work to be completed in
another month. She intends to rent the Union house after the renovations are complete.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
8
Since her receipt of the notice, they returned to living only at the Elizabeth house
and D.G. has been driven back and forth between the Elizabeth house and school daily.
There have been no rental agreements on either house. D.G.’s laptop may be pinging
less frequently than before because of this situation, as the uncertainty of possibly being
removed from her school has negatively affected D.G., including her academic
performance. D.G. was crying this morning about what might happen. She feels sad
for her daughter because it was her decision to temporarily live in Union that has
caused D.G. to be in this situation.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Public schools are free to persons over five and under twenty years of age who
are domiciled within the school district or are kept in the home of another person
domiciled within the school district and supported by such other person gratis as if he
were such other person’s own child. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) and (b)(1). If the school
district finds that the parent or guardian of a child who is attending the schools of the
district is not domiciled within the district and the child is not kept in the home of another
person domiciled within the school district and supported by such person gratis as if the
child were the person’s own child, the superintendent or administrative principal may
apply to the board of education for the removal of the child. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2).
The parent or guardian is entitled to a hearing before the board and, if in the judgment
of the board, the parent or guardian is not domiciled within the district or the child is not
kept in the home of another person domiciled within the school district and supported
gratis, the board may order the transfer or removal of the child from school. Ibid. The
parent or guardian may contest the board’s decision before the Commissioner of
Education within twenty-one days of the date of the decision and is entitled to an
expedited hearing. Ibid. The parent or guardian has the burden of proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that the child is eligible for a free education under the
criteria listed in the statute. Ibid. Where the evidence does not support the claims of
the parent, the Commissioner is authorized to assess tuition prorated to the time of the
student’s ineligible attendance in the schools of the district, and tuition is 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. Ibid.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
9
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1), a student is eligible to attend a school
district if he or she is domiciled within the school district, and 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. A student is domiciled in the school district when his
or her parent or guardian resides within the school district on an all-year-round basis for
one year or more, notwithstanding the existence of a domicile elsewhere. N.J.A.C.
6A:22-3.1(a)(4).
“Domicile” is defined as “the place where [a person] has his
[or her] true, fixed, permanent home and principal
establishment, and to which whenever he is absent, he has
an intention of returning.” T.B.W. ex rel. A.W. v. Bd. of Ed.
of the Township of Belleville, Essex County, 1998 N.J.
AGEN LEXIS 122, Agency Dkt. No. 159-5/96, 1998 WL
668678 (N.J. Adm. June 18, 1998). As the court noted in
Collins v. Yancey, 55 N.J. Super. 514, 520–21, 151 A.2d 68
(Law Div. 1959), a person may have several residences or
places of abode, but only one domicile at a time. Id.
[D.L. v. Bd. of Educ. of Princeton Reg’l Sch. Dist., 366 N.J.
Super. 269, 273–74 (App. Div. 2004).]
Petitioner credibly testified that she and her husband purchased an investment
home in Union and were in the process of renovating it, and to facilitate that process the
family temporarily moved into the Union house. M.D.’s documentation all still reflects
her address as the Elizabeth house and her testimony that she intended to return to the
Elizabeth house when the renovations were complete on the Union house is
corroborated by the family’s ability to immediately return to living in the Elizabeth house,
which had not been rented out. There is no evidence that the family continued to live at
the Union house after receiving the notice, as they have not been observed at the Union
house and D.G.’s laptop never again pinged from the Union house but has pinged from
the Elizabeth house. Moreover, as corroborated by the IRPA printout, the family was in
the Union house from August 2022 until March 6, 2023, which was not long enough to
trigger N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(4). Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has satisfied
her burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was domiciled in

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
10
Elizabeth and D.G. was therefore eligible for a free education in Elizabeth for the 2022–
2023 school year.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that petitioner’s Pro Se Petition of Appeal be and hereby is
GRANTED, and further ORDERED that D.G. is eligible to attend school in Elizabeth.
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.
June 14, 2023_______________
DATE KELLY J. KIRK, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
db

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03077-23
11
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
M.D.
For Respondent:
Timothy Kirk
Exhibits
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
R-1 Demographics
R-2 March 1, 2023, email and device export data (December 1, 2023, through March
1, 2023)
R-3 Individual Report Plus Associates
R-4 Property Detail
R-5 Deed (Union house)
R-6 Deed (Elizabeth house)
R-7 Investigator notes
R-8 Notice of Initial Determination of Ineligibility, dated March 6, 2023
R-9 Blank Residency Verification Form
R-10 Completed Residency Verification Form and verifications
R-11 Notice of Final Ineligibility, dated March 13, 2023
R-12 Pro Se Petition of Appeal
R-13 Residency Investigation Report
R-14 Photographs
R-15 Device export data (March 1, 2023, through May 1, 2023)