N.J.-B., o/b/o, I.T. v. Board of Education of the City of Union, Union County , 4/24/2020, (#112-20)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
N.J.-B., on behalf of minor child, I.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Union,
Union County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro Se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her child was not domiciled in
Union and therefore not legally entitled to a free public education in the Township of Union School District
(District). Petitioner further appealed the tuition assessment levied upon her for the time her child was
deemed ineligible to attend school in the District. The Board contended that petitioner was domiciled in
Irvington, not Union, and sought reimbursement in the total amount of $52,711.32, representing tuition for
the entire 2018-2019 school year, including ninety-eight days of general education, eighty-two days of
special education following the implementation of an IEP in the middle of the school year, transportation,
behavioral intervention services, and counseling services.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) and N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a), public schools
are free to any person over five and under twenty-five years of age who is domiciled within the school
district; I.T. was enrolled in the Board’s schools for the entirety of the 2018-2019 school year; petitioner
testified that she had resided in Union during the relevant time period and that in order to obtain her
New Jersey driver’s license bearing the Lafayette Avenue address, she had to provide proof of residence to
the Motor Vehicle Commission; petitioner further testified that because of her work schedule and childcare
needs, I.T. sometimes stayed with relatives in Irvington overnight. The ALJ concluded that, based on her
unstable living situation during the 2018-2019 school year, petitioner was domiciled for a portion of the
year in Irvington, and a portion of the year in Union; petitioner was notified by the Board that she would
be liable for $85 per day, or $15,321 for the entire school year; and that petitioner’s liability to the Board
is limited to the amount for which she had notice. The ALJ ordered petitioner to pay tuition to the Board
in the amount of $8,341.76, representing the total amount of general education tuition claimed by the Board.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ that the Board’s ability to recover tuition from the
petitioner is limited pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b), which does not specify that assessed tuition be equal
to the actual costs incurred by the district for educating a particular student; rather, 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. However, the Commissioner also found that the Initial Decision requires clarification
regarding the exact amount of tuition owed to the District since the ALJ did not specify what portion of the
school year petitioner resided in Union. Accordingly, the matter was remanded to the OAL for clarification
of the precise time periods in which petitioner resided in Union and Irvington.
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.
April 24, 2020
112-20

112-20
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03247-19
Agency Dkt. No. 23-1/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Decision
N.J.-B, on behalf of minor child, I.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township
of Union, Union County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law
(OAL), and the exceptions filed by respondent pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been reviewed.1
In this matter, petitioner challenged the Board’s determination that she did not reside
in the Union school district. After a hearing, the ALJ found that – based on her unstable housing
situation during the 2018-19 school year – petitioner was domiciled for a portion of the year in
Irvington and a portion of the year in Union. The Board sought tuition in the amount of $52,711.32,
which included general education tuition, special education tuition, and related costs. The ALJ found
that the notice sent to petitioner by the Board indicated that she would be liable for $85 per day, or
$15,321 for the entire school year. The ALJ therefore concluded that petitioner’s liability to the
Board was limited to the amounts for which she had notice. The ALJ ordered petitioner to pay
tuition to the Board in the amount of $8,341.76, representing the total amount of general education
tuition.
1 Petitioner did not file exceptions or a reply to respondent’s exceptions.

3
In its exceptions, the Board argues that the ALJ did not consider all of its evidence in
rendering the final decision, indicating that its hearing binder was not listed as one of its exhibits in
the Initial Decision. The Board also contends that neither petitioner nor her witnesses were credible
and that the ALJ erred in finding that petitioner resided in both Union and Irvington during the 2018-
19 school year. Finally, the Board argues that there is no notice requirement for the amount of
tuition due for a period of ineligible attendance and that costs can change during the pendency of a
residency matter.
Upon review, 	the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s conclusion that the Board’s
ability to recover tuition from petitioner 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. Here, the annual per pupil cost to Union was $15,321. The Board’s recovery is
therefore limited to 1/180 of that amount for each day of ineligible attendance, or $85.12 per day.
While concurring with the ALJ’s primary finding in this matter, the Commissioner
additionally determines that the Initial Decision requires clarification regarding the exact amount of
tuition due to the school district. Specifically, while the ALJ found that petitioner resided in Union
for a “portion of the year,” the Initial Decision does not specify which portion of the school year.2
2 The Board sought tuition at the general education rate for 98 days and at the special education rate for 82 days. The
ALJ, in focusing on the Board’s inability to recover special education costs, appears to have simply accepted the total
general education tuition claimed by the Board and rejected the special education tuition and related costs. However,
in order to properly calculate the amount due from petitioner, the Commissioner requires a finding of fact regarding
the number of days of ineligible attendance. While the “portion of the year” in which the student was ineligible to
attend may equal the same 98 days that the student was a general education student, the ALJ did not make such a
factual finding.

4
Accordingly, the matter is remanded for clarification of the precise time periods in which petitioner
resided in Union and Irvington.3
Accordingly, this matter is remanded to the OAL for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 4/24/20
Date of Mailing: 4/27/20
3 Additionally, the Commissioner remands this matter to allow the ALJ to clarify the exhibits considered in rendering
the Initial Decision, including addressing the issue of the Board’s hearing binder.

New Jersey Is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 23-1/19
N.J.-B., ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD, I.T.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF UNION, UNION COUNTY,
Respondent.
___________________________________
N.J.-B., petitioner pro se, on behalf of I.T.
Afshan T. Ajmiri Giner, Esq., for respondent (Florio Perucci Steinhart &
Cappelli, attorneys)
Record Closed: January 17, 2020 	Decided: February 11, 2020
BEFORE JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Respondent Board of Education of the Township of Union (the Board) seeks
reimbursement of tuition and associated costs from petitioner, N.J.-B., parent of minor

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
2
child I.T., in the amount of $52,711.32. This amount represents tuition for the entire 2018-
2019 school year, including ninety-eight days of general education, eighty-two days of
special 	education 	(an 	IEP 	was 	implemented 	in 	the 	middle 	of 	the 	school 	year),
transportation, behavioral intervention services, and counselling services 	The Board
asserts that petitioner and her children were not domiciled within the School District at
any point during the period in question.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) on March 6,
2019, for hearing as a contested case. 	An in-person settlement conference was
conducted on July 31, 2019. The parties failed to reach an amicable resolution and the
matter was set down for a hearing on October 29, 2019. 	The hearing was conducted,
and the final submissions were received from the Board on December 3, 2019, and from
the petitioner on December 30, 2019. A Certification signed by the business administrator
for the district was received via regular mail on January 17, 2020, at which point the record
was closed.
ISSUE
The issue in this matter is whether minor child I.T. is eligible to attend Union’s
public schools free of charge in accordance with N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1 and, if not, whether
respondent’s request for tuition reimbursement should be granted.
SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY
R.L.
R.L. testified that the two minor children spent “a lot of time” at her home even after they
moved to Union. 	She stated R.L. is the sister of petitioner, N.J.-B. 	She resides at xx
Headley Terrace, Irvington. 	R.L. testified that petitioner came to live with her for
approximately one month from July to August of 2018, after which petitioner went with
her two minor children to live with their brother (Mr. R.J.-B.) at his home in Union. 	R.L

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
3
further testified that petitioner had an older, adult-male son that had already been living
with her for some time. R.L. stated that she rents a two-bedroom apartment and that the
quarters were too small to accommodate petitioner, her two minor children, her adult son,
plus R.L. and her family.
R.L. testified that the two minor children spent “a lot of time” at her home even after
they moved to Union. She stated that the two minor children would sleep over her house
from time to time, but she could not testify as to the frequency of the sleepovers.
N.J.-B.
N.J.-B. is the petitioner in the foregoing matter, and she testified on her own behalf.
She testified that during the time period in question, she held two full-time jobs; one from
5:15 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and another from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. 	Due to these long
working hours, she relied on help from her family to care for her minor children, including
I.T. At times, I.T. would be at his aunt’s house in Irvington and would already be asleep
by the time N.J.-B. was done with work. 	N.J.-B. testified that instead of waking I.T. up
and transporting him to Union, I.T. would spend the night in Irvington and she would sleep
in Union and retrieve him from Irvington in the morning.
On cross-examination, N.J.-B. testified that a bus was provided by the district at
some point during the 2018-2019 school year, but she could not state with specificity
exactly when the bus was provided or the dates, if any, said bus service was utilized by
I.T. She did note that at times, she would take I.T. to and from school and sometimes her
brother would accompany the child to school.
Petitioner presented a driver’s license issued by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission on November 9, 2018, which reflected her address as xxx Lafayette Avenue,
Union, N.J. See P-1. Same was admitted into evidence. N.J.-B. further testified that she
no longer resides in Union and her son, I.T., has not been enrolled in the Union School
District since June of 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
4
Mr. R.J.-B.
Mr. R.J.-B. is the brother of the petitioner and the owner of xxx Lafayette Avenue,
Union, N.J., where he resides with his family. Mr. R.J.-B. testified that his sister and her
two young children came to live with him for a period of approximately one year, starting
in August of 2018. He further testified that at times, petitioner and I.T. would not sleep at
his home but would spend the night at his sister’s house in Irvington. 	He could not
approximate how frequently this would occur but noted that this would happen from time
to time due to petitioner’s work schedule.
On cross examination, Mr. R.J.-B. testified that his sister had received mail at his
home during the period in question and continues to receive mail at the Union address
from time to time even though she has since moved to West Orange.
John Matos
John Matos (Matos) appeared telephonically. 	He is a residency investigator for
the Union Township Board of Education. He has been so employed by the district since
January 22, 2015. Matos conducted an investigation during the 2018-2019 school year
and compiled a report regarding the residence of I.T. See R-1. Mr. Matos testified that
he commenced his investigation from October 9, 2018, to October 23, 2018, with a follow-
up investigation from November 5, 2018, through the November 30, 2018. Matos began
his investigation by surveilling I.T.’s purported Union Township address on Lafayette
Avenue, Union. 	He testified that on the morning of on the morning of October 9, 2018,
he witnessed several children exiting the subject address, but not I.T.
Matos subsequently conducted an afternoon surveillance on October 15, 2018,
wherein he followed I.T. home after I.T. was dismissed from school early due to a
disciplinary infraction. 	Matos testified that he was contacted by the Board and notified
that I.T. would be leaving school early that day. Matos further testified that he observed
I.T. leaving the school accompanied by his mother (the petitioner). Matos followed them

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
5
to xx Headley Terrace, Irvington. Matos testified that he remained at the Irvington address
briefly to conclude his surveillance and returned early the next morning to observe. 	He
witnessed I.T. leaving the premises along with his mother early the next morning. 	The
pair proceeded to drive to the child’s school in Union.
Matos testified that he performed a follow-up investigation later in the year, from
June 6, 2018, to June 21, 2018, (with exception of June 17, 2018). He noted that at this
time, I.T. had changed schools from Connecticut Farms School to Battle Hill Elementary
School.
Matos testified that he had performed surveillance on I.T. for a total of eight weeks,
excluding weekends, between October of 2018 and June of 2019. 	His report did not
indicate, and Matos, himself, could not attest, to his specific observations for each day he
performed surveillance on petitioner and I.T. 	Matos could only attest with specificity to
the October 9, 2018, and October 15, 2018, dates. Matos did attest, however, that at all
times relevant, he witnessed I.T. exiting and returning to xx Headily Terrace, Irvington
and never witnessed the child exit or return to xxx Lafayette Avenue, Union. Matos further
testified that he observed N.J.-B.’s vehicle, a black Acura, regularly parked outside the
Irvington address, often overnight, and never observed the vehicle parked overnight at
the Union address.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having had an opportunity to consider all the evidence and to observe the
witnesses and make credibility determinations based on the witnesses’ testimony, I FIND
the following FACTS in this case:
1. Petitioner and her minor child, I.T., came to live at her sister’s residence located
at xx Headley Terrace, Irvington in July of 2018.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
6
2. I.T. enrolled as a pupil in the Township of Union School District in September of
2018, where he remained throughout the 2018-2019 academic year (the time period
reimbursement is sought.)
3. A letter dated October 31, 2018, was sent to N.J.-B. by the district informing
N.J.-B. that she was found to be residing out of district and her child, I.T., was therefore
not entitled to a free education in the district. The letter further informed N.J.-B. that she
may be responsible for tuition of $85 per day, or up to $15,321 per year if, on appeal, she
was found to be residing out of district while I.T. was enrolled as a pupil in the Union
School District. See R-2.
4. An investigation was conducted by investigator John Matos regarding the
residence of I.T. during the 2018-2019 school year. Mr. Matos surveilled I.T.’s purported
Union Township address of xxx Lafayette Avenue, Union and conducted surveillance at
xx Headley Terrace, Irvington.
5. Matos performed surveillance on I.T. and N.J.-B. between October of 2018 and
November of 2018, after which Matos concluded that I.T. was, at all times relevant, living
at xx Headily Terrace, Irvington and not xxx Lafayette Avenue, Union.
6. As of November 9, 2018, N.J.-B. held, and continues to hold, a New Jersey
driver’s license that shows her address as being xxx Lafayette Avenue, Union. P-1.
7. I.T. has not been enrolled in the Union School District since on or about July 1,
2019.
8. I FIND that petitioner, N.J.-B., had an unstable housing situation from July of
2018 to June of 2019 and, as a result, both petitioner and her son, I.T., spent substantial
time at xx Headily Terrace, Irvington and xxx Lafayette Avenue, Union.
LEGAL DISCUSSION

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
7
Any child between the ages of five and twenty years old is entitled to a free public
education in the district in which he is a resident. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-
3.1(a). 	A student is a resident of a school district if his parents or guardian has a
permanent home in the district such that “the parent or guardian intends to return to it
when absent and has no present intent of moving from it, notwithstanding the existence
of homes or residences elsewhere.” 	N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1). 	A student may attend
school in a district in which he is a non-resident, with or without payment of tuition, at the
discretion of the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-3(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-2.2.
Domicile has been defined as the place where a person has his true, fixed,
permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent, he
has the intention of returning. State v. Benny, 20 N.J. 238, 250 (1955). The domicile of
an unemancipated child is that of his or her parent, custodian or guardian. P.B.K. ex rel.
minor child E.Y. v. Board of Ed. of Tenafly, 343 N.J. Super. 419. 427 (App. Div. 2001).
Where a local board determines that a child is not properly domiciled in its district,
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2) provides a right of appeal to the parents as follows:
The parent or guardian may contest the Board’s decision
before the Commissioner within 21 days of the date of the
decision and shall be entitled to an expedited hearing before
the Commissioner and shall have the burden of proof by a
preponderance of the evidence that the child is eligible for a
free education under the criteria listed in this section.
Petitioner has the burden of proof in a determination of residency ineligibility
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1. 	Here petitioner disputes the ultimate finding of the district and the
corresponding investigative report that concludes that for a substantial time during the
2018-2019 school year, both N.J.-B. and I.T. were occupying the residence located at xx

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
8
Headily Terrace, Irvington and that I.T. was regularly taken to the school from this out-of-
district address.
Notwithstanding the above-cited investigation, N.J.-B. was able to produce a valid
New Jersey State motor vehicle license that showed her address to be xxx Lafayette
Avenue, Union. She also testified that she did, in fact, reside at that Union address at all
times relevant and that in order to obtain the license, she had to provide proof of residence
to the Motor Vehicle Commission. In addition, N.J.-B. produced two additional witnesses
that testified that N.J.-B. was living with her son, I.T., at the Union address at all times
relevant. 	In light of the above, I CONCLUDE that, based on her unstable housing
situation during the 2018-2019 school year, petitioner N.J.-B. was domiciled for a portion
of the school year at xx Headily Terrace, Irvington and a portion of the school year at xxx
Lafayette Terrace, Union.
DAMAGES
Where the evidence does not support the claims of the resident, the Commissioner
of Education is authorized to assess tuition pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a), which
provides as follows:
If in the judgment of the Commissioner the evidence does not
support the claim of the resident, he shall assess the resident
tuition for the student prorated to the time of the student’s
ineligible attendance in the school district. 	Tuition shall be
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 and shall be collected in the manner in
which orders of the Commissioner are enforced.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
9
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b) likewise requires that tuition be calculated on the basis of
1/180 of the total annual per pupil cost to the district multiplied by the number of days of
ineligible attendance.
In the case at bar, the district is seeking an order against the petitioner assessing
the tuition amount owed the district in the amount of $52,711.32. 	No testimony was
offered at the hearing regarding this amount, but the Board provided the undersigned with
a certification (R-3) itemizing the amount sought in their closing submissions. Based on
the certification, the amount sought consists of general education tuition of $8,341.76
(prorated for ninety-eight days); special education tuition of $10,706.92 (prorated for
eighty-two days); personal aid costs (including benefits) of $26,445.69 (prorated for
eighty-two 	days); 	door-to-door 	transportation 	of 	$929.65 	(estimated); 	behavioral
intervention services of $6,050; and counseling services in the amount of $237.30.
In the notice sent to N.J.-B. by the district dated October 31, 2018, (R-2) it is clearly
indicated that the amount petitioner would be liable for if she were found not to be
domiciled in district, would be $85 per day or $15,321 for the entire school year. 	The
notice makes no reference to special education tuition, related costs, or transportation
expenses. 	At the hearing, no testimony was offered with regard to special education
tuition/costs or transportation costs. Thus, I FIND petitioner had no notice of any charges
or costs beyond the $85 per day and I, therefore, CONCLUDE that petitioner’s liability for
the 2018-2019 school year is limited to the $15,321 sought via the district’s October 31,
2018, letter. R-2. In addition, since I have already found that petitioner was domiciled for
a portion of the year in the district, I CONCLUDE that petitioner’s liability to the district is
limited to the amount of $8,341.76; which represents the total amount of general
education tuition (pro-rated at $85 per day) certified to by the Business Administrator. R-
3. 	Therefore, the Board is entitled to payment of tuition in the amount of $8,341.76 for
the entire 2018-2019 school year.
Based upon the facts adduced and the legal principles cited above, I CONCLUDE
that petitioner’s child, I.T., was not a domiciliary in the Union Township Board of Education

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
10
School District for a portion of the days sought and that respondent is entitled to
reimbursement for the costs of audited tuition in the amount of $8,341.76.
DECISION AND ORDER
Based on the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s determination
that petitioner and her child are not residents and domiciliary in Union, New Jersey, and
were not domiciled within its school district during the 2008-2009 school year is hereby
AFFIRMED in part. It is further ORDERED that respondent is entitled to reimbursement
from petitioner for the total cost of audited tuition in the amount of $8,341.76.
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.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
11
Within thirteen days from the date of which this recommended decision was mailed
to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT 	OF 	EDUCATION, 	ATT: 	BUREAU 	OF 	CONTROVERSIES 	AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4 th Floor, P.O. 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.
February 11, 2020
DATE 	JUDE-ANTHONY TISCORNIA, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	2/11/20 	__
Date Mailed to Parties: 	__
Id

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03247-19
12
APPENDIX
LIST OF WITNESSES
For petitioner:
R.L.
N.J.-B.
R.J.-B.
For Respondent:
John Matos
LIST OF EXHIBITS IN EVIDENCE
For Petitioner:
P-1 	New Jersey Driver’s License for N.J.-B.
For Respondent:
R-1 	Investigation report by John Matos
R-2 	Letter dated October 31, 2018, from Board to petitioner
R-3 	District’s Certification