Board of Education of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, Mercer County v. Matheny Medical and Education Center, Somerset County; Matheny School and Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Matheny Medical and Educational Center v. Board of Education of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, Mercer County and State of New Jersey, 9/8/25 (#432-25)

432-25
OAL Dkt. Nos. EDU 09398-24, 11817-24 (consolidated)
Agency Dkt. Nos. 193-6/24, 211-7/24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
Board 	of Education 	of the 	West 	Windsor-
Plainsboro 	Regional 	School 	District, 	Mercer
County,
Petitioner,
v.
Matheny 	Medical 	and 	Education 	Center,
Somerset County,
Respondent,
AND
Matheny 	School 	and 	Hospital, 	Inc., 	d/b/a
Matheny Medical and Education Center,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of Education 	of the 	West 	Windsor-
Plainsboro 	Regional 	School 	District, 	Mercer
County, and State of New Jersey,
Respondents.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
the exceptions filed by Board of Education of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School
District (Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4, and the replies submitted by Matheny Medical and

2
Education Center (Matheny) and the State of New Jersey (State), have been reviewed and
considered.
This consolidated matter concerns financial responsibility for tuition payments to
Matheny, an approved private school for students with disabilities,1 for educational services
provided to M.M. during the 2023-2024 school year. 	The Board seeks reimbursement for
monthly tuition payments it made to Matheny in January and February 2024 after M.M.’s parents
relocated to Spain and were no longer domiciled in West Windsor Township. Matheny seeks
monthly tuition payments from either the Board or the State for educational services provided
to M.M. from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024.2
Upon review of cross-motions for summary decision filed by the Board and Matheny
which were opposed by the State, and related exhibits, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
concluded that the Board was responsible for M.M.’s tuition payments to Matheny for the entire
2023-2024 school year pursuant to a Mandated Tuition Contract (Contract) executed by the
Board and Matheny. The ALJ further concluded that the State was not financially responsible for
M.M.’s tuition payments pursuant to the State Facilities Education Act of 1979 (Act), N.J.S.A.
18A:7B-1 to -13, because M.M. was not placed at Matheny by the State.
In its exceptions, the Board initially offers nine factual findings and requests that the
Commissioner accept them “to the extent they are inconsistent with and not addressed in the
1 An approved private school for students with disabilities, or APSSD, is “an entity approved by the
Department according to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.1 through 7.3 to provide special education and related services
to a student with disabilities placed in the APSSD by a parent/guardian, sending district board of
education, or State agency responsible for providing the student’s education through implementation of
his or her individualized education program (IEP).” N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.2.
2 M.M. was scheduled to graduate in June 2024.

3
[ALJ’s] Factual Findings in the Initial Decision.” 	Board’s Exceptions, at 3-4. 	The Board also
contends that the ALJ erred as a matter of law by: (1) failing to determine that, pursuant to
N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d) and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(c), the State is financially responsible for M.M.’s
tuition payments; (2) disregarding a Department of Education (DOE) employee’s email to
Matheny which suggested that the Board was no longer responsible for M.M. after her parents
disenrolled her from the district; and (3) finding that the Contract between the Board and
Matheny regarding payment of tuition remained in effect after M.M.’s parents moved to Spain.
In response, Matheny argues that the Commissioner should adopt the Initial Decision in
its entirety. It claims that there is no legal basis to accept the alternative findings of fact proposed
by the Board, as the ALJ’s factual findings are fully supported by the record. It also contends that
M.M.’s parents’ attempt to disenroll her from the district was invalid because they did not
understand the implications of doing so, that M.M.’s IEP was effective through June 30, 2024,
and that the Board did not modify the IEP or terminate the Contract. It asks the Commissioner
to order the Board to pay Matheny $66,000 within 30 days of the final decision.
The State agrees with Matheny that the Initial Decision is correct and should be adopted
by the Commissioner. 	It argues that the instant matter is a contractual dispute between the
Board and Matheny. It emphasizes that the State was not a party to the Contract and therefore
cannot be held liable under its terms. 	It also contends that the Board misconstrued the Act,
which neither governs private contracts nor applies to M.M. because she was not placed at
Matheny by the State. 	It adds that the DOE was never asked to make a district of residence
determination pursuant to the Act or related regulations.

4
Upon review, the Commissioner adopts the Initial Decision as the final decision in this
matter. At the outset, the Commissioner holds that the ALJ’s factual findings are fully supported
by the record. Moreover, the Board’s exceptions are procedurally defective as they fail to specify
each finding of fact to which exception is taken as required by N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4. 	It is not
compliant with the regulation for a party to submit alternate factual findings and to request
generally that the Commissioner accept them to the extent they are allegedly inconsistent with
or not addressed in the Initial Decision without specifying which of the ALJ’s factual findings are
problematic. As for the ALJ’s legal conclusions, the Commissioner finds that they are consistent
with applicable law, and that the Board’s exceptions are unavailing.
In particular, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the Act and related regulations
are not applicable to this matter. Enacted in 1979, the Act’s purpose is to “assure a thorough
and efficient education” for all students who reside in State facilities. In re N.J.A.C. 6:28, 204 N.J.
Super. 158, 164-65 (App. Div. 1985). Toward that end, the Act requires “school districts to pay
tuition for all children in State facilities.” D.S. v. Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of E. Brunswick, 188 N.J.
Super. 592, 607 (App. Div. 1983). Thus, the Act provides that “for school funding purposes,” the
Commissioner is tasked with determining the district of residence of affected students. N.J.S.A.
18A:7B-12. See Forstrom v. Byrne, 341 N.J. Super. 45, 65-66 (App. Div. 2001) (explaining that the
“’district of residence’ is responsible for the cost of education of such children”).
N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(a), (b), and (c), set forth specific criteria the Commissioner must
consider when making a district of residence determination. The subsection (a) criteria apply to
students placed in resource family homes by the Department of Children and Families. N.J.S.A.
18A:7B-12(a). The subsection (b) criteria apply to students “who are in residential State facilities,

5
or who have been placed by State agencies in group homes, skill development homes, private
schools or out-of-State facilities.” 	N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(b). 	The subsection (c) criteria apply to
homeless students. N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(c). Subsection (d), which the Board asserts is applicable
to the present matter, states:
If the district of residence cannot be determined according
to the criteria contained herein, if the criteria contained herein
identify a district of residence outside of the State, or if the child
has resided in a domestic violence shelter, homeless shelter, or
transitional living facility located outside of the district of residence
for more than one year, the State shall assume fiscal responsibility
for the tuition of the child. The tuition shall equal the approved per
pupil cost established pursuant to section 24 of P.L. 1996, c. 138 (C.
18A:7F-24). This amount shall be appropriated in the same manner
as other State aid under this act. 	The Department of Education
shall pay the amount to the Department of Human Services, the
Department 	of 	Children 	and 	Families, 	the 	Department 	of
Corrections or the Youth Justice Commission established pursuant
to section 2 of P.L. 1995, c. 284 (C. 52:17B-170), or, in the case of a
homeless 	child 	or 	a 	child 	in 	a 	family 	resource 	home, 	the
Department of Education shall pay to the school district in which
the child is enrolled the weighted base per pupil amount calculated
pursuant to section 7 of P.L. 2007, c. 260 (C. 18A7F-49) and the
appropriate security categorical aid per pupil and special education
categorical aid per pupil.
The Board’s contention that subsection (d) of N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 requires the State to
assume financial responsibility for M.M.’s tuition for the 2023-2024 school year because her
district of residence cannot be determined under subsections (a), (b), and (c), and because her
parents moved outside of the state, lacks merit. By its plain language, the Act applies only to
students in residential State facilities, students placed in resource family homes, students placed
by State agencies, and homeless students. N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12. While M.M. attends Matheny, an
APSSD, the Board—not a State agency—placed M.M. at Matheny in accordance with N.J.A.C.
6A:14-7.5, and tuition payments for her educational services are governed by a Mandated Tuition

6
Contract between the Board and Matheny. 	See N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.8 (explaining that boards of
education shall pay tuition pursuant to the terms of a mandated tuition contract for students
placed in APSSDs). 	Therefore, the Act is not applicable to M.M., and a district of residence
determination pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 is not warranted.3
Contrary to the Board’s contention, and for similar reasons, N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(c),
“Method of determining the district of residence,” is not applicable to this case either. 	That
regulation states that the “Department shall notify the district board of education of the
determination of the district of residence. To prevent a lapse in the child’s education and/or
child study services, the district board of education shall be bound by the determination unless
and until it is reversed on redetermination or appeal pursuant to (e) and (f) below.” 	N.J.A.C.
6A:23A-19.2(c). 	As explained previously, the DOE never made a district of residence
determination for M.M. because the Act does not apply to M.M.; she was not placed in a State
facility or placed at Matheny by a State agency. Thus, a district of residence determination was
not necessary, and N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(c) is not applicable. See also 56 N.J.R. 658(a) (explaining
that N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2 “establishes the criteria for determining the district of residence for
financial responsibility for students who are placed in State facilities or placed by State
agencies”).
However, the Board contends that an email sent from a DOE staff member in response to
an inquiry from Matheny constituted a district of residence determination regarding M.M. that
3 Moreover, subsection (d) mandates that when the State assumes fiscal responsibility for a
student’s educational costs under the Act, DOE must pay tuition costs to either the State agency
responsible for the placement or, in the case of a homeless child or a child in a resource family
home, tuition costs to the school district in which the child is enrolled. It does not authorize DOE
to pay tuition costs directly to a private school as the Board insists should occur here.

7
it and the ALJ are bound by. 	That is a mischaracterization of the email in question. 	“The
Commissioner of Education, or her designee, is responsible for determining the child’s present
district of residence ‘based upon the address submitted by the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Children and Families, or the Juvenile Justice Commission on forms prepared by
the Department of Education.’” 	Bd. of Educ. of Twp. of N. Bergen v. N.J. Dep’t of Educ.,
Commissioner Decision No. 253-23 at 2 (Aug. 23, 2023) (quoting N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(b)). The
email from Christina Orozco, Special Education Specialist, does not state that it is a district of
residence determination for M.M.; rather, it states that M.M. was unenrolled from the district
by her parents, and that the Board “ceased to be responsible for this student, as of the date in
which she was unenrolled.”4 The email, which makes no mention of the Contract executed by
the parties, is not a final agency decision and also indicates that Matheny may contact the
Executive County Business Administrator with questions regarding financial matters pertaining
to the sending district.
Additionally, the Commissioner agrees with the ALJ that the Contract remains in effect
between the Board and Matheny. The Contract for the 2023-2024 school year provides that the
Board, as sending district, agreed to purchase educational services described in M.M.’s IEP from
4 The ALJ found that M.M.’s parent completed a “Release of Student Records” form on December 24,
2023, stating that M.M.’s last day of school was December 22, 2023. Initial Decision, at 4. The form
authorized the Board to release M.M.’s records to Matheny. Ibid. Her parent also completed a “Student
Transfer Verification Form” stating that M.M. was transferring from Matheny to a “nonpublic school
within the state.” Initial Decision, at 4-5. On January 2, 2024, a district secretary emailed M.M.’s parent
to notify her that she had completed the release form incorrectly. Id. at 5. M.M.’s parent responded and
expressed confusion, stating “M.M. is not changing school, just getting out of the ww-p [sic] system.
Please let me know what to write in that case.” Ibid. The secretary replied that no further changes were
needed to the forms. 	Ibid. 	The Commissioner finds that even assuming M.M.’s parent intended to
disenroll her from the district, M.M. remained at Matheny, and the Board continued to be bound by its
Contract with Matheny until the Contract was terminated by either party.

8
Matheny commencing July 5, 2023, for 220 billable days. 	The Board further agreed to pay
Matheny tuition for M.M. on a monthly basis. The Board now claims—for the first time in its
exceptions—that it “met its obligations, both under Paragraph 11 and Paragraph 16, and thus
the Mandated Tuition Contract was not in effect.” Board’s Exceptions, at 11-12.
Paragraph 11 of the Contract states that it may be terminated
by the sending district in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.7(b).5
The sending district shall convene an IEP meeting according to
N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3. Written notice shall be provided to the parent
and/or guardian of the affected student pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-
2.3. The student may be terminated from the current placement
after the sending district has provided written notice to the parents
according to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3. At or upon the conclusion of the
IEP meeting, the sending district and the approved private school
shall mutually agree to a termination date. 	If the parties cannot
mutually agree to a termination date, the contract shall terminate
on the 16th day after written notice of termination was provided
to the parents pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3, provided, however,
that the parents have not exercised their right to disapprove the
termination of the services at the approved private school. If the
parent(s) and/or guardian(s) exercise their right to disapprove the
termination 	of 	services 	at 	the 	approved 	private 	school 	by
requesting mediation or a due process hearing, then the terms and
conditions of the contract shall remain in full force and effect,
unless the parties otherwise agree or the matter is resolved. The
approved private school may bill the sending district for the
number of enrolled days the student is enrolled after the date of
the IEP meeting up to and including the date of termination.
5 N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.7(b) states: “When the district board of education is considering the withdrawal of a
student with a disability from a receiving school prior to the end of the student’s academic year, the
district board of education shall convene an IEP meeting pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3(k). 	The IEP
meeting shall include appropriate personnel from the receiving school. At the IEP meeting, the IEP team
shall review the student’s current IEP and determine the student’s new placement. Written notice of any
changes to the IEP and the new placement shall be provided within 10 days of the date of the IEP meeting.
The student may be terminated from the current placement after the district board of education has
provided written notice to the parents pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3. 	The termination shall be in
accordance with the provisions of the contract between the receiving school and the district board of
education.”

9
Paragraph 16 of the Contract requires the sending district “to immediately inform the
approved private school should it become aware of a change in the student’s school district of
residence for school funding purposes.”
While the Board convened an IEP meeting on December 11, 2023, the IEP continued
M.M.’s educational placement at Matheny for the remainder of the 2023-2024 school year—
notwithstanding the Board’s knowledge of the fact that her parents intended to move to Spain.
Page 27 of the December 11, 2023, IEP states that “family is in the process of selling their home
and moving to Spain. They are looking for a placement for [M.M.] in Spain as well.” Although
the Board informed Matheny that M.M.’s parents moved to Spain in January 2024, the Board
never provided M.M.’s parents with written notice of termination of the placement pursuant to
N.J.A.C. 6A:14-2.3 as is required by Paragraph 11. Thus, the Board did not terminate the Contract
per Paragraph 11, and it owes tuition payments for M.M. to Matheny in accordance with the
Contract’s terms for the 2023-2024 school year.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter. The Board’s
motion for summary decision is denied, and Matheny’s petition for summary decision is granted.
IT IS SO ORDERED.6
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 8, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 8, 2025
6 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
SUMMARY DECISION
(CONSOLIDATED)
WEST WINDSOR-PLAINSBORO REGIONAL OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24
SCHOOL DISTRICT, AGENCY REF. NO. 193-6/24
Petitioner,
v.
MATHENY MEDICAL AND EDUCATION CENTER,
SOMERSET COUNTY,
Respondent,
AND
MATHENY SCHOOL AND HOSPITAL, INC. OAL DKT. NO. EDU 11817-24
D/B/A MATHENY MEDICAL AND EDUCATION AGENCY REF. NO. 211-7/24
CENTER,
Petitioner,
v.
WEST WINDSOR-PLAINSBORO REGIONAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT AND STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Respondents.
______________________________
Andrew Li, Esq., appearing for petitioner/respondent, West Windsor-Plainsboro
Regional School District, (Comegno Law Group, P.C., attorneys)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
2
Janelle Edwards-Stewart, Esq., appearing for respondent/petitioner, Matheny
School and Hospital, Inc. d/b/a Medical and Education Center, (Porzio
Bromberg & Newman, attorneys)
Sadia Ahsanuddin, Deputy Attorney General, appearing for respondent, State of
New Jersey (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney)
Record Closed: April 28, 2025 Decided: June 16, 2025
BEFORE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District, co-petitioner/co-respondent,
(WW-P) seeks tuition reimbursement from Matheny Medical and Education Center, co-
respondent/co-petitioner, (Matheny) for tuition erroneously paid in January and February
2024 for M.M. after her parents moved to Spain in January 2024. Matheny seeks tuition
from either WW-P pursuant to the tuition contract or respondent, the State of New Jersey
(State), for educational services provided to M.M. from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024,
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d). Is WW-P entitled to tuition reimbursement or is the
State financially responsible for the educational services provided by Matheny to M.M.
after her parents moved to Spain? The Mandated Tuition Contract requires WW-P to pay
tuition for the 2023–24 school year, and the State is not financially responsible.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Petitioner WW-P filed an appeal dated June 13, 2024, with the Commissioner of
Education (Commissioner). Respondent, Matheny, filed an answer with affirmative
defenses dated July 3, 2024. On July 10, 2024, the Department of Education (DOE),
Division of Controversies and Disputes, transmitted the matter of West Windsor-
Plainsboro Regional School District Board of Education v. Matheny Medical and
Education Center (OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09398-24) to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
3
for determination as a contested case, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A.
52:14F-1 to -13.
Matheny filed an appeal dated July 8, 2024, with the Commissioner. WW-P filed
an answer with affirmative defenses and a cross-claim dated July 29, 2024. On August
14, 2024, the DOE, Division of Controversies and Disputes, transmitted the matter of
Matheny School and Hospital, Inc., d/b/a Matheny Medical and Educational Center v.
Board of Education of the West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District and State of
New Jersey, (OAL Dkt. No. EDU 11817-24) to the OAL for determination as a contested
case, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15 and N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
By Order dated September 24, 2024, the two matters were consolidated. The
State received the petition on July 11, 2024, and was granted an extension to file a
response. On August 13, 2024, the State filed a Motion to Dismiss (Motion) in lieu of an
answer. Both WW-P and Matheny filed responses opposing the motion on October 7,
2024, in accordance with the briefing schedule. The State was granted an extension and
filed its reply on October 22, 2024. The State’s motion was denied by the undersigned
by Order dated November 26, 2024.
WW-P and Matheny filed motions for summary decision (MSD) on February 28,
2025. Matheny filed a response dated April 2, 2025, opposing WW-P’s motion. WW-P
filed a response dated April 2, 2025, partially opposing Matheny’s motion. The State filed
a response dated April 2, 2025, opposing both motions.1 Matheny and WW-P filed replies
dated April 28, 2025, and the record closed.
1 The DAG included a cross MSD in her submission; however, the motion was deemed untimely.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
4
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
The parties agree that there are no facts in dispute. Based upon the documents
filed in this matter, I FIND the following as FACTS:
1. Petitioner WW-P governs the affairs of the West Windsor-Plainsboro
Regional School District, a public school district encompassing the municipalities of West
Windsor and Plainsboro. The petitioner is responsible for providing either a thorough and
efficient public education and/or a free and appropriate public education to students that
lawfully reside in the municipalities of West Windsor and Plainsboro. The petitioner is
located at 321 Village Road East, West Windsor, New Jersey, 08550.
2. Matheny is a private special education school approved by the DOE that
provides academics to students with medically complex developmental disabilities and is
located at 65 Highland Avenue, Peapack, New Jersey, 07997.
3. M.M. was a student with disabilities found eligible to receive special
education and related services and who resided with her parents within the petitioner’s
boundaries. M.M. turned twenty-one years of age on January 24, 2024. She was
admitted to and resided at Matheny Hospital, receiving educational and related services
at Matheny School starting on November 15, 2022. (Matheny’s Answer, Exh. A at 14.)
4. An Individualized Education Program (IEP), developed by the petitioner
WW-P, placed M.M. at Matheny for the 2023–24 school year.
5. On May 1, 2023, the petitioner WW-P and Matheny entered into a Mandated
Tuition Contract for educational services to be provided by Matheny for M.M. for the
2023–24 school year. (WW-P Petition, Exh. A.)
6. On December 24, 2023, M.M.’s parent, A.L., completed a form entitled
“Release of Student Records” stating that M.M.’s last day of school was December 22,
2023. A new address was listed as Calle del Rubi 3, Soto del Real, Madrid, 28791. (Id.,
Exh. B.) The release form authorized WW-P to release all pupil records related to M.M.
to Matheny. In addition, A.L. completed a “Student Transfer Verification Form” stating

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
5
that M.M. was transferring from Matheny School to a “nonpublic school within the state.”
(Ibid.)
7. In an email dated January 2, 2024, the high school counseling secretary at
WW-P high school notified A.L. that she had completed the release form incorrectly.
(Matheny’s Answer, Exh. B.) On January 3, 2024, A.L. responded expressing confusion
over completing the forms. She stated: “[M.M.] is not changing school, just getting out of
the ww-p [sic] system. Please let me know what to write in that case.” (Ibid.)
8. The counseling department secretary responded that no further changes
were needed to the forms. (Ibid.)
9. WW-P’s Director of Special Services emailed Matheny and spoke with
Matheny’s principal about the parents’ pending move to Spain before M.M. was formally
withdrawn as a student.
10. Matheny invoiced WW-P on or about January 1, 2024, in the amount of
$18,000 for educational services provided to M.M. (Id., Exh. C.) WW-P paid this invoice.
(Petition, Exh. E.)
11. Matheny invoiced WW-P on or about February 1, 2024, in the amount of
$14,400 for educational services provided to M.M. (Id., Exh. D.) WW-P paid this invoice.
(Id., Exh. E.)
12. In a letter dated March 25, 2024, WW-P requested that Matheny reimburse
the January and February 2024 payments totaling $32,400 because the parents had
moved and were no longer residents of West Windsor-Plainsboro. (Id., Exh. F.)
13. In an email dated March 25, 2024, Christina Orozco, Special Education
Specialist for the DOE, wrote: “The student was officially unenrolled from the West
Windsor-Plainsboro Regional School District in December of 2023 by her legal guardians,
her parents. Therefore, West Windsor-Plainsboro Regional SD ceased to be responsible
for this student, as of the date in which she was unenrolled.” (Id., Exh. G.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
6
14. Matheny issued invoices to the petitioner for educational services provided
in March, April, and May 2024, totaling $52,200. (Id., Exh. H.)
15. M.M.’s parents moved to Spain on or about January 3, 2024. However,
M.M. remained at Matheny until they could find a suitable residential placement for her
there.
16. M.M. had no connection with the Division of Developmentally Disabled
(DDD), Division of Children and Families (DCF), or The Division of Child Permanency and
Protection (DCP&P). (Matheny’s Answer, Exh. A at 9–12.)
ARGUMENTS ON THE MOTION
WW-P asserts that summary decision is warranted in its favor because M.M.’s
parents disenrolled her on December 22, 2023, and the parents moved to Spain on
January 3, 2024. Therefore, WW-P was no longer the district of residence and no longer
financially responsible for M.M.’s education pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d). Under
this statute, the State assumes fiscal responsibility when the district of residence cannot
be determined by specific statutory criteria or when the parties move out of the state,
which is what occurred here. Accordingly, WW-P is entitled to reimbursement of the
$32,400 paid on February 20, 2024, and is not fiscally responsible for special education
and related services provided in March 2024, April 2024, and June 2024.2
Matheny asserts that it is entitled to summary decision because there is no dispute
that Matheny provided M.M. with all the educational instruction and services required
pursuant to her IEP and is now owed $66,600 in tuition.3 Either WW-P or the State must
pay this balance. WW-P is fiscally responsible because the contract between WW-P and
Matheny called for services to be provided until June 2024, and WW-P did not terminate
the contract. Alternatively, the State is responsible for M.M.’s education costs pursuant
to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d), which mandates that the State is responsible when the district
2 It is unclear why May 2024 is not included in the claim.
3 Matheny contends that it is owed $99,000 for services provided from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024,
which consists of $60,500 in tuition and $38,000 for 1:1 nursing services. WW-P has paid $32,400 as
tuition for January and February 2024.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
7
of residence is outside the state. Failure to grant Matheny’s MSD will result in unjust
enrichment.
Matheny also contends that WW-P is not entitled to summary decision because it
is not an indisputable fact that A.L. disenrolled M.M. from WW-P. The evidence shows
that A.L. was confused about how to complete the transfer form and thus, there is a
question of law regarding whether the form had the legal effect of ending M.M.’s
enrollment and/or transferring fiscal responsibility from WW-P to the State. This lack of
informed consent is at odds with the tuition contract and the IEPs dated December 11,
2023, and February 13, 2023. There is also a question of law regarding whether the State
employee’s email declaring that WW-P was no longer fiscally responsible represented a
factual finding. Matheny contends the email contained “unsupported legal conclusions.”
(Matheny Response at 4.) Finally, the payments made to Matheny by WW-P in January
and February 2024 were not in error but arose out of a contractual legal obligation and
the IEPs.
The State asserts that this is a contract dispute between WW-P and Matheny and
the State is not a party to the tuition contract. N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 only applies to students
in residential state facilities or students who were placed there by state agencies. For
these students, the DOE pays tuition to the Department of Human Services (DHS), the
DCF, or the Youth Justice Commission (YJC). In addition, the State never became M.M.’s
legal guardian and M.M. was not placed at Matheny by any state agency. Thus, there
are no grounds for the State to assume fiscal responsibility for M.M.’s educational costs
and both parties’ MSDs should be denied.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
A motion for summary decision may be granted if the papers and discovery
presented, as well as any affidavits which may have been filed with the application, show
that there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to prevail
as a matter of law. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b). If the motion is sufficiently supported, the non-
moving party must demonstrate by affidavit that there is a genuine issue of fact which can
only be determined in an evidentiary proceeding in order to prevail in such an application.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
8
Ibid. These provisions mirror the summary judgment language of R. 4:46-2(c) of the New
Jersey Court Rules.
The motion judge must “consider whether the competent evidential materials
presented, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party . . . are
sufficient to permit a rational fact finder to resolve the alleged disputed issue in favor of
the non-moving party.” Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 523 (1995).
Even if the non-moving party comes forward with some evidence, this forum must grant
summary decision if the evidence is “so one-sided that [the moving party] must prevail as
a matter of law.” Id. at 536.
Here, it is undisputed that Matheny provided the educational programs and
services as mandated by M.M.’s IEPs. The evidence shows that WW-P developed an
IEP dated February 13, 2023, that placed M.M. at Matheny until October 26, 2023.
(Matheny Petition, Exh. B.) In addition, WW-P and Matheny entered into a Mandated
Tuition Contract dated May 1, 2023, for the 2023–24 school year. The educational
services were to commence on July 5, 2023, and continue for 220 billable days, which
consisted of 180 school days and 40 extended school year days. (Matheny Petition, Exh.
C.) After being notified on or about October 2023 that the parents were moving to Spain,
WW-P proposed another IEP dated December 11, 2023, that continued M.M.’s placement
at Matheny until June 21, 2024. (Matheny’s Petition, Exh. D.) WW-P notified M.M.’s
parents that the IEP would become effective fifteen days after receiving the IEP unless
the parents submitted an objection. (Ibid.) There is no evidence of an objection from
M.M.’s parents, and thus, this IEP became effective on December 26, 2023. In addition,
there is no dispute that WW-P paid Matheny $32,400 in tuition for January and February
2024. (Matheny Petition, Exh. F.) Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that Matheny has
established that it is entitled to payment for providing educational and related services to
M.M. from March 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024.
Matheny asserts that the amount owed is $66,600. The critical question is who is
responsible for this payment. Matheny contends it is either the State pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:7B-12(d) or WW-P pursuant to the tuition contract and IEPs dated February 13, 2023,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
9
and December 11, 2023. For the reasons that follow, I CONCLUDE that N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-
12 does not apply to the present situation.
N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12
This statute provides guidance on how the Commissioner determines a student’s
district of residence for school funding purposes. Specifically, this statute provides:
For school funding purposes, the Commissioner of Education
shall determine district of residence as follows:
a.
(1) In the case of a child placed in a resource family home
prior to the effective date [Sept. 9, 2010] of P.L.2010, c.69
(C.30:4C-26b et al.), the district of residence shall be the
district in which the resource family parents reside. If such
a child in a resource family home is subsequently placed
in a State facility or by a State agency, the district of
residence of the child shall then be determined as if no
such resource family placement had occurred.
(2) In the case of a child placed in a resource family home
on or after the effective date [Sept. 9, 2010] of P.L.2010,
c.69 (C.30:4C-26b et al.), the district of residence shall be
the present district of residence of the parent or guardian
with whom the child lived prior to the most recent
placement in a resource family home.
b. The district of residence for children who are in residential
State facilities, or who have been placed by State agencies in
group homes, skill development homes, private schools or
out-of-State facilities, shall be the present district of residence
of the parent or guardian with whom the child lived prior to his
most recent admission to a State facility or most recent
placement by a State agency.
c. The district of residence for children whose parent or
guardian temporarily moves 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. . . .
d. If the district of residence cannot be determined according
to the criteria contained herein, if the criteria contained herein

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
10
identify a district of residence outside of the State, or if the
child has resided in a domestic violence shelter, homeless
shelter, or transitional living facility located outside of the
district of residence for more than one year, the State shall
assume fiscal responsibility for the tuition of the child. The
tuition shall equal the approved per pupil cost established
pursuant to section 24 of P.L.1996, c.138 (C.18A:7F-24). This
amount shall be appropriated in the same manner as other
State aid under this act. The Department of Education shall
pay the amount to the Department of Human Services, the
Department of Children and Families, the Department of
Corrections or the Youth Justice Commission . . . or, in the
case of a homeless child or a child in a family resource home,
the Department of Education shall pay to the school district in
which the child is enrolled the weighted base per pupil amount
calculated pursuant to section 7 of P.L.2007, c.260
(C.18A:7F-49) and the appropriate security categorical aid per
pupil and special education categorical aid per pupil.
e. If the State has assumed fiscal responsibility for the tuition
of a child in a private educational facility approved by the
Department of Education to serve children who are classified
as needing special education services, the department shall
pay to the Department of Human Services, the Department of
Children and Families or the Youth Justice Commission, as
appropriate, the aid specified in subsection d. of this section
and in addition, such aid as required to make the total amount
of aid equal to the actual cost of the tuition.
[N.J.S.A.18A:7B-12.]
This statute outlines the criteria to determine the district of residence for students
in state facilities. The Senate Education Committee Statement for N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 is
instructive and states in relevant part:
The purpose of this bill is to provide a thorough and efficient
education for children in all State facilities. It applies to
educational programs in State schools and day training
centers for the mentally retarded, State psychiatric hospitals,
State residential youth centers, and State correctional
facilities. . . . It also includes two sections redefining the
criteria for determining the district of residence for children in
State facilities as well as for others placed by State agencies.
[Assembly, No. 86-L. 1979 c. 207.]

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
11
All parties agree that N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 (a), (b), and (c) are inapplicable to the
current set of facts. However, both WW-P and Mathey instead rely on (d) as being
relevant. Specifically, if the Commissioner cannot determine the district of residence
based upon the criteria set forth in (a), (b), and (c), and if it is determined that the district
of residence is outside of the State, then the State assumes fiscal responsibility for the
child. N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d).
Following this logic, the State became financially responsible for M.M.’s
educational costs by operation of law when M.M.’s parents moved to Spain. This
reasoning is problematic, however, because the statute was intended to apply to students
in state facilities, students placed by State agencies, or homeless students, which M.M is
not. Stated differently, N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12(d) provides that if the district of residence for
a child in a residential State facility or who was placed by state agencies in a resource
family home, group home, skill development home, private school, out-of-State facility, or
a homeless child is determined to be outside of the State, then the State will assume
financial responsibility. None of these scenarios describe M.M.’s situation.
In addition, WW-P and Matheny both ignore the rest of the statute, which mandates
that when the State assumes financial responsibility, payment is made to the DHS, the
DCF, the Department of Corrections (DOC), or the YJC. (Ibid.) The statute does not
authorize payment to a private school for the disabled. Moreover, the evidence shows
that all three of these agencies disavow having any connection with M.M. or her parents.
(WW-P MSD Exh. I at 4–14.)
Accordingly, I FIND that this statute does not address the circumstances presented
here where the student is in a private school for the disabled and the parents have moved
out of the country. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 is irrelevant to
this analysis.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
12
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2
The corresponding regulations to N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 provide additional guidance
on determining the district of residence for certain students. N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(c)
provides that “The Department shall notify the district board of education of the
determination of the district of residence.” The State asserts that this regulation, like its
originating statute, N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12, only applies to children in residential facilities and
does not address a contractual agreement between a school district and a private school
for the disabled. (State’s Response, at 11.) I agree. However, the State relies upon
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(b), which states:
The Commissioner, or the Commissioner’s designee, shall
determine the “present district of residence” or “district of
residence” referred to at N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12.b based upon
the address submitted by the Department of Corrections, the
Department of Children and Families, or the [Youth] Justice
Commission on forms prepared by the Department of
Education.
[Ibid.]
The State reasons that this regulation mandates that the Commissioner must determine
the district of residence. Since there was no request for the DOE to make a district of
residence determination, the State reasons this regulation does not apply. I am not
persuaded that this reasoning is legally sound.
The evidence shows that in an email dated March 25, 2024, Christina Orozco,
Special Education Specialist with the NJ DOE Field and Support Services, affirmed that
M.M. was “officially unenrolled from the [WW-P] District in December of 2023 by her legal
guardian, her parents. Therefore, [WW-P] ceased to be responsible for this student, as
of the date in which she was unenrolled.” (WW-P MSD, Exh. I at 1.) Thus, an inquiry
was made. However, a determination by the Commissioner was unwarranted because
M.M. did not fit within any of the categories contained in either N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 or
N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
13
Matheny similarly contends that this email is inconsequential because WW-P did
not request a formal assessment from the DOE as contemplated by N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12
and thus is tantamount to an “uninformed commentary by a State department worker[.]”
(Matheny Brief opposing WW-P’s MTD at 4.) However, Matheny presents no legal
support for this statutory interpretation. The plain reading of N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 states:
“For school funding purposes, the Commissioner of Education shall determine district of
residence as follows: . . .” (Ibid.) While there is a reasonable assumption that an inquiry
is needed to trigger a residency decision from the Commissioner, Matheny has failed to
present legal support that a formal assessment is required or that Ms. Orozco’s email
concluding that WW-P was no longer the district of residence is insufficient notice.
Based upon a plain reading of N.J.S.A. 18A:7B-12 and N.J.S.A. 6A:23A-19.2, I am
persuaded that they both are limited to children in state facilities or children who are
homeless and thus, are not applicable to M.M. Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that the email
from the DOE worker determining that WW-P was no longer the district of residence has
no effect because the email was generated from a regulation that does not apply to M.M.
See, N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-19.2(c). Even if this regulation was by some means relevant, there
is no legal authority for the State to assume financial responsibility for a student in M.M.’s
situation. I therefore further CONCLUDE that the State is not responsible for M.M.’s
educational costs from January 1, 2024, to June 30, 2024.
IEP and Mandated Tuition Contract
It is uncontested that WW-P developed an IEP for M.M. dated December 11, 2023,
to provide a free, appropriate public education for M.M. This IEP continued placement at
Matheny for the remainder of the 2023–24 school year. The IEP is the roadmap of
services designed to enable a child with disabilities to receive an educational benefit. In
other words, the IEP must confer a meaningful educational benefit in light of a student’s
individual needs and potential. See T.R. ex rel. N.R. v. Kingwood Twp. Bd. of Educ., 205
F.3d 572, 578 (3d Cir. 2000).
Here, the IEP dated December 11, 2023, required special classes in academics,
language, self-help, daily living, occupational and physical therapy, speech-language,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
14
and 1:1 nursing services. (Matheny Petition, Exh. D.) To fulfill the IEP, WW-P contracted
with Matheny to provide the educational and related services for M.M. Matheny is an
approved private school for the disabled pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:23A-18.2, which
provides:
“Approved private school for students with disabilities” or
“APSSD” means an entity approved by the Department
according to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.1 through 7.3 to provide special
education and related services to a student with disabilities
placed in the APSSD by a parent/guardian, sending district
board of education, or State agency responsible for providing
the student's education through implementation of his or her
individualized education program (IEP).
[Ibid.]
The parties agreed that Matheny would provide educational and related services
to M.M. in accordance with the IEP starting July 9, 2023, for 220 days. In exchange for
these services, WW-P agreed to pay Matheny the approved private school monthly
tentative tuition charge based upon a per diem rate of $550 for the duration of the contract.
(Matheny Petition, Exh. C.) It is also uncontested that the State is not a party to the
contract between Matheny and WW-P.
In their respective MSD, both Matheny and the State contend that when M.M.’s
parents moved to Spain, WW-P did not properly terminate the contract, and therefore
WW-P remains bound by the contractual terms. WW-P contends that it did not terminate
the tuition contract because the conditions for termination were not met. Paragraph 11
of the tuition contract provides:
This agreement may be terminated by the approved private
school [Matheny] in accordance with N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.7(a)
or by the sending district [WW-P] in accordance with
N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.7(b).
[WW-P Reply at 2; emphasis in the original.]
N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.7(b) outlines termination procedures when a district is considering
withdrawing a student with a disability from a receiving school prior to the end of the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
15
student’s academic year. WW-P was not seeking to withdraw M.M. from Matheny.
Accordingly, WW-P asserts there was no need for WW-P to terminate the contract. WW-
P counters that it fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 16 of the contract, which required
WW-P to “immediately inform the approved private school should it become aware of a
change in the student’s school district of residence for school funding purposes.” (WW-
P MSD, Exh. B at 6.)
Based upon these uncontroverted facts, the tuition contract was still in effect on
January 3, 2024, when M.M.’s parents left for Spain until June 30, 2024, when the term
ended. Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:14-7.5(b)3:
When a district board of education places a student with a
disability in an approved residential private school in order to
provide the student a free, appropriate public education, the
placement shall be at no cost to the parent. The district board
of education shall be responsible for special education costs,
room, and board.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that WW-P is responsible for compensating Matheny
for services rendered from March 1, 2024, through June 30, 2024, and is not entitled to
reimbursement for payments made in January 2024 and February 2024.
Matheny asserts that there is a question of fact surrounding whether A.L.
disenrolled M.M. from WW-P. Matheny contends that A.L. was confused when she
signed the transfer and release forms, and thus, there was no informed consent.
(Matheny Response at 2–3.) However, A.L. clearly articulated her intention to unenroll
M.M. from WW-P schools in the email dated January 3, 2024. (Matheny Answer, Exh.
B.) Accordingly, I am persuaded that A.L. intended for M.M. to be removed from WW-P
but A.L. did not understand the financial implications.
Viewing the facts of each motion as I must, in the light most favorable to the non-
moving party, I CONCLUDE that the facts and inferences on the record as developed so
far leave insufficient disagreement between the parties regarding whether Matheny is
entitled to tuition payment from January 1, 2024, through June 30, 2024. In addition, the
evidence produced leaves an insufficient basis to validate WW-P’s claim of entitlement to

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
16
recoup tuition for January 2024 and February 2024 from Matheny. Finally, there is no
factual basis to hold the State responsible for M.M.’s educational expenses. An
evidentiary hearing is not required as the facts so far established are “so one sided that
one party must prevail as a matter of law.” Brill, 142 N.J. at 533. Accordingly, I
CONCLUDE that there are no remaining unresolved issues of material fact that require
submission to a fact finder, and thus, summary decision in favor of Matheny is warranted
under the Brill standard.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, I hereby ORDER:
• Matheny’s motion for summary decision is hereby GRANTED.
• West Windsor-Plainsboro’s motion for summary decision is hereby DENIED.
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 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
17
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies
and Disputes, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey
08625-0500. A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the judge and to the other parties.
June 16, 2025
DATE KIM C. BELIN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
KCB/am

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09398-24 and EDU 11817-24
18
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For the petitioner/respondent WW-P:
• Motion for Summary Decision dated February 28, 2025
• Response in Opposition to Matheny’s Motion for Summary Decision dated April
2, 2025
• Reply to Matheny’s Opposition dated April 28, 2025
For respondent/petitioner Matheny:
• Motion for Summary Decision dated February 28, 2025
• Response in Opposition to WW-P’s motion for summary decision dated April 2,
2025
• Reply to WW-P’s Opposition dated April 28, 2025
For respondent State of New Jersey:
• Response to WW-P and Matheny’s motions for summary decision dated April 2,
2025