E.K, on behalf of minor child, D.C.K., v. Board of Education of the Borough of Woodbine, Cape May County, 9/19/25 (#450-25)

450-25
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 03021-25
Agency Dkt. No. 19-1/25
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
E.K., on behalf of minor child, D.C.K.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board 	of 	Education 	of 	the 	Borough 	of
Woodbine, Cape May 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 (ALJ) that
petitioner and her minor child, D.C.K., were not domiciled in Woodbine during the 2024-2025
school year. 	The Commissioner further concurs with the ALJ’s conclusion that D.C.K. was,
therefore, not entitled to a free public education in Woodbine during that time.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b), the Commissioner shall assess tuition against petitioner
for the time period during which D.C.K. was ineligible to attend school in Woodbine. The Board
is entitled to tuition reimbursement in the amount of $21,673.80, for 180 days of ineligible
attendance at a per diem cost of $120.41.1
1 The tuition calculations are based upon information supplied in a certification by Dr. Pamela Shute,
Director of Student Services.

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is adopted as the final decision in this matter, and the
petition of appeal is hereby dismissed. 	Petitioner is directed to reimburse the Board in the
amount of $21,673.80 for tuition costs incurred when D.C.K. was ineligible to attend school in
Woodbine.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	September 19, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	September 22, 2025
2 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.

State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 03021-2025
AGENCY DKT. NO. 19-1/25
E.K. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
D.C.K.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH
OF WOODBINE, CAPE MAY COUNTY,
Respondent.
_________________________________
E.K., on behalf of minor child, D.C.K., petitioner, pro se
Michael P. Stanton, Esq., for respondent (McCrosson & Stanton, P.C., attorneys)
Record Closed: July 16, 2025 	Decided: August 22, 2025
BEFORE REBECCA C. LAFFERTY, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, E.K., the mother of minor child, D.C.K., appeals the determination by
the respondent, Board of Education of the Borough of Woodbine, Cape May County
(respondent or Board), that D.C.K. was not domiciled within the Borough of Woodbine
School District (District) and therefore he was not entitled to be enrolled at Middle

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
2
Township High School (MTHS) and that tuition reimbursement is required. Was D.C.K.
domiciled within the District and therefore entitled to be enrolled in MTHS for purposes of
receiving a thorough and efficient public education free of charge, pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1, for the 2024-2025 school year? 	No, the petitioner has not met her burden of
proving beyond a preponderance of the evidence that D.C.K. is domiciled within the
District and therefore D.C.K. is not entitled to a free public education at MTHS, and the
District is entitled to tuition reimbursement for the 2024-2025 school year.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By letter, dated January 3, 2025, the respondent notified the petitioner that D.C.K.
was ineligible to continue to attend school within the District as he was no longer domiciled
in the District. 	The petitioner filed a Pro Se Residency Appeal on or about January 20,
2025. 	The respondent filed an Answer on February 10, 2025. 	The Department of
Education Office of Controversies and Disputes transmitted this matter to the Office of
Administrative Law (OAL) where it was filed on February 13, 2025, as a contested case.
N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13.
An initial prehearing conference was scheduled for February 26, 2025, for which
the petitioner failed to appear. The prehearing conference was rescheduled for March 5,
2025, at which time two in-person hearing dates were scheduled for March 24, 2025, and
March 28, 2025. 	A pre-hearing order was entered on March 7, 2025. See March 7, 2025
Prehearing Order.
This Tribunal received a request from the petitioner on Thursday, March 20, 2025,
for an adjournment of the hearing dates. Respondent’s counsel objected to the request
made on the eve of Monday, March 24, 2025’s hearing date. 	This Tribunal held a
telephone conference on Friday, March 21, 2025, to determine the reasons for the
petitioner’s adjournment request. After questioning the petitioner regarding her reasons
for the adjournment request and learning that she could not get time off from work until
after April 21, 2025, the hearing was adjourned over the respondent’s objection.

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
3
Respondent’s counsel immediately requested permission to file a motion for summary
decision which was granted. On that same date, this Tribunal sent an email to the parties
confirming the briefing schedule for the motion for summary decision.
The respondent filed its motion for summary decision on April 4, 2025. 	The
petitioner’s opposition to the motion for summary decision was due on April 21, 2025. On
April 21, 2025, this Tribunal received an email from the petitioner in response to the
respondent’s 	motion 	for 	summary 	decision. 	Another 	telephone 	conference 	was
scheduled for April 24, 2025, which the petitioner did not attend. Instead of rescheduling
the telephone conference, this Tribunal sent an email to the parties outlining specific
documentation that each party was to provide by May 2, 2025. 	See April 24, 2025
Tribunal email. 	Specifically, the petitioner was directed to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.4(a) for
examples of acceptable documentation to prove residency. See April 24, 2025 Tribunal
email.
On 	April 	29, 	2025, 	this 	Tribunal 	received 	incomplete 	documents 	from 	the
respondent and counsel was advised to submit the required information in the form of a
certification or affidavit by the appropriate individual from the District. 	The respondent
provided the appropriate certification with exhibits on that same date.
On May 2, 2025, the petitioner sent partial/incomplete snapshots of documents via
email. 	The petitioner was advised by this Tribunal that complete copies of the actual
documents, not snapshots, were required as the snapshots were incomplete, blurry
and/or otherwise hard to read, and did not include dates. The petitioner was advised that
the documents needed to be postmarked by Friday, May 9, 2025. The petitioner mailed
hard copies of the snapshots, only, which were received on May 12, 2025. 	The record
was closed on May 12, 2025. 	The record was reopened for additional information from
the respondent and closed again on July 16, 2025.

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
4
DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS OF FACT
After having considered the evidence presented, I FIND the following as FACT:
E.K. is the mother of D.C.K., a minor child who attended MTHS for the 2024-2025
school year. 	The Board has a send-receive relationship with MTHS where the Board
sends students who reside in Woodbine to attend MTHS. See Certification of Adrienne
Breitinger.
D.C.K. first applied to MTHS as a school choice student for the 2024-2025 school
year. See Certification of Dr. Pamela Shute, dated March 27, 2025. The address listed
on his choice application was XXX W. Buttercup Road, Wildwood Crest, New Jersey
(Wildwood address). See Certification of Dr. Pamela Shute (March 27, 2025) and Exhibit
A. Wildwood Crest is not located within the District. D.C.K. was accepted to MTHS as a
school choice student, but his application was later denied. 	See Certification of Dr.
Pamela Shute (March 27, 2025) and Exhibit B. 	After D.C.K.’s choice application was
denied, E.K., on behalf of D.C.K., submitted an enrollment package for MTHS as a
Woodbine resident residing at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey (Woodbine
address). See Certification of Adrienne Breitinger and Exhibit C. As part of the enrollment
package, E.K. submitted her driver’s license that showed an address of XXX W. Buttercup
Road, Wildwood Crest, New Jersey, a copy of a South Jersey Gas Discontinuance
Notice, dated July 8, 2024, issued to J.C. at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New
Jersey, and an undated, unnotarized, handwritten note signed by J.C. stating that E.K.
rents from her at the Woodbine address. 	See Certification of Adrienne Breitinger and
Exhibit C.
Neither E.K. nor J.C. are listed as the owners of the, Woodbine address in the
official tax records. 	(Exhibit D.) 	Joseph Sykes (Sykes), Director of School Security,
conducted a residency investigation as to D.C.K. See Certification of Joseph Sykes and
Exhibit E. On November 18, 2024, November 19, 2024, November 20, 2024, November
21, 2024, November 22, 2024, November 26, 2024, and December 5, 2024, Sykes

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
5
observed D.C.K. exiting a residence located at the Wildwood Crest address and being
driven to MTHS. (Exhibit E.) Based on his observations, his conclusion was that D.C.K.
resided at the Wildwood Crest address. See Certification of Joseph Sykes and Exhibit E.
By email from this Tribunal, dated April 24, 2025, the petitioner was directed to
provide the Tribunal with her documentary proofs of residency and was advised to review
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.4(a) for examples of acceptable documentation to prove residency. On
May 2, 2025, E.K. submitted partial screenshots of documents that were either undated,
blurry, or incomplete. Specifically, E.K. provided the following by email:
• 	an undated online address change;
• 	a notice of violation with an incomplete date;
• 	certified 	mail 	envelope 	from 	MTHS 	to 	E.K. 	at 	XXX 	Jefferson 	Avenue,
Woodbine, New Jersey;
• 	first page of a correspondence regarding an annual IEP meeting from MTHS
to E.K. at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey, dated January 27,
2025; and
• 	one page of a residential lease renewal, dated July 1, 2024, listing E.K. and
D.C.K. as occupants.
E.K. was given the additional opportunity to provide full and complete copies of the
documents to this Tribunal, but on May 12, 2025, E.K. only provided hard copies of the
following:
• 	partial photograph of an undated envelope from respondent addressed to E.K. at
XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey;
• 	first page of a correspondence regarding an annual IEP meeting from MTHS to
E.K. at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey, dated January 27, 2025;
and

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
6
• 	one page of a residential lease renewal, dated July 1, 2024, listing E.K. and D.C.K.
as occupants (not notarized).
None of the documents provided by E.K. demonstrate D.C.K.’s residency at the
Woodbine address during the 2024-2025 school year.
Therefore, I FIND as FACT that D.C.K. did not reside at XXX Jefferson Avenue,
Woodbine, New Jersey while enrolled in the District for the entirety of the 2024-2025
school year. See Certifications of Pamela Shute, dated April 29, 2025, and July 14, 2025,
with attachments.
I further FIND as FACT that there were one-hundred and eighty school days for
the 2024-2025 school year (see Certifications of Dr. Pamela Shute, dated April 29, 2025,
and July 14, 2025, with attachments); the daily per pupil tuition rate for the District for the
2024-2025 school year was $120.41 (see Certification of Dr. Pamela Shute); and the total
amount of tuition for the 2024-2025 school year is $21,673.801.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A motion for summary decision shall be granted “if the papers and discovery which
have been filed, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
as to any material fact challenged and that the moving party is entitled to prevail as a
matter of law.” N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(b).
A determination whether a genuine issue of material fact exists that precludes
summary decision requires the judge to 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, 540 (1995).
1 Dr. Shute’s Certification, dated April 29, 2025, states that the annual cost to attend MTHS is $21,675,
however, this Tribunal did an independent calculation from the information provided in Dr. Shute’s two
Certifications and determined that the actual cost is $21,673.80 ($120.41 x 180 days).

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
7
The “judge’s function is not himself [or herself] to weigh the evidence and determine the
truth of the matter but to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial.” Id. (citing
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 249 (1986)). 	When the evidence “is so one-
sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law,” the trial court should not hesitate to
grant summary judgment. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. at 252. I CONCLUDE that this matter
is ripe for summary decision.
The issue in this appeal is whether D.C.K. was domiciled in the District during the
2024–2025 school year.
Public schools are required to provide a free education to individuals between the
ages of five and twenty years in certain circumstances, including individuals who are
domiciled within the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a). 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). 	N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1) provides: “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.” See also P.B.K. ex rel. minor child E.Y. v.
Bd. of Educ. of Tenafly, 343 N.J. Super. 419, 427 (App. Div. 2001). Thus, a child would
routinely attend school in the district where his or her parents live.
In a determination of residency eligibility, the petitioner has the burden of proof by
a preponderance of the evidence. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2). N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.4 provides
as follows with regard to documentation of residency:
(a) A district board of education shall accept a combination of
any of the following or similar forms of documentation from
persons attempting to demonstrate a student's eligibility for
enrollment in the school district:
1. Property tax bills; deeds; contracts of sale;
leases; 	mortgages; 	signed 	letters 	from

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
8
landlords; 	and 	other 	evidence 	of 	property
ownership, tenancy, or residency;
2. 	Voter 	registrations; 	licenses; 	permits;
financial 	account 	information; 	utility 	bills;
delivery 	receipts; 	and 	other 	evidence 	of
personal attachment to a particular location;
3. Court orders; State agency agreements; and
other evidence of court or agency placements or
directives;
4. Receipts; bills; cancelled checks; insurance
claims 	or 	payments; 	and 	other 	evidence 	of
expenditures 	demonstrating 	personal
attachment to a particular location or to support
the student;
5. Medical reports; counselor or social worker
assessments; 	employment 	documents;
unemployment claims; benefit statements; and
other evidence of circumstances demonstrating
family 	or 	economic 	hardship, 	or 	temporary
residency;
6. 	Affidavits, 	certifications, 	and 	sworn
attestations pertaining to statutory criteria for
school attendance from the parent, guardian,
person 	keeping 	an 	"affidavit 	student," 	adult
student, person(s) with whom a family is living,
or others, as appropriate;
7. Documents pertaining to military status and
assignment; and
8. 	Any 	other 	business 	record 	or 	document
issued by a governmental entity.
(b) 	A 	district 	board 	of 	education 	may 	accept 	forms 	of
documentation not listed at (a) above, and shall not exclude
from 	consideration 	any 	documentation 	or 	information
presented by an applicant.
(c) A district board of education shall consider the totality of
information and documentation offered by an applicant, and
shall not deny enrollment based on failure to provide a

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
9
particular form or subset of documents without regard to other
evidence presented.
. . .
When a child is found to be ineligible to attend a school in its district, a school
board is entitled to recover tuition from the parent or guardian of the child found ineligible
to attend within the district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2).
The petitioner asserts that she and her son, D.C.K., reside at the Woodbine
address with J.C., D.C.K.’s paternal grandmother. The petitioner further asserts that she
does not want D.C.K. to take the bus to school because he gets confused easily with
directions. Additionally, the petitioner offers an explanation for why D.C.K. is seen leaving
a residence in Wildwood Crest in the mornings before school – she works as a
phlebotomist and due to her early work schedule, she drives D.C.K. to a home located in
Wildwood Crest where either her sister or daughter will then drive D.C.K. to MTHS in the
mornings.
The respondent asserts that the petitioner and D.C.K. do not reside in Woodbine
(within the District), that they in fact reside in Wildwood Crest, and therefore D.C.K. is not
entitled to attend MTHS.
A review of the record and documents provided by both parties reveals that the
petitioner and D.C.K. were not domiciled within the District while D.C.K. attended MTHS
for the 2024-2025 school year. While N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.4 provides examples of the types
of acceptable documentation to establish residency, nothing comparable was submitted
by the petitioner. The petitioner had multiple opportunities to provide any documentation
to demonstrate residency at the Woodbine address during the relevant time period. 	In
response to multiple requests from this Tribunal, the documents provided by the petitioner
were undated, blurry, incomplete, or otherwise did not show evidence of residency within
the District during the relevant time period.

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
10
First, the petitioner provided a partial screenshot of an alleged confirmation of an
online address change. This document is undated, does not indicate with what entity or
agency the change of address is with to determine its authenticity, and does not indicate
whether the change is temporary or permanent. 	Therefore, this document does not
establish proof of D.C.K.’s residency for the 2024-2025 school year. 	Second, a partial
photograph of some sort of notice or violation with the petitioner’s name at the Woodbine
address has an incomplete date and, therefore, also does not establish proof of residency
during the relevant time period. 	Next, a partial photograph of a certified mail envelope
from MTHS to the petitioner at the Woodbine address with no visible postmark is not
sufficient to establish proof of residency during the relevant time period. 	The petitioner
also provided a photograph of the first page of a correspondence regarding an annual
IEP meeting from MTHS addressed to the petitioner at the Woodbine address dated
January 	27, 	2025, 	with 	does 	not 	on 	its 	own 	without 	some 	other 	corroborative
documentation, establish residency during the relevant time period. Lastly, the petitioner
provided a partial photograph of one page of a residential lease renewal which shows a
date of July 1, 2024, in the header of the page. The page lists the petitioner and D.C.K.
as occupants and is signed by J.C. The names are handwritten on the page, and it is not
notarized or otherwise authenticated. Despite the petitioner being advised by the Tribunal
to provide full copies of supporting documents, the full copy of the lease was not provided
in order to put this page in context.
Furthermore, when D.C.K. was initially enrolled in MTHS, the petitioner provided a
driver’s license which listed the Wildwood Crest address, a copy of a utility bill from South
Jersey Gas, dated July 8, 2024, addressed to J.C. at the Woodbine address, and undated
and unnotarized handwritten statement from J.C. stating that the petitioner resides with
J.C. at the Woodbine address. (See Exhibit C.) None of these documents show proof of
the petitioner and D.C.K.’s residency at the Woodbine address during the relevant time
period.
Based on all the foregoing, I CONCLUDE that the petitioner has not met her
burden of proof and the respondent is entitled to summary decision that D.C.K was not

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
11
domiciled within the District and is not entitled to attend school in the District and receive
a free public education there pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) for the 2024-2025 school
year.
I further CONCLUDE that because D.C.K. was not entitled to receive a free public
education in the District for the 2024-2025 school year, the respondent is entitled to tuition
reimbursement from the petitioner. 	The school year is 180 days and the daily per pupil
tuition rate for the District for the 2024-2025 school year is $120.41. 	Therefore, I
CONCLUDE that respondent is entitled to tuition reimbursement from the petitioner in the
amount of $21,673.80.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that respondent’s motion for
summary decision is GRANTED and petitioner’s appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
It is further ORDERED that the petitioner reimburse the respondent for the cost of
tuition for D.C.K. for the 2024-2025 school year, 180 days, in the total amount of
$21,673.80.
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 DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
12
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.
August 22, 2025
DATE 	REBECCA C. LAFFERTY, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
RCL/tat

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
13
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
For petitioner
Email opposing respondent’s motion for summary decision, dated April 21, 2024
Email, dated May 2, 2024, with partial screenshots of:
• 	an undated online address change
• 	a notice of violation with an incomplete date
• 	certified mail envelope from MTHS to E.K. at XXX Jefferson Avenue,
Woodbine, New Jersey
• 	first page of a correspondence regarding an annual IEP meeting from
MTHS to E.K. at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey, dated
January 27, 2025
• 	one page of a residential lease renewal, dated July 1, 2024, listing E.K. and
D.C.K. as occupants (not notarized)
Documents received May 12, 2025:
• 	partial photograph of an undated envelope from respondent addressed to
E.K. at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey
• 	first page of a correspondence regarding an annual IEP meeting from
MTHS to E.K. at XXX Jefferson Avenue, Woodbine, New Jersey, dated
January 27, 2025
• 	one page of a residential lease renewal, dated July 1, 2024, listing E.K. and
D.C.K. as occupants (not notarized)

OAL DOCKET NO.: EDU 03021-2025
14
For respondent
Notice of Motion for Summary Decision; Respondent’s Statement of Material Facts
and Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Decision with attached Exhibits A – G;
Certification of Adrienne Breitinger; Certification of Dr. Pamela Shute, dated March
27, 2025; Certification of Joseph Sykes; Certification of Dr. Pamela Shute, dated
April 29, 2025 with attachments; and Certification of Dr. Pamela Shute, dated July
14, 2025 with attachment