D.M, on behalf of minor child, A.H. v. Board of Education of the Township of Washington, Gloucester County, 6/30/2022, (#145-22)

145-22
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.M., on behalf of minor child, A.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Washington, Gloucester County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her grandchild, A.H., is not
domiciled within the district, and therefore not entitled to a free public education in Washington Township. In
September 2020, petitioner and her husband were awarded joint custody of A.H. and designated as the
parents of primary residence for school purposes by order of the Superior Court. Petitioner subsequently
enrolled A.H. in Washington Township schools. Thereafter, the Board conducted a residency investigation that
determined A.H. was living with his parents in Philadelphia. The Board requested that the Commissioner
assess the petitioner the cost of tuition for the period of A.H.’s alleged ineligible attendance.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: the issue here is whether A.H. resided in Washington Township during the
2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, and if not, what amount of tuition is due to the Board for the period of
A.H.’s ineligible attendance; the testimony of respondent’s witness was credible and, together with supporting
documents, established that A.H. was not domiciled with petitioner during the period at issue; petitioner’s
testimony lacked details and, while her responses to interrogatories indicated that A.H. resided full time with
D.M. in Washington Township, D.M. testified that she is immunocompromised and was unable to have A.H. in
her home until April 2021 when she was able to receive the COVID 19 vaccine; and although the court orders
granted petitioner joint custody for school purposes, there was no attempt to have A.H. reside at D.M.’s
residence or within the district. The ALJ concluded that petitioner failed to establish that A.H. was domiciled
with her during the 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 school years, and A.H. was therefore ineligible to attend school
in the district. Accordingly, the ALJ dismissed the petition and ordered the petitioner to reimburse the Board
for tuition in the amount of $23,587.12.
Upon review, the Commissioner disagreed with the ALJ’s findings and conclusion in this matter, determining
instead that A.H. was eligible to attend school in Washington Township from September 18, 2020 through
December 23, 2021. In so deciding, the Commissioner emphasized, inter alia, that when there is a court order
that designates the school district of attendance, the amount of time a child spends with either party to the
order does not dictate where the child must attend school. Further, given the unprecedented circumstances
of the COVID 19 pandemic, A.H.’s physical location during the period in question is irrelevant in light of a
custody order specifically designating a parent of residence for school purposes. Petitioner owes no tuition
reimbursement to the Board.
This synopsis is not part of the Commissioner’s decision. It has been prepared for the convenience of the reader. It has
been neither reviewed nor approved by the Commissioner.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 05034-2021
Agency Dkt. No. 60-4/21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
D.M., on behalf of minor child, A.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Washington, Gloucester 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.
Petitioner is the grandmother of minor child A.H. On September 10, 2020, petitioner
and her husband were awarded joint custody of A.H. and designated as the parents of primary
residence for school purposes.1 On September 18, 2020, petitioner registered A.H. for school in
Washington Township. Thereafter, the Board conducted a residency investigation and
concluded that A.H. was domiciled with his parents in Philadelphia, not with petitioner in
1 The custody order was updated on March 25, 2021 and indicated that the parties would continue to share joint
legal custody, and that petitioner and her husband are the parents of primary residence for school purposes only
to allow A.H. to continue to attend his elementary school in Washington Township. On August 3, 2021, full
custody was granted to petitioner and her husband. The record also contains a custody agreement dated
December 27, 2022 – which the Commissioner presumes is a typo for December 27, 2021 – transferring fully
custody of A.H. to his mother.
145-22

2
Washington Township. Petitioner appealed the Board’s determination.2 The Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) found that A.H. was not domiciled in Washington Township and that A.H. was
therefore not entitled to attend school in the district. The ALJ ordered that petitioner
reimburse the Board for A.H.’s tuition during the period of ineligibility, in the amount of
$23,587.12.
Upon review, the Commissioner disagrees with the ALJ that A.H. was ineligible to attend
school in Washington Township. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) provides that public schools shall be free
to “[a]ny person who is domiciled within the school district.” N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1) provides
that 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.” In analyzing A.H.’s eligibility to
attend school in Washington Township, the ALJ disregarded the implications of a court order on
a residency determination.
When a student’s parents or guardians are domiciled within different school
districts and there is no court order or written agreement between the parents
designating the school district of attendance, the student’s domicile is the school
district of the parent or guardian with whom the student lives for the majority of
the school year.
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)1.i (emphasis added)
Here, A.H.’s parents and his guardians – petitioner and her husband – are domiciled within
different school districts. In the absence of a court order, the amount of time A.H. lived with his
parents and with petitioner would be relevant. However, the corollary is also true – with the
2 Following the appeal, A.H. remained enrolled in the Washington Township school district until
December 23, 2021, when he transferred to the Glassboro school district, where his mother apparently resides.

3
existence of a court order, the court order controls.3 When there is a court order that
designates the school district of attendance, the amount of time spent with either party does
not dictate where the children must attend school. K.H., on behalf of minor children, A.H. and
V.H. v. Board of Education of the Borough of Butler, Morris County, Commissioner Decision
No. 70-17 (March 2, 2017). It is undisputed that there was a custody order designating D.M. as
the parent of residency for school purposes, and it is undisputed that D.M. resides in the
Washington Township school district. Therefore – under N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)1.i – as of
September 10, 2020, A.H. was entitled to attend school in the Washington Township school
district.4
In its summation brief submitted to the ALJ, the Board attempts to suggest that the case
of C.G., on behalf of minor child, G.G. v. Board of Education of the Township of Morris,
Morris County, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 07231-2018 (Nov. 13, 2018), aff’d, Commissioner Decision
No. 35-19 (Jan. 30, 2019), supports the conclusion that a custody order is not sufficient to
establish residency when the evidence demonstrates that the child resides elsewhere.
However, the Board misinterpreted the Commissioner’s decision in C.G. and reached an
erroneous conclusion about the holding in that case. The Commissioner found that the student
was not domiciled in the district for a time period prior to the entry of the residential custody
3 The ALJ noted that there was no indication as to what testimony or evidence the parties provided the Superior
Court judge during the custody proceedings. However, the Commissioner lacks jurisdiction to contradict a
Superior Court custody order. The existence of the order is sufficient by itself to establish petitioner as the parent
of primary residence for school purposes.
4 As this conclusion is reached as a matter of law, the ALJ’s credibility determinations regarding the witnesses who
testified as to A.H.’s domicile are not relevant.

4
order.5 While the Initial Decision in C.G. recounts testimony from the district’s residency
investigator regarding the child’s location following the entry of the residential custody order,
the ALJ’s and the Commissioner’s conclusions about the period of ineligibility are limited to the
time prior the custody order and, accordingly, C.G. does not constitute relevant precedent for
any conclusions regarding A.H.’s residency following the entry of the order granting custody to
petitioner.6
The Commissioner further notes that all of the Board’s evidence pertains to the portion
of the 2020-2021 school year during which A.H. attended school virtually due to the COVID-19
pandemic.7 In A.M., on behalf of minor child, A.S. v. Board of Education of the City of Elizabeth,
Union County, OAL Dkt. No. EDU 00255-21 (June 16, 2021), aff’d, Commissioner Decision
No. 158-21 (Aug. 3, 2021), the parents shared joint custody, with the mother residing in
Elizabeth and the father residing in Hillside. During the time that Elizabeth schools were
teaching remotely, the child participated in class from her father’s residence, as he was the only
adult available to assist her due to her mother’s work schedule and the inability of a
grandparent living with the mother to overcome technology barriers. At one point, both the
mother and child stayed with the father in Hillside for two weeks when they were diagnosed
with COVID-19, in order to protect the grandmother from the virus. Furthermore, both the
5 In C.G., the residential custody order was issued on March 22, 2018, and the period of ineligible attendance was
January 18, 2017 through February 2, 2018.
6 Nonetheless, to some extent, the C.G. matter is similar to the current matter, in that A.H.’s parents have
previously been assessed tuition for the period of A.H.’s attendance in Washington Township schools for the
period prior to the entry of the custody order. Board of Education of the Township of Washington, Gloucester
County v. J.M. and R.H., Commissioner Decision No. 128-21 (June 22, 2021). Just as in C.G., while the assessment
of tuition for a period prior to a custody order was appropriate, no tuition is owed for the period after the entry of
the custody order.
7 The district’s surveillance was conducted in September and October 2020, and January and February 2021.

5
mother and child spent two to three nights at the father’s residence in Hillside when the
parents resumed their romantic relationship but continued to maintain separate residences.
The ALJ found that the “Board’s choice to turn a blind eye and deaf ear to A.M.’s reasonable
explanations for A.S.’s presence in Hillside for childcare, remote learning, and quarantine
purposes during the worst pandemic this world has seen in more than a century was callous, to
put it mildly. We have all had to make unforeseen, creative adjustments during this pandemic,
and A.M. deserves credit, not punishment, for finding coping mechanisms that work for her
family.” The ALJ and Commissioner concluded that A.S. was entitled to attend school in
Elizabeth and that A.M. did not owe any tuition reimbursement.
Here, D.M. testified that because she is immunocompromised, she was not comfortable
having A.H. in her home until she was vaccinated for COVID-19 in April 2021.8 The district’s
own investigator reported that A.H.’s mother took A.H. with her to work every day, and that
A.H. completed his online learning from there. Ex. R-12. While these factual circumstances are
not precisely the same as those in A.M., the Commissioner nonetheless finds that A.H.’s
physical location during these unprecedented events is irrelevant in light of a custody order
specifically designating a parent of residence for school purposes.
The Commissioner further cautions the Board regarding the statements made to D.M.
that falsifying residency information could constitute a disorderly persons offense. N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1 provides, “Any person who fraudulently allows a child of another person to use his
8 The Commissioner notes that while the ALJ found that some of petitioner’s testimony was inconsistent with her
answers to interrogatories, both the ALJ’s summary of the testimony and petitioner’s responses to the
interrogatories reference her medical condition and her concerns prior to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine in
April 2021. Accordingly, because there is no inconsistency in this aspect of petitioner’s testimony, the
Commissioner presumes that the ALJ’s credibility determination does not extend to this information.

6
residence and is not the primary financial supporter of that child and any person who
fraudulently claims to have given up custody of his child to a person in another district commits
a disorderly persons offense.” Under no circumstances should petitioner, who was in
possession of a valid Superior Court order awarding her joint custody of A.H. and designating
her as the parent of primary residence for school purposes, be deemed to have falsified
information or to have perpetrated a fraud when she registered A.H. for school in Washington
Township. Faced with a difficult family situation, petitioner availed herself of the proper legal
channels to obtain custody of A.H., and, as in A.M., her efforts to look out for A.H.’s best
interests should be commended, not threatened.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision is reversed. A.H. was entitled to attend school in
Washington Township for the period of September 18, 2020 through December 23, 2021, and
petitioner owes no tuition reimbursement to the Board.
IT IS SO ORDERED.9
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
9 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.
June 30, 2022
July 1, 2022

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-2021
DOE DKT. NO. 60-4/21
D.M. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD A.H.,
Petitioners,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP
OF WASHINGTON, GLOUCESTER COUNTY,
Respondent.
______________________________________
D.M., appearing pro se
Geoffrey N. Stark, Esq., for Respondent (Capehart Scatchard, P.A., attorneys)
BEFORE WILLIAM T. COOPER, III, ALJ:
Record Closed: February 22, 2022, 	Decided: April 5, 2022
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, D.M., filed an Appeal with the Department of Education from the
determination of the Board of Education of the Township of Washington (“District”), that her
grandchild, A.H., was not domiciled within the district and could not continue to attend school
in the district. The Board is demanding tuition repayment for the periods of September 18,
2020, to June 17,2021 and September 1, 2021, to December 23, 2021.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
2
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 1, 2021, the Board issued a Final Notice of Ineligibility to D.M. that A.H.
was ineligible to attend school within the district. 	The Petitioner filed a notice of appeal
on or about April 19, 2021. The Board filed an Answer and requested the Commissioner
assess petitioner the cost of tuition.
The matter was transmitted to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) where it was
filed as a contested case on June 7, 2021. N.J.S.A. 52:14 B-1 to-15; N.J.S.A. 52:14 F-1
to-13.
A hearing was conducted on January 26, 2021, and the record remained open for
the parties to furnish closing statements by February 22, 2022. The record closed on that
date.
TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE
For Respondent:
Katherine Carey testified that she is the Director of Registration, for the district
and her office is responsible for verifying residency of the students. 	Her office is
responsible for keeping residency and registration information up to date for each student
to ensure the student resides within the district. She oversees any investigations that are
necessary and has a staff that includes a registration coordinator, registration assistant,
and two residency officers.
Carey explained that questions as to residency of students typically come from
school sources, for example, the chronic tardiness of a student or excessive absences of
a student, or student’s admission to a teacher or support staff. 	When this occurs, her
staff will review a student’s file to confirm residency and, if there are doubts or questions,
request an investigation.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
3
Carey was familiar with A.H. as there were previous questions concerning his
residency. 	She was aware that D.M. was A.H.’s grandson and that D.M. resided in the
district on M. Drive, Sewell, New Jersey. Beginning in December 2016, when A.H. was
in first grade, questions arose concerning his residency triggered by excessive absences.
Then in January 2017, two outside school sources advised staff that A.H. was not living
at D.M.’s residence.
In 2018, A.H. told a school nurse that he was living in Lindenwold. 	Formal
investigation was conducted and, it was determined that A.H. was not residing at the M.
Drive address. In June 2019, the District sent a notice to D.M. as well as A.H.’s mother
J.M., and his father R.H., advising them of the preliminary finding and that a formal
hearing to determine residency would occur. (R-5).
J.M. responded to the notice by providing proof that she and A.H. resided with
D.M. This proof included her driver’s license and an affidavit verifying their residency at
the M. Drive address. (R-6). Based upon the documents submitted the District reversed
its preliminary finding and allowed A.H. to continue to attend school in the District.
In February 2020, Carey received additional information concerning the residency
of A.H. and determined that further investigation was necessary. 	This investigation led
the district to conclude that A.H. was living at South M. Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
(South M. Street address), with his mother J.M. and father R.H. (R-4).
On April 30, 2020, the district issued a preliminary notice to J.M. advising her that
A.H. had not been eligible to attend school in the district since September 15, 2018, that
tuition reimbursement would be sought, and that A.H. was no longer eligible to attend
school in the district. 	J.M. verbally advised Carey that she was granting D.M. custody,
but no document supporting this claim was submitted prior to the Board hearing
scheduled for June 8,2020. Neither J.M. or D.M. attended the hearing, and a Final Notice
was issued by the Board disenrolling A.H.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
4
On September 18, 2020, a new registration package for A.H. was received by the
district. It included an Order from the Superior Court, issued by the Honorable Benjamin
Morgan, J.S.C., dated September 10, 2020. This order, was entered with the consent of
J.M. and R.H., granted D.M. joint custody of A.H. 	The order acknowledged that D.M. is
“the parent of primary residence for school purposes only.” 	(R-9). 	Based upon this
document A.H. was allowed to re-enroll in the district for the 2020-2021 school year listing
M. Drive as his home address. (R-3).
Carey advised that based upon computer login information the staff still had
concerns 	regarding 	A.H. 	home 	address 	and 	the 	formal 	investigations 	continued.
Surveillance was conducted by School Residency Officer Robert Jones as detailed in his
Special Reports dated October 25, 2020, and January 25, 202.
Jones’ surveillance of J.M. at the South M. Street address was conducted on
seventeen 	occasions 	between 	September 	24, 	2020, 	to 	October 	22, 	2020. 	He
photographed A.H. leaving the location with J.M. on thirteen occasions, observed but did
not photograph A.H. leaving the location with J.M. on two occasions, may have observed
A.H. on one occasion. leaving one time without J.M.
Jones’ surveillance of J.M. at the South M. Street address continued on twelve
occasions between January 28,2021 and February 18, 2021. 	During that time, he
observed J.M. and A.H. leaving the South M. Street address on eleven occasions.
Typically, J.M. and A.H. would travel from the South M. Street address to J.M.’s workplace
in Pitman, New Jersey.
As a result of the investigations, the district concluded that A.H. had not been
residing within it since the beginning of the 2020 – 2021 school year. A Preliminary Notice
of Ineligibility was issued to D.M and her husband on February 26, 2021. 	No objection
was submitted, and a Final Notice of Ineligibility for Continued Enrollment was issued to
J.M. and D.M. on April 1, 2021. (R-1).

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
5
On April 19, 2021, D.M. filed an appeal of the determination and, as a result, A.H.
could not be disenrolled until the appeal was resolved. A.H. continued to attend school
in the district until December 23, 2021, when he transferred into the Glassboro School
District.
For Petitioner:
D.M. testified that her grandson A.H. had been attending school within the district
since he was in kindergarten. Her daughter had a volatile relationship with A.H.’s father,
R.H. which, caused them to move regularly. Because of this, she always kept a room at
the M. Drive address for A.H. 	It was important to her that A.H. always had a space he
could call home. She considers her home as his primary residence.
She explained that during the summer of 2020, she undertook efforts to obtain joint
custody of A.H. 	Those efforts resulted in the Honorable Benjamin Morgan, J.S.C.,
granting her joint custody of A.H. on September 10, 2020. 	The Board accepted this
document on September 18, 2020 and allowed A.H. to enroll back into the District.
She admitted that J.M. and R.H. took A.H. to the South M. Street address and did
not deny the observations made by the investigators. 	However, she explained that
because she was immunocompromised, she was unable to have A.H. back home until
she received the COVID-19 vaccine which she was unable to do so until April 2021.
Further, she did not believe this was a problem because classes were virtual, and A.H.
did not have to be physically present in school.
D.M. obtained full 	custody of A.H. in the summer of 2021 after R.H. was
incarcerated. She has since started the process of returning custody back to her daughter
because J.M. has since moved out of Philadelphia and is now living in Glassboro, N.J.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
6
Documentary Evidence:
In her responses to interrogatories petitioner indicated that as of September 10,
2020, A.H. was residing full time at the M. Drive address. She denied that he was residing
full time at the South M. Street address but acknowledged that A.H. regularly visited his
father R.H. 	Petitioner could not specify how often these visits occurred. 	She also
acknowledged that A.H. would travel to his mother’s place of work simply because there
was no one to watch him during the day.
The interrogatories asked her how many nights A.H. spent at the South M. Street
address between September 10, 2020, and October 31, 2020, and January 1, 2021, and
January 31, 2021, and D.M. answered those questions as follows;
“I have no idea how many nights. These nights were not
planned. He would go and spend the night to see his father at
times. No specific date and times.”
and
“[A.H.] does reside and always resided at M. Drive address. He
goes to Philly most weekends and on nights when he has
therapy or other doctors’ appointments.”
In another response D.M. stated;
“He [A.H.] did stay with his mother during the pandemic. 	I
have Lupus and could not be compromised with him staying
at my home and I specifically could not help him with his
schoolwork. 	I got very sick in March of 2021 and then
received the covid shot on April 7 th
. 	At that time, I felt more
comfortable with him being here. Also, during the pandemic I
could not keep him from his mother for the whole time, since
he could not go back and forth because of my disease.”

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
7
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
For testimony to be believed, it must not only come from the mouth of a credible
witness, but it also must be credible. 	It must elicit evidence that is from such common
experience and observation that it can be approved as proper under the circumstances.
See Spagnuolo v. Bonnet, 16 N.J. 546 (1954); Gallo v. Gallo, 66 N.J. Super. 1 (App. Div.
1961). A credibility determination requires an overall assessment of the witnesses’ story
considering its rationality or internal consistency and the manner in which it “hangs
together” with other evidence. Carbo v. United States, 314 F.2d 718, 749 (9 th Cir. 1963).
Also, “the interest, motive, bias, or prejudice of a witness may affect his credibility and
justify the [trier of fact], whose province it is to pass upon the credibility of an interested
witness, in disbelieving his testimony.” State v. Salimone, 19 N.J. Super. 600, 608 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 10 N.J. 316 (1952) (citation omitted).
A trier of fact may reject testimony because it is inherently incredible, or because
it is inconsistent with other testimony or with common experience, or because it is
overborne by other testimony. 	Congleton v. Pura-Tex Stone Corp.,53 N.J. Super 282,
287 (App. Div. 1958).
As to the credibility of Respondents’ witness, I accept the testimony of Carey as
credible. 	She was personally knowledgeable as to this matter and easily detailed the
actions taken by her staff to verify A.H.’s residence. 	Her testimony together with the
supporting documents clearly established that A.H. was not domiciled at the M. Drive
address.
The documentary evidence submitted by respondent included residency reports
prepared by school investigators who did not testify during the hearing. Such out-of-court
statements, if offered to prove the truth of the matters stated, are hearsay. 	While the
rules of evidence applicable to proceedings in the Judicial Branch permit certain hearsay
to be accepted as competent evidence under recognized exceptions to the general rule
excluding hearsay, in administrative hearings the rule governing the admissibility of
hearsay evidence is different. That rule is codified at N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5:

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
8
(a) 	Subject to the judge’s discretion to exclude evidence
under 	N.J.A.C. 	1:1-15.1(c) 	or 	a 	valid 	claim of 	privilege,
hearsay evidence shall be admissible in the trial of contested
cases. Hearsay evidence which is admitted shall be accorded
whatever weight the judge deems appropriate taking into
account the nature, character and scope of the evidence, the
circumstances of its creation and production, and, generally,
its reliability.
(b) 	Notwithstanding the admissibility of hearsay evidence,
some legally competent evidence must exist to support each
ultimate finding of fact to an extent sufficient to provide
assurances of reliability and to avoid the fact or appearance
of arbitrariness.
N.J.A.C. 1:1-15.5 (b) recites what is commonly referred to as the residuum rule,
which was best described in Justice Francis’ foundational opinion for the New Jersey
Supreme Court in Weston v. State, 60 N.J. 36, 50–51 (1972):
It is common practice for administrative agencies to receive
hearsay evidence at their hearings. . . . 	As Judge Learned
Hand said for the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
NLRB v. Remington Rand, Inc., 94 F.2d 862, 873 (1938),
mere rumor would not support a board finding, “but hearsay
may do so, at least if more is not conveniently available, and
if in the end the finding is supported by the kind of evidence
on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in
serious affairs.” 	And see, Goldsmith v. Kingsford, 92 N.H.
442, 32 A.2d 810 (1943) . . . . However, in our State as well
as in many other jurisdictions the rule is that a fact finding, or
a legal determination cannot be based upon hearsay alone.
Hearsay may be employed to corroborate competent proof, or
competent proof may be supported or given added probative
force by hearsay testimony. But in the final analysis for a court
to 	sustain 	an 	administrative 	decision, 	which 	affects 	the
substantial rights of a party, there must be a residuum of legal
and competent evidence in the record to support it. . . .
In this matter the petitioner consented to the residency reports being entered into
evidence. In addition, she admitted to the observations made and stipulated that A.H. was
at his parents, J.M. and R.H.’s South M. Street residence as stated in the residency

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
9
reports. 	Therefore, I accept that there was competent evidence to support the hearsay
statements contained in the residency reports.
Overall, Petitioner’s testimony lacked detail regarding A.H.’s time at the M. Drive
address. 	She did not dispute the observations made by the investigators and did not
refute the inference that A.H. was living full time with his parents during the 2020-2021
school year. D.M.’s responses to interrogatories maintained that A.H. resided full time at
the M. Drive address. 	However, she testified that she was immunocompromised, thus,
she was unable to have A.H. in the home until April 2021.
The responses to interrogatories were inconsistent with her testimony and as such
negatively impacted petitioner’s credibility.
Having had the opportunity to examine the documents presented and to hear the
witnesses and to assess their credibility, I FIND:
1. 	Student 	A.H. 	is 	the 	child 	of 	parents 	J.M. 	and 	R.H., 	his 	maternal
grandparents are Petitioner D.M., and her husband D.M.
2. 	At all relevant times during the 2020-2021 school year D.M. resided at the
M. Drive address, within the district borders.
3. 	At all relevant times during the 2020-2021 school year A.H.’s parents
resided at the South M. Street address, outside of the boundaries of the
district.
4. 	A.H. was registered for school using the M. Drive address, even though
A.H.’s parents lived in Philadelphia at the South M. Street address.
5. 	The District began conducting a residency investigation in the Fall of 2019
and issued a Preliminary Notice of Ineligibility to J.M. on October 30, 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
10
6. 	In response, A.H.’s mother provided several documents to the district,
including affidavits signed by both herself and D.M.
7. 	After several months, the district re-opened its residency investigation to
determine whether A.H. was indeed living at the M. Drive Address. 	The
investigation confirmed that A.H. was living at the South M. Street Address
in Philadelphia. Subsequently, the district issued another PNI on April 30,
2020.
8. 	The District Superintendent issued a Final Notice of Ineligibility on June 8,
2020.
9. 	A.H.’s parents did not appeal the FNI.
10. 	On September 10, 2020, the Hon. Benjamin Morgan, J.S.C. issued an
Order granting joint custody of A.H. to his parents and to D.M. and D.M.,
and specifically designating D.M. as the parent of primary residence for
school purposes only.
11. 	On September 18, 2020, Petitioner registered A.H. for school in the district
listing the M. Drive Address as his home. (R-3).
12. 	The residency officers conducted surveillance in September and October
2020, and January and February 2021.
13. 	On October 25, 2020, officer Robert Jones filed a report with Katherine
Carey which summarized the following: Jones conducted surveillance on
seventeen occasions between September 24, 2020, and October 22, 2020.
He photographed A.H. leaving the South M. Street Address with J.M. on
thirteen of those occasions, observed, but did not photograph, A.H. leaving
the South M. Street Address with J.M. on two additional occasions, and may

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
11
have observed him on one additional occasion. 	Finally, on one occasion
he observed J.M. but did not observe A.H
14. 	In February 2021, in an undated report, Investigator Jones filed another
report with Ms. Carey in which he detailed surveillance of A.H. and J.M.
leaving the South M. Street address on eleven occasions from January 28,
2021, to February 18, 2021. On an additional date, February 1, 2021, A.H.
did not go to school due to inclement weather.
15. 	Based upon the surveillance and other investigatory results, the District
issued a PNI on February 26, 2021, which found that A.H. was not domiciled
in the District, and therefore not entitled to attend school in the District. (R-
13).
16. 	On March 25, 2021, Judge Morgan, J.S.C. modified the Joint-Custody
Order, making D.M. and her husband D.M. the parents of primary residence
for school purposes “only to allow [A.H.] to continue to attend the Birches
Elementary School.”
17. 	Petitioner did not participate in the Board’s hearing into A.H.’s residency
and on April 1, 2021, the District issued a FNI finding that A.H. was ineligible
to attend school in the district because he did not reside within it.
18. 	A.H. attended school within the district for a total of 172 days during the
2020-2021 school year.
19. 	A.H. continued attending school within the district for a total of 73 days
during 	the 	pendency 	of 	D.M.’s 	appeal, 	from 	April 	2, 	2021, 	through
December 23, 2021.
20. 	The daily tuition rate for a fifth-grade student in the Washington Township
School District during the 2020-2021 school year is $94.37.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
12
21. 	The daily tuition rate for a sixth-grade student in the District during the 2021-
2022 school year is $100.76.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
ISSUES
The issues here are; did A.H reside in Washington Township, New Jersey, during
the 2020–2021 and 2021-2022 school years? If residency is not established, what is the
amount of the tuition reimbursement due to respondent from petitioner for 2020-2021 and
2021-2022?
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). The domicile of an unemancipated child is the
domicile of the parent, custodian, or guardian. 	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.
A student is a resident of a school District if his parent 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). The regulation further provides:
When a student's parents or guardians are domiciled within
different school Districts and there is no court order or written
agreement 	between 	the 	parents 	designating 	the 	school
District of attendance, the student's domicile is the school
District of the parent or guardian with whom the student lives
for most of the school year.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
13
The evaluation of the facts of the case determines the distinction between
residence and domicile. 	Where a person has more than one residence, some of the
factors to be evaluated are:
The physical characteristics of each place, the time spent and
things done in each place, the other person found there, the
person's mental attitude toward each place, and whether
there 	is 	or 	is 	not 	an 	intention 	when 	absent 	to
return. Mercadante v. the City of Paterson, 111 N.J. Super 35,
39-40 (Ch. Div. 1970) aff'd, 58 N.J. 112 (1971).
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2) parents have the burden of establishing
domicile in the school District by a preponderance of the evidence.
Here, the petitioner has failed to meet her burden as the credible evidence
submitted establish that A.H. was residing with his parents J.M. and R.H. at the South M.
Street address for the 2020-2021 and the 2021-2022 school years. Petitioner offered the
court orders as proof that A.H.’s domicile was her M. Drive address which she considered
as A.H.’s permanent home. No other witness was called to support this conclusion.
From the evidence submitted it was clear that A.H.’s parents, J.M. and R.H. had
no intention to make the M. Drive address A.H.’s permanent home or that he would
abandon the South M. Street address. The court orders granted petitioner joint custody
for school purposes but there was no attempt to have A.H. reside at D.M.’s residence or
within the district.
Petitioner was obviously mindful of the residency requirement as she went through
some efforts to obtain custody orders in September of 2020 and March of 2021.
On September 10, 2020, the Hon. Benjamin Morgan, J.S.C. issued an order
granting D.M. and her husband D.M. joint custody as the parent of primary residence for
school purposes only. That order was amended on March 25, 2021, wherein joint custody
was continued and D.M. and her husband were still parent of primary residence but “only

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
14
to allow [A.H.] to attend Birches Elementary School.” Petitioner offered only limited
testimony concerning these orders so there was no explanation as to why they were
necessary. 	Crucially, there is no indication as to what testimony and/or evidence
petitioner or any of the parties provided Judge Morgan with during the hearings.
Regardless, implicit in both orders was the condition that A.H. reside with petitioner and
within the district.
Applying the law to the facts of this case I CONCLUDE that Petitioner has failed
to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that A.H. was domiciled at the M. Drive
address. I CONCLUDE A.H. was ineligible to attend school within the district.
A.H. attended the fifth grade in the district during the 2020-2021 school year for a
total of 172 days and the daily tuition rate is $94.37. A.H. also attended the sixth grade
in the district during the 2021-2022 for 73 days and the daily tuition rate is $100.76.
I CONCLUDE that A.H. was ineligible for 172 days during the 2020-2021 school
year resulting in tuition of $16,231.64 and 73 days during the 2021-2022 school year
resulting in tuition of $7,355.48. 	Therefore, the total tuition reimbursement due is
$16,231.64 plus $7,355.48 for a total of $23,587.12.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the determination of the Washington Township Board of
Education that A.H. was not domiciled in the Washington Township School District for the
2020–2021 school year is AFFIRMED. The appeal is hereby DISMISSED.
Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that it is further that D.M.
reimburse Respondent the total sum of $23,587.12 for tuition costs associated with the
attendance of A.H. in the Township of Washington school District for the 2020-2021 and
2021-2022 school years.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
15
I 	hereby 	FILE 	this 	initial 	decision 	with 	the 	COMMISSIONER 	OF 	THE
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION for consideration.
This recommended decision may be adopted, modified, or rejected by the
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, who by law is authorized
to make a final decision in this matter. 	If the Commissioner of the Department of
Education does not adopt, modify, or reject this decision within forty-five days and unless
such time limit is otherwise extended, this recommended decision shall become a final
decision in accordance with N.J.S.A. 52:14B-10.
Within thirteen days from the date on which this recommended decision was
mailed to the parties, any party may file written exceptions with the COMMISSIONER OF
THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ATTN: 	BUREAU OF CONTROVERSIES AND
DISPUTES, 100 Riverview Plaza, 4th Floor, PO Box 500, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-
0500, marked “Attention: 	Exceptions.” 	A copy of any exceptions must be sent to the
judge and to the other parties.
April 5, 2022
DATE 	WILLIAM T. COOPER III, ALJ.
Date Received at Agency: 	April 5, 2022
Date E-Mailed to Parties: 	April 5, 2022
lr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
16
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Appellant:
Katherine Carey
For Respondent:
D.M.
Exhibits
R-1 	Final Notice of Ineligibility (“FN1”)- April1, 2021
R-2 	Petition of Appeal – 4/19/21
R-3 	Registration Documents- AH-2020-2021 school year
R-4 	Residential Lease at Mole Street
R-5 	PN1-10/30/19
R-6 	Affidavit in Response to PN1 from J.M. and D.M. re; AH residency
R-7 	PN1- 4/30/20
R-8 	FNI- 6/8/20
R-9 	Shared Custody Order -9/10/20
R-10 	Interactive Sign -Ins, 9-13-20 t0 10-13-20
R-11 	Special Report of Residency Officer-February 26, 2021
R-12 	Special Report of Residency Officer-February 26,
R-13 	Preliminary Notice of Ineligibility(“PN1”)-February 26,2021
R-14 	Facebook post by J.M.- 3/17/21
R15 	Facebook post by D.M.- 3/17/21
R-16 	Shared Custody Order – 3/25/21
R-17 	Full Custody Order August 8, 2021
R-18 	Doctor’s Note
R-19 	Photos – 9/24/20
R-20 	Photos – 9/28/20

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
17
R-21 	Photos – 9/29/20
R-22 	Photos – 10/2/20
R-23 	Photos – 10/5/20
R-24 	Photos – 10/6/20
R-25 	Photos – 10/7/20
R-26 	Photos – 10/ 8/20
R-27 	Photos – 10/13/20
R-28 	Photos – 10/14/20
R-29 	Photos – 10/15/20
R-30 	Photos – 10/19/20
R-31 	Photos – 10/20/20
R-32 	Photos – 10/21/20
R-33 	Photos – 10/22/20
R-34 	Photos – 1/28/21 AM PHILLY
R-35 	Photos- 1/28/21 AM PITMAN
R-36 	Photos – 1/29/21 AM PHILLY
R-37 	Photos- 1/29/21 AM PITMAN
R-38 	Photos – 2/1/21
R-39 	Photos – 2/3/21 AM PHILLY
R-40 	Photos- 2/3/21 AM PITMAN
R-41 	Photos- 2/4/21 AM PITMAN
R-42 	Photos – 2/5/21 AM PHILLY
R-43 	Photos- 2/5/21 AM PITMAN
R-44 	Photos- 2/5/21 AM PITMAN
R-45 	Photos- 2/8/21 AM PHILLY
R-46 	Photos- 2/8/21 AM PITMAN
R-47 	Photos- 2/8/21 AM PITMAN
R-48 	Photos- 2/9/21 AM PITMAN
R-49 	Photos- 2/10/21 AM PHILLY
R-50 	Photos- 2/10/21 AM PHILLY
R-51 	Photos- 2/11/21 AM PITMAN
R-42 	Photos- 2/12/21 AM PHILLY

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 05034-22
18
R-53 	Photos- 2/12/21 AM PITMAN
R-54 	Photos- 2/12/21 AM PITMAN
R-55 	Photos- 2/15/21 AM PHILLY
R-56 	Photos- 2/15/21 AM PITMAN
R-57 	Photos- 2/15/21 AM PITMAN
R-58 	Photos- 2/16/21 AM PHILLY
R-59 	Photos- 2/16/21 AM PITMAN
R-60 	Photos- 2/17/21 AM PHILLY
R-61 	Photos- 2/17/21 AM PITMAN
R-62 	Interrogatory Responses
R-63 	Supplementary Discovery Responses