T.B., on behalf of minor children, I.B., H.H. and S.H. v. Board of Education of the Township of Ewing, Mercer County, 1/22/20, (#28-20)

New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
T.B., on behalf of minor children, I.B., H.H.,
and S.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Ewing,
Mercer County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro Se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that her children were not
domiciled in Ewing and therefore not legally entitled to a free public education in the Ewing School
District (District). Petitioner further appealed the tuition assessment levied upon her for the time the
children were deemed ineligible to attend school in the District.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a) and N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a), public
schools are free to any person over five and under twenty-five years of age who is domiciled within
the school district; T.B. has met her burden of proof to show that she shares custody of S.H. and H.H.
with their father, Sa.H., and that Sa.H. is domiciled at an address on Conway Avenue in Ewing;
accordingly, S.H. and H.H. were entitled to a free public education in Ewing during the 2018-2019
school year; however, T.B. failed to meet her burden to show that she and I.B. were domiciled at a
Ewing address during the 2018-2019 school year. Therefore, as to I.B., the ALJ concluded that the
Board demonstrated entitlement to tuition reimbursement in the amount of $13,714.50 for I.B.’s
attendance on 150 days during the 2018-2019 school year. Accordingly, the ALJ granted the Board’s
assessment of tuition for I.B. for the 2018-2019 school year in the amount of $13,714.50, but denied
the Board’s assessment of tuition for S.H. and H.H.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurred with the findings of the ALJ and adopted the Initial
Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter. The petitioner was ordered to reimburse the
District for tuition costs in the amount of $13,714.50. The petition was dismissed.
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.
January 22, 2020
28-20

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 4106-19
Agency Dkt. No. 32-2/19
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
T.B., on behalf of minor children, I.B., H.H.
and S.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Ewing,
Mercer County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter and the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative
Law (OAL) have been reviewed.1 The parties did not file exceptions.
Upon review, the Commissioner agrees with the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ)
that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that she resided in the District during the 2018-2019
school year and that I.B. had a right to attend school in the District. Further, the Board has
demonstrated an entitlement to tuition reimbursement in the amount of $13,714.50 for the 150
days that I.B. attended school in the District during the 2018-2019 school year. With respect to
S.H. and H.H., the Commissioner is also in accord with the ALJ’s determination that there is
sufficient evidence in the record to demonstrate that S.H. and H.H. resided in Ewing Township
and were entitled to attend school in the District during the 2018-2019 school year.
1 The record does not include a transcript of the August 30, 2019 hearing at the OAL.

2
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in
this matter. The petitioner is ordered to reimburse the District for tuition costs in the amount of
$13,714.50.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	January 22, 2020
Date of Mailing: 	January 23, 2020
2 This decision may be appealed to the Appellate Division of the Superior Court pursuant to P.L. 2008, c. 36 	(N.J.S.A.
18A:6-9.1).

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
AGENCY DKT. NO. 32-2/19
T.B. on behalf of minor children,
I.B., H.H. and S.H.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE
TOWNSHIP OF EWING, MERCER
COUNTY,
Respondent.
T.B., petitioner, pro se
Joseph I. Roselle, Esq., for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith and King, LLP,
attorneys)
Record Closed: November 4, 2019 	Decided: December 19, 2019
BEFORE SUSAN L. OLGIATI, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, T.B., appeals the determination of the Ewing Township Board of
Education (Board or respondent) that her children, I.B., S.H., and H.H. were not domiciled

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
2
in Ewing and not legally entitled to a free public education in the Ewing School District
(District). Petitioner also appeals the resulting tuition assessment for the time the children
were deemed ineligible to attend school in the District.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By letter, dated January 30, 2019, the Board advised petitioner of its residency
hearing determination. The petitioner timely filed a petition of appeal and the Board filed
its Answer and Affirmative Defenses. Thereafter, the matter was transmitted to the Office
of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was filed on March 25, 2019, as a contested case
pursuant to N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15; N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -13. 	A hearing was held on
August 30, 2019,3 and the record remained open until September 27, 2019, to allow the
parties to submit written summations. On October 17, 2019, the record was reopened for
clarification purposes and the parties were given additional time for respondent to
produce documentation of the address to which the children were registered to attend
school and for petitioner to produce proof of residency. The record reclosed on November
4, 2019, following receipt and review of the post hearing submissions.
FACTUAL DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS
Testimony
The following is a summary of the relevant and material testimony given at hearing.
For respondent:
Pete Manetto, (Manetto) is a Residency Investigator for the District. He has held
this position for twenty years. He is a retired police officer and private detective. Manetto
testified that he conducted a residency investigation of I.B., S.H., and H.H. and prepared
a report on same. R-1. He conducted a total of twenty-two (22) surveillances beginning
in October 16, 2018. 	Two (2) surveillances, conducted on October 16, 2018, and
3 Prior hearing dates scheduled for May 9, 2019, June 25, 2019, and August 21, 2019 were adjourned due
to witness unavailability and/or medical issues.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
3
December 13, 2018, were initiated at 14xx Parkside Ave., Unit 1x,4 (Parkside Avenue),
Ewing New Jersey. The subjects were not found at that address on either occasion.
Surveillance was also initiated at 15x Girard Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey
(Trenton location). 	Twelve (12)5 surveillances were conducted at the Trenton location
beginning on October 18, 2018, and ending on November 26, 2018. During eight (8) of
the surveillances conducted at the Trenton location, S.H. and H.H. were observed exiting
the location and being driven by an adult black female to a District school or were later
confirmed to have been in school. Manetto testified that according to New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission (NJMVC) records, the “subject” vehicle, a 2013 black Volvo, NJMVC
registration number NJN7xxx,6 	is the property of T.B. 	The address of record for the
subject vehicle is 15x Girard Avenue (the Trenton location). 	During five (5) of the
surveillances conducted at the Trenton location, I.B. was observed exiting the location
and being driven by the same individual in the subject vehicle to a different District school
or later confirmed to have been in school. 	Neither the subjects nor the subject vehicle
were observed during the remaining surveillances at the Trenton location.
Manetto conducted two (2) surveillances at 4x W. Cleveland Avenue, Morrisville,
Pennsylvania. Neither the subjects nor the subject vehicle were observed at that location.
Manetto also conducted one surveillance at a District bus stop located at Grafton
and Conway streets. This surveillance was initiated based on information that S.H. and
H.H. were being dropped off by a District school bus, proceeding to 2x Conway Avenue,
Ewing, New Jersey, and then later picked up and driven to an undetermined location.
Neither the subjects nor the subject vehicle were observed during that surveillance.
Manetto, also conducted five (5) after-school surveillances at 2x Conway Avenue,
Ewing, New Jersey, beginning on December 19, 2018, and ending on January 16, 2019.
4 For purposes of confidentiality, complete address information is not listed herein for any of the locations
surveilled during the District’s residency investigation.
5 A review of the report reveals that there were eleven surveillances conducted at this location: October 18,
19, 23, 25, and 30, 2018, and November 5, 12, 14 ,19, 21, & 26, 2018.
`
6 For purposes of confidentiality, complete vehicle registration information in not listed herein.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
4
On each of these occasions, two individuals fitting the description of S.H. and H.H. were
observed exiting the school bus and proceeding to 2x Conway Avenue. 	Later, the two
individuals exited the location and were driven by unidentified person(s) towards the area
of Lower Ferry Road. Manetto explained that due to traffic conditions, he lost sight of the
vehicles observed at that location. 	During one of these surveillances, Manetto followed
the vehicle transporting the two individuals from that location to the Scudders Falls Bridge
and observed it heading towards Pennsylvania. 	That vehicle, a Lexus SUV, was
registered to “M.C.”7
Manetto took seven (7) photographs, of the subject individuals and/or the subject
vehicle at the Trenton location. 	R-1, Photo legend and attachments. 	The photographs
were taken in low light.
On June 16, 2019, Manetto conducted a supplemental surveillance at 1x Conway
Avenue, Ewing. 8 The subjects were not observed during that surveillance.
Based on his investigation, Manetto concluded that the subjects did not reside in
Ewing.
Manetto acknowledged several errors in his report including:
• 	An entry in his November 26, 2018, report noting: “A check with subject’s
respective schools indicated all in school on time.” He explained that this sentence
was information copied from a prior surveillance report entry in this matter.
• 	An entry in his December 12, 2018, report referencing surveillance location in the
area of Conway and “Gladstone.” The correct location is “Grafton.”
• 	An entry in his January 7, 2019, report containing the same incorrect reference to
“Gladstone.”
7 For purposes of confidentiality, M.C’s full name is not used. The address to which this vehicle is registered
is 13xx Parkside Avenue in Ewing.
8 This surveillance is not reflected in Manetto’s report, R-1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
5
George Cahill, (Cahill), is the Attendance Officer for the District. He conducted a
tuition assessment calculation in this matter. R-2. I.B., S.H., and H.H. each attended 150
days of school in the District during the 2018-2019 school year.9 Cahill’s calculation for
S.H. and H.H. is as follows: students in grades one through five cost the District $14,948
for a full year/180 days. This equals $83.05 per day. The 150 days attended by S.H. and
H.H., multiplied by the daily rate of $83.05 equals $12,457 per child or a total of $24,915.
Cahill’s calculation for I.B. is as follows: students in grades six through eight cost the
District $16,457 for a full year/180 days. 	This equals $91.43 per day. 	The 150 days
attended by I.B., multiplied by the daily rate of $91.43 equals $13,714.50. The total tuition
assessed for all three children is $38,629.50.
For petitioner:
T.B. is the mother of I.B. (a girl), S.H., and H.H. (both boys). She testified that she
shares custody of the boys with Sa.H., their father, and L.H., their aunt/Sa.H’s sister. T.B.
and Sa.H. went to court to address custody issues. See. P-1.10 L.H. lives at 1x Conway
Avenue in Ewing. See, P-8 & R-5. L.H. has lived at this address for approximately four
years. 	Sa.H. lives with L.H. at 1x Conway Avenue. 	The boys are with their father the
majority of the week and with T.B. mainly on the weekends--Friday to Sunday. The boys
stay with T.B. during the summer.
2x Conway Avenue, Ewing, New Jersey, is the address of L.H’s neighbor. 	The
boys go to that address after school because L.H. does not get home from work by the
time the boys finish school. 	T.B. does not know the schedule that Sa.H. or his sister
worked out for picking the boys up after school. She does not know M.C., the person to
whom the Lexus used to pick up the two individuals from 2x Conway Avenue, was
9 The number of school days attended was calculated from the time the Board initiated its residency
investigation.
10 P-1 is an August 23, 2016, Superior Court of New Jersey, Family Part Order in the matter of L.H v. Sa.
H. 	The order addresses visitation and notes in relevant part on page 2, item #23, “The plaintiff/ [L.H.]
withdraws her application. The parties consent to the plaintiff/[L.H.] and the defendant/[T.B.] having joint
legal and residential custody of the minor children, [H.H. and S.H.] 	The parties consent to the
defendant/[T.B.] having liberal and reasonable parenting time as agreed upon by the parties.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
6
registered. 	L.H. went to the Board hearing and brought the joint custody document but
was not permitted to testify and/or told she was not needed.
T.B. testified that she has lived at the following Ewing addresses:
• 	5x Dunmore Avenue, she was living at this address when she went to court with
Sa.H. [August 23, 2016.] P-1;
• 	1x Ronnet Drive, from there, T.B. moved in with her mother; and
• 	14xx Parkside Avenue, her mother’s address.
I.B. is the only child who should be registered for school at Parkside Avenue. The
boys should both be registered for school at 1x Conway Avenue.
The Trenton location is T.B.’s grandmother’s address. 	T.B. took a Family and
Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave to care for her grandmother, “C.B.” P-711. On the dates
T.B. was observed at the Trenton location, she was there caring for her grandmother
while her aunt was away. T.B. was not at her grandmother’s house every day.
T.B’s younger sister lived at 4x W. Cleveland Avenue, Morrisville, Pennsylvania.
The children never lived at that address. They were not living in Pennsylvania.
In June 2019, T.B. moved to 9xx Poplar Court, Bensalem, Pennsylvania. As of the
date of the August 30, 2019, OAL hearing, T.B. had not notified the District of her change
of address. T.B. testified that I.B. would not be attending school in the District during the
2019-2020 school year. 	T.B. testified that I.B. was having problems in the District and
would be attending school in Hamilton, New Jersey.
11 October 23, 2018, letter approving petitioner for an intermittent leave of absence to care for her
grandmother, C.B., from September 4, 2018, through January 1, 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
7
It is the obligation of the fact finder to weigh the credibility of the witnesses before
making a decision. 	Credibility is the value that a fact finder gives to a witness’ testimony.
Credibility is best described as that quality of testimony or evidence that makes it worthy
of belief. “Testimony to be believed must not only proceed from the mouth of a credible
witness but must be credible in itself. 	It must be such as the common experience and
observations of mankind can approve as probable in the circumstances.” In re Estate of
Perrone, 5 N.J. 514, 522 (1950). To assess credibility, the fact finder should consider the
witness’ interest in the outcome, motive, or bias. 	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).
Having had an opportunity to hear the testimony of the witnesses and to observe
their demeanor during the hearing, I accept the testimony of investigator Manetto as
credible. 	His testimony as to his actions taken during the course of the investigation
including his observations of I.B., S.H., and H.H. and the subject vehicle was straight
forward and reasonable. While he acknowledged several errors in his report, these errors
were relatively minor and/or administrative in nature and do not affect the reliability of his
observations or his testimony.
Similarly, 	George 	Cahill’s 	testimony 	regarding 	his 	calculation 	of 	the 	tuition
assessment for I.B., S.H., and H.H. was straight forward and reasonable, thus I accept it
as credible.
As to petitioner, portions of her testimony relating to her joint custody of S.H. and
H.H. and the in-District residence of L.H. was reasonable and supported by the competent
documentary evidence in the record. 	Thus, I accept that portion of her testimony as
credible. 	T.B. testified that the boys stayed with their father during the majority of the
week and were with her, mainly on the weekends. While this testimony was called into
question by Manetto’s observations of the boys at the Trenton location on eight (8)
occasions, these limited observations, are insufficient to refute petitioner’s testimony and
the documentary evidence regarding the custody arrangement. They are also insufficient
to refute petitioner’s testimony regarding where the boys were living.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
8
In contrast however, T.B.’s testimony regarding her residence/domicile at her
mother’s Parkside Avenue address, was not fully supported and/or was contradicted by
the sparse competent residency evidence presented. As an initial matter, petitioner did
not dispute nor explain Manetto’s testimony and report indicating that the subject vehicle
was registered to T.B. at the Trenton location.
Additionally, T.B.’s explanation that her presence at the Trenton location was due
to her FMLA leave to care for her grandmother was contradicted by the fact that the
October 23, 2018, leave approval letter sent by or on behalf of her employer was
addressed to T.B. at the Trenton location. P-712 This letter supports that T.B. was living
at the Trenton location during the 2018-2019 school year and not simply there to
temporarily care for her grandmother while on leave.
Similarly, petitioner testified that she moved to Bensalem, Pennsylvania in June
2019. Despite this, as part of her post-hearing submission of proof of residency, petitioner
provided two October 29, 2019, letters from Navient, Department of Education Loan
Servicing regarding: “important loan information” for 2018 and 2017, addressed to her at
Parkside Avenue. 	Aside from the fact that the letters were sent during the 2019-2020
school year, the letters were sent to petitioner after a time she acknowledges moving from
the Parkside Avenue address.13 Thus, the letters do not support her claim that she was
living at that address during the 2018-2019 school year. Rather, they create further doubt
as to the truthfulness of petitioner’s testimony regarding her residency/domicile during
that time.
For these reasons, I do not accept petitioner’s testimony regarding her residency
at Parkside Avenue during the 2018-2019 school year as credible.
Accordingly, based upon the testimonial and documentary evidence presented, I
FIND the following as FACT:
12See copy of envelope/mailing information accompanying the October 23, 2018, letter provided by
petitioner as part of her post-hearing proof of residency.
13 Petitioner testified she moved to Bensalem, Pennsylvania in June 2019.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
9
Pursuant to an August 23, 2016, Family Part Order, the petitioner shares joint legal
and residential custody of her two children, S.H. and H.H, with Sa.H., their father, and
L.H., their aunt/the father’s sister. Pursuant to this Order, petitioner is to have liberal and
reasonable parenting time as agreed upon by the parties.
The August 2016 Family Part Order does not designate the school district of
attendance for S.H. and H.H.
L.H. resides/is domiciled at 1x Conway Avenue, Ewing, New Jersey, and was so
during the 2018-2019 school year.
During the 2018-2019 school year, I.B. attended middle school in the District.
During that time, S.H. and H.H. attended elementary school in the District.
Investigator Manetto conducted a residency investigation of I.B, S.H., and H.H.
During the course of the investigation, beginning on October 16, 2018, through January
16, 2019, Manetto conducted twenty-one surveillances at five separation locations in
Ewing and Trenton, New Jersey, and Morrisville, Pennsylvania. In June 2019, Manetto
conducted one supplemental surveillance. 	The location of that surveillance was 1x
Conway Avenue in Ewing, New Jersey (L.H.’s address).
Petitioner’s grandmother, C.B., lives at 15x Girard Avenue, Trenton, New Jersey.
Petitioner 	was 	approved 	for 	an 	intermittent 	FMLA/NJ-FLA 	leave 	from 	her
employment to care for her grandmother beginning on September 4, 2018, and running
through January 1, 2019.
Manetto conducted eleven surveillances at the Trenton location beginning on
October 18, 2018, through November 26, 2019. 	Of the surveillances conducted at that
location, S.H. and H.H. were observed there on eight occasions. 	Of the surveillances
conducted at this location, I.B. was observed there on five occasions.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
10
On the occasions that the children were observed at the Trenton location they were
seen being transported by a black female, in a 2013 Volvo, registered to/owned by
petitioner. On these occasions, the children were transported to a District school or later
confirmed to have been in school. 	The address on record, with the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, for the 2013 Volvo is 15x Girard Avenue, Trenton.
Surveillance photos taken by Manetto at the Trenton location on October 25, 2018,
and November 14, 2018, are of poor quality and are not self-explanatory. 	Neither the
subject vehicle nor the individuals are clearly identifiable absent Manetto’s testimony
and/or photo legend contained within his report.
The Parkside Avenue address belonging to petitioner’s mother, was surveilled
twice during the course of the investigation. On those two occasions, October 16, 2018,
and December 13, 2018, no activity was observed.
The tuition assessed for S.H. and H.H.’s attendance of 150 days of school in the
District, during the 2018-2019 school year, is $12,457 per child or a total of $24,915 for
both.
The tuition assessed for I.B.’s attendance of 150 days of school in the District
during the 2018-2019 school year is $13.714.50.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSION
Any child between the ages of five and twenty years old is entitled to a free public
education in the district in which he is a resident. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-
3.1(a). A student is a resident of a school district if his 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). 	A student may attend school in a
district in which he is a non-resident, with or without payment of tuition, at the discretion
of the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-3(a); N.J.A.C. 6A:22-2.2.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
11
Domicile has been defined as the place where a person has his true, fixed,
permanent home and principal establishment, and to which whenever he is absent he
has the intention of returning. State v. Benny, 20 N.J 238, 250 (1955). The domicile of an
unemancipated child is that of his or her parent, custodian or guardian. P.B.K. o/b/o minor
child E.Y. v. Board of Ed. of Tenafly, 343 N.J. Super 419, 427 (App. Div. 2001). 	The
question of domicile is one of fact and must be determined on a case-by-case basis. Lea
v. Lea, 18 N.J. 1, 7 (1955). 	A person may have multiple residences but may have only
one domicile at a time; as such, the residence may coincide with domicile, but does not
alone determine domicile. Id.
In M.K. v. Bd. of Educ. of the Bridgewater-Raritan Reg’l Sch. Dist., 2019 N.J.
Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1515, the Appellate Division noted that it was legally possible that
the petitioner therein and her child could have been found to have had two simultaneous
residences, although only one domicile. Id. 6. 	The court concluded that, “[t]he real
question is not where [the child] resides. 	But where is he domiciled. 	And that question
is answered by examining where [his parents] are domiciled. See NJAC 6A:22-3.1(a)(1).”
The regulations contemplate that parents may not reside in the same school
district. 	N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)1.i provides, “When a student’s parents are domiciled in
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. This subparagraph shall apply regardless of which parent has legal custody.” The
regulations also contemplate that a student may live with both of his parents an equal
amount of time. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)1.ii provides:
When a student's physical custody is shared on an equal-
time, alternating week/month or other similar basis so the
student is not living with one parent or guardian for a majority
of the school year and there is no court order or written
agreement 	between 	the 	parents 	designating 	the 	school
district of attendance, the student's domicile is the present
domicile of the parent or guardian with whom the student
resided on the last school day prior to the October 16
preceding the application date.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
12
Here, the Board argues that petitioner has failed to meet her burden of proof that
she resided/was domiciled in the District or that her children were entitled to a free
education there. 	The Board also argues that petitioner failed to credibly refute the
investigation report or its findings.
At the conclusion of the August 30, 2019, OAL hearing in this matter, the
undersigned gave petitioner an opportunity to submit post-hearing proof of her residency
at the Parkside Avenue address. 	Thereafter, on October 17, 2019, 	the record was
reopened for clarification purposes and petitioner was provided an additional opportunity
to provide proof of her residency. 	In total, the only proof of residency produced 	by the
petitioner consisted of the following:
• 	An August 13 – September 12, 2018, phone bill from Verizon. P-2
• 	A February 13 – March 12, 2019, phone bill from Verizon. Id.
• 	An October 29, 2019, letter from Navient, Department of Education Loan Servicing
regarding: important tax information for 2018, and an October 29, 2019 letter from
Navient, 	Department 	of 	Education 	Loan 	Servicing 	regarding: 	important 	tax
information for 2017. P-3.
• 	A copy of an envelope from the Ewing Public Schools to the Parent of I.B., date
stamped May 28, 2019, a copy of an envelope from Central Registration Office to
T.B., date stamped June 16, 2019. P-4.
• 	An October 28, 2019, letter from T.B.’s mother, F.B-H., stating that T.B. and I.B.
lived with her at the Parkside Avenue address during the 2018-2019 school year.
P-5.
This information is insufficient to meet petitioner’s burden of proof to establish
residency/domicile in the District during the 2018-2019 school year. As an initial matter

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
13
the two bills from Verizon are for wireless service.14 	As such, the bills could be forwarded
to any address and do not demonstrate residency or domicile at the Parkside Avenue
address during the 2018-2019 school year.
Next, for the reasons previously set forth in the credibility determination herein, the
two October 2019 letters addressed to petitioner from Navient do not establish residency
or domicile at the Parkside Avenue address during the 2018-2019 school year.
Similarly, the copies of the envelopes mailed by the District to T.B./the parent of
I.B., do not establish residency or domicile at the Parkside Avenue address during the
2018-2019 school year, but rather reflect only address information provided to the District.
Finally, the letter from petitioner’s mother, F.B-H., stating that petitioner and I.B.
lived with her at the Parkside Avenue address during the 2018-2019 school year does not
constitute competent, 	reliable, 	unbiased evidence sufficient to establish residency or
domicile at that location. 	Aside from being hearsay, as the mother of T.B. and
grandmother of I.B., F.B-H. has an interest in the outcome of this matter, thus her
statement is made with motive and bias.
In sum, the sparse evidence produced by petitioner does not establish residency
or domicile in the District during the 2018-2019 school year. 	Nor is it sufficient to
overcome petitioner’s failure to refute the testimony and investigative finding that her
vehicle was registered to the Trenton location. 	Nor does the documentation overcome
the fact that the October 2018 FMLA approval letter was mailed to petitioner at the
Trenton location.
For the reasons set forth herein, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to meet
her burden of proof that she resided/was domiciled in the District during the 2018-2019
school year and that I.B. had a right to a free education there. 	Therefore, as to I.B., I
CONCLUDE that the Board has demonstrated an entitlement to tuition reimbursement in
the amount of $13,714.50, for the 150 days attended during the 2018-2019 school year.
14 The bills direct recipients with questions to “vzw.com.” 	A Google search of this address brings the
searcher to Verizonwireless.com.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
14
As to S.H. and H.H., petitioner has through her testimony and the competent
evidence in the record established that she shares joint custody of them with their father
and L.H. 	L.H. resides/is domiciled at 2x Conway Avenue, in Ewing. 	The investigation
conducted over the course of twenty-one days beginning on October 16, 2018, and
continuing through January 16, 2019, in which S.H. and H.H. were observed at the
Trenton location eleven times is insufficient to determine that they were domiciled at the
Trenton location or to overcome petitioner’s testimony that they stayed with their father
the majority of the week. 	Similarly, the investigative findings that individuals fitting the
description of S.H. and H.H. were on six occasions transported from 2x Conway Avenue,
in the direction of the New Jersey/Pennsylvania border is wholly insufficient to overcome
petitioner’s testimony or to establish domicile or residency in Pennsylvania. 	Moreover,
L.H.’s address was surveilled only one time, and at the end of the school year. The fact
that the boys were not observed there on that single occasion is similarly insufficient
overcome petitioner’s testimony or to establish that they were not residing/domiciled
there. Finally, T.B.’s testimony that the boys lived with L.H. is supported by the October
29, 2019, letter of L.H. in which she confirms that she shares custody of S.H. and H.H.
and that they have lived with her for several years. While the statement is hearsay from
an interested party, the investigative findings as to S.H. and H.H. are insufficient to
overcome same.
For the reasons set forth herein, I CONCLUDE that there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that S.H. and H.H. resided/were domiciled in the District during the 2018-
2019 school year. 	Thus, I CONCLUDE 	that the Board is not entitled to tuition
reimbursement for S.H. or H.H. during the 2018-2019 school year.
Finally, as part of respondent’s October 29, 2019, post hearing submission and
response, counsel for the District noted that despite petitioner’s testimony at hearing that
I.B. would not be attending Ewing schools in the 2019-2020 school year, she remains
enrolled in and is attending school there. 	Respondent therefore requested that the
undersign consider I.B.’s attendance in the District during the current school year when
issuing this Initial Decision. 	Additionally, respondent also provided emails relating to
supplemental surveillances conducted by investigator Manetto on October 4, and 14,

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
15
2019. 	As respondent’s residency determination related to the children’s attendance in
the District during the 2018-2019 school year, and the hearing in this matter addressed
only facts and evidence relating to their attendance during that school year, I decline at
this time to consider information relating to the 2019-2020 school year. 	If respondent
contends there is reason to believe that the children are not domiciled in the District during
the current school year, it should conduct a thorough investigation and render a new
residency determination.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, I hereby ORDER that the Board’s assessment of tuition
for I.B. during the 2018-2019 school year in the amount of $13.714.50 is GRANTED. 	I
further ORDER that the Board’s tuition assessment for S.H. and H.H. during the 2018-
2019 school year is 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 04106-19
16
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.
December 19, 2019
DATE 	SUSAN L. OLGIATI, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
/vj

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
17
APPENDIX
List of Witnesses
For petitioner:
T.B.
For respondent:
Pete Manetto, Investigator
George Cahill, Residency Officer
List of Exhibits
For petitioner:
P-1 	Order of Superior Court of NJ, Family Part in L. H. v. H.S., Docket No#
FD-11-001XXX-16, with attachment NJ Uniform Support Notices.
P-215 Verizon bills addressed to T.B. for billing period August to September, 2018,
and February to March, 2019.
P-3 	Two letters to T.B. from Navient, Department of Education Loan Servicing,
October 29, 2019;
P-4 	Copy of envelope from Ewing Public School addressed to “the Parent of
[I.B], 	May 28, 2019; 	copy of envelope from Central 	Registration Office,
Ewing Public Schools to T.B., June 17, 2019.
P-5 	Letter from F.B-H to whom it may concern, October 28, 2019.
P-616 Order of Superior Court of NJ, Family Part—L. H. v. H.S. Docket No# FD-
11-001XXX-16.
P-7 	Letter from Cigna Leave Solutions with copy of address/mailing
15 P-2 through P-8 represent petitioner’s post hearing submissions.
16 Duplicate of Order submitted as P-1.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 04106-19
18
information, October 23, 2018.
P-8 	NJ Residential Lease Agreement for L.H., Renewal of Lease for August
2018 to July 2019, and October 29, 2019, letter from L.H. regarding joint
custody.
For respondent:
R-1 	Investigation report prepared by Pete Manetto with attachments.
R-2 	Tuition Assessment Calculation
R-317 Ewing public school registration system information for I.B. consisting of:
registration information FMS Grade 7, two pages; FMS Grade 8, two
pages; student contact information Grade 7, two pages; student contact
information Grade 8, two pages; Student Daily Attendance Report SY
2019-20; Student Daily Attendance Report SY 2018-19.
R-4 	Ewing public school information for S.H. consisting of: student contact
information Grade 4, two pages; student contact information Grade 5, two
pages; registration information LES Grade 4, two pages; registration
information LES Grade 5, two pages.
R-5 	Ewing public school information for H.H. consisting of: student contact
information Grade 5, two pages; student contact information Grade 6, one
page; registration information LES Grade 5, two pages; 	registration
information LES Grade 6, two pages.
R-6 	NJ Residential Lease Agreement August 1, 2016 to July 31, 2017 for L.H.,
copy of envelope/official change of address information from Comcast to
L.H., undated; copy of envelope/addressed to L.H. with postal message
regarding: “Notify sender of new address,” undated.
R-7 	Two emails from Peter Manetto re: Case update report/surveillance
conducted on October 4, 2019 and October 14, 2019.
17 R-3 through R-7 represent respondent’s post-hearing submissions.