T.H., on behalf of minor child, v. Board of Education of the Township of Sparta, Sussex County, 11/4/2021, (#280-21)

280-21
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
T.H., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of Sparta,
Sussex County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner filed the within appeal in September 2020, contending that school officials at
Sparta High School wrongfully searched his daughter, a minor at the time, during a sporting event on
October 20, 2017. Petitioner claimed that a resulting harassment, intimidation and bullying (HIB)
complaint he filed with the school district was improperly closed without a proper investigation, and his
internal appeal of the HIB claim was rejected by the respondent Board in September 2019. Petitioner’s
daughter graduated from Sparta High School in June 2019. The Board filed a motion for summary
decision contending that petitioner’s appeal must be dismissed as untimely; alternatively, the Board
asserted that petitioner lacks standing and failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3(i), petitioners must file a petition no later
than the 90th day from the date of receipt of the notice of a final order, ruling or other action by the district
board of education, individual Party, or agency, which is the subject of the requested contested case
hearing; petitioner’s appeal was filed as a result of an alleged search of petitioner’s daughter, which was
conducted in October 2017 by the District’s Athletic Director; petitioner waited eight months, until
June 2018, to file an HIB complaint, and did not file the within appeal until more than two years later;
petitioner has offered no valid reason for the significant delay in filing; further, petitioner lacks standing
to pursue a claim on behalf of his child, who is no longer a minor. The ALJ concluded that the petitioner
failed to meet his burden and, accordingly, ordered the petition of appeal dismissed.
Upon a comprehensive review, the Commissioner concurred with the ALJ’s findings regarding timeliness
and lack of standing to bring this case on behalf of his child, who has graduated and is now an adult.
Accordingly, the Board’s motion for summary decision was granted and 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.

OAL Dkt. No. EDU 09769-20
Agency Dkt. No. 192-9/20
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
T.H., on behalf of minor child,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Township of
Sparta, Sussex 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 that
the petition was untimely pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:3-1.3, and that petitioner lacks standing to
pursue a claim on behalf of his child, who is no longer a minor. Accordingly, the Board’s
motion for summary decision is granted, and the petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.1
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision:
Date of Mailing:
1 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.
280-21
November 4, 2021
November 4, 2021

New Jersey Is An Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09769-20
AGENCY DKT. NO. 192-09/20
T.H. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD,
Petitioner,
v.
TOWNSHIP OF SPARTA, SUSSEX COUNTY
Respondent.
Thomas Hand, pro se, for petitioner
Marc H. Zitomer, Esq. for respondent (Schenck, Price, Smith & King, LLP,
attorneys)
BEFORE ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ:
Petitioner T.H. on behalf of minor child, contends that officials of Sparta High
School performed an illegal search on his minor daughter at the time on October 20,
2017. 	As a result, petitioner filed a H.I.B. complaint which he says was improperly
closed without a proper investigation. His internal appeal was rejected by the District in
September 2019.
Petitioner filed a Petition of Appeal on September 9, 2020. Respondent filed an
Answer to Petition of Appeal September 29, 2020. 	The matter was transmitted by the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09769-20
2
Department of Education (Department) to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where
it was filed on October 20, 2020 as a contested case.
Among other things, the District contends the appeal was untimely filed, and is
moot regardless as T.H.’s daughter has long since graduated, as well as petitioner
lacking standing to prosecute the matter on her behalf as she is an adult and was not
joined as a party to the case. 	Respondent seeks a disposition of the matter through
summary disposition.
Respondent 	brings 	this 	motion 	seeking 	disposition 	through 	summary
proceedings due to untimeliness of the appeal, lack of standing, and failure to state a
claim 	upon 	which 	relief 	can 	be 	granted. 	Petitioner’s 	daughter 	graduated 	from
respondent Sparta High School in June 2019.
Petitioner alleges that almost two years prior to graduation, in October 2017, his
daughter, a student at the high school was wrongfully searched by school officials at a
sporting event. 	Eight months after the incident, petitioner filed a H.I.B. Complaint
against the District and school officials. 	The matter was closed without what petitioner
believed to be a proper investigation, and fifteen months later, in September 2019,
petitioner filed the within appeal. 	Among other things, the driving force behind the
appeal is petitioner’s allegation that the details of the search were leaked throughout the
community thereby besmirching his daughter’s good name.
The legal basis for filing an action against a school district is found at N.J.A.C.
6A:3-1.3 which states in part:
A petitioner shall file a petition no later than the 90 th day from the date of receipt
of the notice of a final order, ruling or other action by the district board of education,
individual Party, or agency, which is the subject of the requested contested case
hearing.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09769-20
3
Authority to establish a time limitation for the filing of such actions is vested with
the New Jersey Commissioner of Education. 	See: Kaprow v. Board of Education of
Berkeley Township,131 N.J.572 (1993), which stands for the principle that:
The limitation period provides a measure of repose, an essential element in the
proper and efficient administration of the school laws. 	It stabilizes the relationship
between the teachers and the administration. The limitations also gives school districts
the security of knowing that the administrative decisions regarding the operation of the
school cannot be challenged after 90 days. Only when a petitioner can demonstrate
exceptional circumstances or compelling reasons would the Commissioner consider
expanding the time to file beyond the 90 days. 	See also: Brunetti v. Borough of New
Milford, 68 N.J. 576 (1975).
Petitioner’s complaint was filed as a result of an alleged search conducted by the
District’s Athletic Director of petitioner’s daughter on or about October 21, 2017.
Petitioner waited eight months to file an H.I.B. until June 2018.
The Due Process petition was not filed until September 2020. 	No valid reason
for the significant delay in filing has been put forward by petitioner.
As to petitioner’s concerns about “leaks” about the incident within the community,
there does not appear to be a basis for a cause of action in an administrative
proceeding.
The Commissioner of Education only has jurisdiction over disputes that “primarily
and directly” arise under school laws. 	See Ciambrone v. Witty Bd. of Educ of
Bloomingdale,C’mmr. Dkt. No. 143-01 (May 7, 2001) quoting Hamilton Bd. of Educ. v..
Fraleigh, 93 N.J.A.R. 2d. (EDU) 538 (Cmm’r 1993).
See also: Fair Lawn Bd. of Educ. v. Mayor of Fair Lawn,143 N.J. Super 259,
(Law Div. 1976) aff’d 153 N.J. Super 480 (App. Div. 1977), which speaks to the issue of
what the Commissioner of Education has jurisdiction over, and what he or she does not.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09769-20
4
Accordingly, while petitioner may have had valid concerns in October 2017 as to
what allegedly occurred, and similar concerns about discussions within the community
that may have been made public, there simply does not appear to be a legal basis
within the confines of Administrative Law for jurisdiction over this area of concern.
Having dealt with the issues of timeliness and lack of jurisdiction over the
underlying complaint, I am also compelled here to point out that petitioner does not
have standing to have the complaint heard, even if the motion was denied, and a full
hearing went forward. The child in whose name petitioner brought the complaint is now
and adult in her own right. She was not joined as a party, and petitioner admitted during
argument that she was not informed of the proceeding.
Petitioner, no doubt is a loving father who still cares for the welfare of his
daughter, 	and 	wanted 	to 	see 	a 	perceived 	wrong 	corrected. 	But 	for 	all 	of 	the
aforementioned reasons stated herein, there is no legal basis for the matter to proceed
any further.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has failed to meet their burden and the
petition of appeal should be DISMISSED. I further CONCLUDE that the Clerk should
return this matter to the Department of Education.
It is ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED and that the Clerk return this
matter to the Department of Education for appropriate disposition.
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 09769-20
5
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.
October 7, 2021
DATE 	ANDREW M. BARON, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	October 7, 2021
Date Mailed to Parties: 	October 7, 2021