A.T., on behalf of minor child, L.B. v. Board of Education of the City of Burlington, Burlington County, 3/17/25 (#94-25)

94-25
OAL Dkt. No. 12278-24 (12774-23 on remand)
Agency Dkt. No. 288-10/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
A.T., on behalf of minor child, L.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the City of Burlington,
Burlington 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.
The Commissioner previously concluded that petitioner failed to sustain her burden of
establishing that her grandchild, L.B., was entitled to attend school in Burlington as an “affidavit
student” pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1. A.T., on behalf of minor child, L.B. v. Bd. of Educ. of the
City of Burlington, Burlington Co., Commissioner Decision No. 224-24R (June 10, 2024). However,
because the record lacked information regarding the number of days of ineligible attendance by
L.B., the Commissioner was unable to assess tuition pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b. Accordingly,
the Commissioner remanded the matter to the OAL.
On remand, the ALJ gave petitioner two opportunities to appear for status conferences,
but she failed to do so. 	The Burlington Board of Education (Board) submitted a certification
regarding the number of days of ineligible attendance, but petitioner did not submit any

2
documentation, although she was given the opportunity to do so. 	Based on the Board’s
submission, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that L.B. was enrolled in the Board’s
schools for 162 days during the 2023-2024 school year. The ALJ also found that the cost of tuition
for the 2023-2024 school year was $108.16 per day.1 The ALJ concluded that petitioner owed
the Board tuition in the amount of $17,521.92.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, for the
reasons stated in the Initial Decision.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision on remand is adopted. 	Petitioner shall pay the Board
$49,585.25 for L.B.’s tuition costs incurred during the 2023-2024 school year.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2
COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: 	March 17, 2025
Date of Mailing: 	March 19, 2025
1 The Initial Decision contains a typographical error indicating that the annual tuition rate is $19,268. The
certification of the district’s superintendent indicates that the annual tuition rate is $19,468. 	When
divided by 180 school days, the annual tuition of $19,468 equals $108.16 per day.
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.

New Jersey is an Equal Opportunity Employer
State of New Jersey
OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
INITIAL DECISION
SUMMARY DECISION
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
AGENCY DKT. NO. 288-10/23
(ON REMAND EDU 12774-23)
A.T. ON BEHALF OF MINOR CHILD L.B.,
Petitioner,
v.
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGTON, BURLINGTON COUNTY,
Respondent.
____________________________________
A.T., petitioner, pro se
Alicia D’Anella, Esq., for respondent (Gorman D’Anella & Morlok, LLC, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 18, 2024 Decided: January 31, 2025
BEFORE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner A.T. on behalf of minor child L.B. challenges the residency determination
by respondent Board of Education of the City of Burlington (Board). Under N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1(a), public schools shall be free to a minor who is domiciled within the school

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
2
district. The Board determined that “family hardship” was not demonstrated. The Board
also seeks reimbursement for the period of ineligibility that L.B. attended school in the
district.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On September 28, 2023, the respondent notified A.T. that L.B. was not entitled to
a free education in the City of Burlington Public School District (District) because “family
hardship” was not demonstrated. On October 18, 2023, A.T. appealed the Board’s
decision. On November 13, 2023, the respondent filed an answer and a notice of motion
for summary decision.
On November 16, 2023, the Department of Education, Office of Controversies and
Disputes, transmitted the case to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL), where it was
filed under OAL docket number EDU 12774-23 as a contested case under the
Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A. 52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the
Office of Administrative Law, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing.
On December 5, 2023, I was assigned this case for a hearing. On January 9,
2024, the matter was scheduled for a pre-hearing conference. The petitioner failed to
appear. The matter was rescheduled to January 29, 2024. At that time a status
conference was held and a motion schedule was set for the response to respondent’s
motion. The petitioner had until February 29, 2024, to respond, and respondent’s reply
was due on March 7, 2024. There was no response from the petitioner. On March 27,
2024, an email was sent regarding the responses that were due. Again, no response was
received from the petitioner. The record closed on March 27, 2024.
An Initial Decision was issued by the undersigned on May 8, 2024. (C-1.) On
June 10, 2024, the Commissioner issued a decision remanding the case to the OAL for
additional fact-finding, and the remanded matter was filed at the OAL on September 6,
2024, under OAL docket number EDU 12278-24. (C-2.) Status conferences were
scheduled on October 10, 2024, and November 19, 2024, and no one appeared. The
OAL contacted the attorney for respondent, who had moved to another firm. On

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
3
December 3, 2024, a status conference was held, but the petitioner failed to appear. A
scheduling order was made for the submission of briefs, of which the petitioner was
notified. Upon receipt of the respondent’s brief, the record closed on December 18, 2024.
There has been no response from the petitioner at the date of this writing.
ISSUES PRESENTED ON REMAND
The remand decision presents the following issues for adjudication:
1. The determination of the number of days of L.B.’s ineligible attendance.
2. Calculation of the amount owed to the Board.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The factual findings of the Initial Decision in EDU 12774-23 are incorporated herein
by reference. The respondent’s submission and the certification of superintendent
Dr. John Russell (nothing was received from the petitioner) reveal the following additional
uncontroverted facts, and I therefore FIND:
1. L.B. began attending the District on October 2, 2023. (Russell’s Cert. at ¶
5.)
2. L.B. was enrolled throughout the 2023–2024 school year. (Ibid.)
3. L.B. was enrolled for 162 school days during the 2023–2024 school year.
(Ibid.)
4. The District’s tuition rate for a student in grades 6–8 annually is $19,268.
(Russell’s Cert. at ¶ 6.)
5. When the annual cost of $19,268 is divided by the number of school days,
which is 180, it equals $108.16 per day. (Ibid.)

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
4
6. The tuition rate for the 2023–2024 school year was approved by the Board
of Education on May 1, 2024. (R-A.)
7. A.T. owes the district tuition in the amount of $17,521.92 (162 x $108.16).
(Russell’s Cert. at ¶ 8.)
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
A party may move for summary decision upon any or all of the substantive issues
in a contested case. N.J.A.C. 1:1-12.5(a). The motion for summary decision shall be
served with briefs and may be served with supporting affidavits. “The decision sought
may be rendered 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).
In this case, no genuine issue of any material fact exists, and the Board is entitled
to prevail as a matter of law for the reasons stated below.
Public school shall be free to a minor who is domiciled within the school district,
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(a); New Jersey has consistently held that the domicile of the child
follows the domicile of the parent, Shim v. Rutgers, 191 N.J. 374, 399 (2007); and if a
student does not have a right to attend the school district, the commissioner of the
Department of Education may assess tuition. N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2. The resident has the
burden of proof in a determination of residency ineligibility. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1.
In this case, L.B. is domiciled in Edgewater, NJ, with her mother, A.M. Because
of “bullying” she was experiencing at the school in Edgewater, the family sought to enroll
L.B. in the District as an “affidavit student.” As part of the “Application for Admission,”
completed by the legal parent, there is an “explanation of hardship” requirement that the
parent/guardian must complete.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
5
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1 provides, in pertinent part:
Any person who is kept in the home of another person
domiciled within the school district and is supported by such
other person gratis as if he were such other person’s own
child, upon filing by such other person with the secretary of
the board of education of the district, if so required by the
board, a sworn statement that he is domiciled within the
district and is supporting the child gratis and will assume all
personal obligations for the child relative to school
requirements and that he intends so to keep and support the
child gratuitously for a longer time than merely through the
school term, and a copy of his lease if a tenant, or a sworn
statement by his landlord acknowledging his tenancy if
residing as a tenant without a written lease, and upon filing by
the child’s parent or guardian with the secretary of the board
of education a sworn statement that he is not capable of
supporting or providing care for the child due to a family or
economic hardship and that the child is not residing with the
resident of the district solely for the purpose of receiving a free
public education within the district. The statement shall be
accompanied by documentation to support the validity of the
sworn statements, information from or about which shall be
supplied only to the board and only to the extent that it directly
pertains to the support or nonsupport of the child. If in the
judgment of the board of education the evidence does not
support the validity of the claim by the resident, the board may
deny admission to the child.
Here, L.B.’s mother’s explanation of hardship was, “[a]t her other school she was
being bullied by a male student and [L.B.] didn’t want to attend back and all family
member[s] didn’t want her to go back to that school do [sic] to her safety.” (See Affidavit
of Student, Part 2—Application for Admission.) This, the respondent argues, does not fit
within the hardship criteria to be accepted as a student in the District. I agree. I
CONCLUDE that there was no sworn statement that A.M. is not capable of supporting or
providing care for L.B. due to a family or economic hardship pursuant to N.J.S.A.
18A:38-1. I further CONCLUDE that L.B. is residing with the resident of the District solely
for the purpose of receiving a free public education.
Accordingly, I CONCLUDE that L.B. attended the school district for 162 days,
which she was ineligible to attend. I further CONCLUDE that A.T. owes the respondent

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
6
$108.16 per day for a total of $17,521.92 for the period of ineligibility that L.B. attended
the City of Burlington public schools pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(1) and N.J.A.C.
6A:22-6.2.
ORDER
It is ORDERED that the petition is DENIED based upon petitioner’s failure to meet
her burden of proof that the District acted arbitrarily or capriciously in disputing L.B.’s
entitlement to a free education in the City of Burlington Public School District.
It is further ORDERED that the Board of Education of the City of Burlington is
entitled to tuition reimbursement from petitioner in the amount of $17,521.92 for the 162
days L.B. attended while ineligible.
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. Exceptions may be filed by email to
ControversiesDisputesFilings@doe.nj.gov or by mail to Office of Controversies

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
7
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.
January 31, 2025
DATE JOAN M. BURKE, ALJ
Date Received at Agency:
Date Mailed to Parties:
JMB/sb/jm

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 12278-24
8
APPENDIX
Exhibits
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
Respondent’s submission with the Certification of Dr. John Russell, Ed.D., along
with Exhibits R-A and R-B
Judge’s Exhibits:
C-1 Initial Decision EDU 12774-23
C-2 Commissioner’s Decision EDU 12774-23