L.M., on behalf of minor child, B.M. v. Board of Education of the Passaic County Manchester Regional School District, Passaic County, 1/26/2024, (#83-24)

83-24
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.M., on behalf of minor child, B.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Passaic County Manchester
Regional High School District, Passaic County,
Respondent.
Synopsis
Pro se petitioner appealed the determination of the respondent Board that he and his minor child, B.M., were
not domiciled in the respondent Board’s school district (District) and that B.M. was therefore not entitled to a
free public education in the District during the 2023-2024 school year. The Board contended that no residency
verification was ever received from B.M.’s family to show that he was entitled to attend school in the District,
despite multiple requests to B.M.’s mother to provide necessary documentation over the course of the 2022-
2023 school year. The within petition was filed by B.M.’s father in August 2023, prior to the start of the 2023-
2024 school year. Petitioner subsequently failed to appear for two pre-hearing telephone conferences and
also failed to appear at the hearing in this matter.
The ALJ found, inter alia, that: 	petitioner has abandoned his appeal by failure to appear at all scheduled
conferences and the hearing; petitioner failed to demonstrate that he and B.M. were domiciled in the
respondent Board’s school district as of September 7, 2023; a student who is domiciled in the District may
attend Manchester Regional but may also attend Passaic County Technical Institute (“PCTI”); if the student
attends PCTI, the Board must pay the student’s tuition; 	petitioner’s son, B.M., was such a student; 	as
petitioner has offered no proof of residency in the District, tuition reimbursement for B.M’s attendance at PCTI
is owed to the Board. Accordingly, the ALJ awarded the Board tuition in the amount of $5,250.45, based on
eighty-seven school days of ineligible attendance between September 7, 2023 and the date of the
Initial Decision on January 8, 2024, at a daily tuition rate of $60.35. The petition was dismissed with prejudice.
Upon review, the Commissioner adopted the Initial Decision of the OAL as the final decision in this matter but
corrected an error in the number of school days for which tuition reimbursement is due to the Board.
Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to reimburse the Board in the amount of $4,646.95 for the period
from September 7, 2023 through January 8, 2023, plus $60.35 for each school day from January 9, 2024
through the date of the within final decision. Further, the Commissioner ordered B.M. to be disenrolled from
the District and ordered that the Board is no longer obligated to pay B.M.’s tuition for PCTI. The petition of
appeal 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.

83-24
OAL Dkt. No. EDU 08009-23
Agency Dkt. No. 213-8/23
New Jersey Commissioner of Education
Final Decision
L.M., on behalf of minor child, B.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
Board of Education of the Passaic County
Manchester Regional High School District,
Passaic County,
Respondent.
The record of this matter, the Initial Decision of the Office of Administrative Law (OAL),
and the exceptions filed by the Passaic County Manchester Regional High School District Board
of Education (Board) pursuant to N.J.A.C. 1:1-18.4 have been reviewed and considered.
Petitioner did not file exceptions or a reply to the Board’s exceptions.
This matter arises from the Board’s determination that petitioner and his minor child,
B.M., were not domiciled in the Passaic County Manchester Regional High School District
(District) and that B.M. was, therefore, not entitled to a free public education in the District.
Following petitioner’s failure to appear for two telephone conferences and a hearing, the
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that petitioner had abandoned his appeal. The ALJ
further found that petitioner had not demonstrated that he and B.M. were domiciled in the
District as of September 7, 2023. Accordingly, the ALJ awarded the Board tuition

2
reimbursement in the amount of $5,250.45, based on eighty-seven school days of ineligible
attendance between September 7, 2023 and the date of the decision on January 8, 2024,1 at a
daily tuition rate of $60.35.2
In its exceptions, the Board requested that the Commissioner modify the tuition
reimbursement calculation to include the period between the Initial Decision and the
Commissioner’s final decision. The Board further requested that the Commissioner determine
that B.M. has been disenrolled and that the Board no longer has the obligation to pay for B.M.
to attend Passaic County Technical Institute (PCTI) after his disenrollment.
Upon review, the Commissioner concurs with the ALJ that petitioner abandoned his
appeal and failed to sustain his burden of establishing that he and B.M. were domiciled in the
District as of September 7, 2023. The Commissioner concludes that B.M. was, therefore, not
entitled to a free public education in the District during that time.
Pursuant to N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1b, the Commissioner shall assess tuition against petitioners
for the time period during which B.M. was ineligible to attend school in the District. Although
the ALJ indicated that there were eighty-seven school days between September 7, 2023 and
January 8, 2024, an independent review of the District’s 2023-2024 calendar demonstrates that
there have only been seventy-seven school days during that period.3 Therefore, the Board is
entitled to tuition reimbursement in the amount of $4,646.95 for the period from
1 It appears that the ALJ may have determined the number of days of ineligible attendance based on testimony;
however, a transcript was not provided to the Commissioner. The record does not contain a copy of the school’s
calendar.
2 The daily tuition rate is calculated as 1/180th of the annual tuition rate of $10,864.00 reflected in the Board’s
contract with PCTI (Exhibit R-13).
3 https://4.files.edl.io/ae08/05/24/23/174121-0b937d8f-426d-45ba-b362-be20ff8867fb.pdf, last visited January17,
2024. The calculation is 17 (September) + 21 (October) + 18 (November) + 16 (December) + 5 (January) = 77 days.

3
September 7, 2023 through January 8, 2024, as well as $60.35 for each school day from
January 9, 2024 through the date of the Commissioner’s final decision.
Accordingly, the Initial Decision of the OAL is adopted as the final decision in this matter,
as modified herein. Petitioner is directed to reimburse the Board in the amount of $4,646.95
for the period from September 7, 2023 through January 8, 2023, plus $60.35 for each school
day from January 9, 2024 through the date of the Commissioner’s final decision. B.M. is hereby
disenrolled from the District, and the Board no longer has an obligation to pay B.M.’s tuition for
PCTI. The petition of appeal is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.4
ACTING COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
Date of Decision: January 26, 2024
Date of Mailing: January 31, 2024
4 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
OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
AGENCY DKT. NO. 213-8/23
L.M. ON BEHALF OF B.M.,
Petitioner,
v.
PASSAIC 	COUNTY 	MANCHESTER
REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD 	OF 	EDUCATION, 	PASSAIC
COUNTY,
Respondent.
_____
No appearance by L.M., petitioner, pro se
Rodney T. Hara, Esq., for respondent (Fogarty & Hara, attorneys)
Record Closed: December 11, 2023 	Decided: January 8, 2024
BEFORE DANIEL J. BROWN, ALJ:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner, 	parent 	of 	minor 	child 	B.M., 	challenges 	respondent’s 	residency
determination. 	In its counterclaim, respondent seeks reimbursement of tuition from
petitioner, asserting that petitioner did not establish that B.M. was domiciled within the

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
2
school district during the 2023–2024 school year. In a residency appeal, the parent has
the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that the parent’s minor
child was domiciled in the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2). Has petitioner shown
by a preponderance of the evidence that B.M was domiciled in the school district? 	No.
Petitioner has provided no testimony or documentary evidence to show that B.M. was
domiciled in the school district.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On July 13, 2023, respondent determined that petitioner did not demonstrate that
his child, B.M., was domiciled in the district. On July 20, 2023, petitioner filed a residency
appeal on behalf of his child and, on /august 18, 2023, respondent filed an answer. On
August 21, 2023, the New Jersey State Department of Education transmitted the case to
the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) under the Administrative Procedure Act, N.J.S.A.
52:14B-1 to -15, and the act establishing the OAL, N.J.S.A. 52:14F-1 to -23, for a hearing
under the Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.1 to -21.6.
Petitioner failed to participate in scheduled telephone conferences which were held
on September 22, 2023, and October 18, 2023 despite being notified of those telephone
conferences by email and regular mail. 	On October 19, 2023, the parties were notified
by email and regular mail that a peremptory hearing date was scheduled for December
11, 2023. As the petitioner did not appear for the hearing, an ex parte hearing took place
at the OAL in Newark, New Jersey on that date. 	Respondent presented testimony and
exhibits, and the record was closed on December 11, 2023.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Having reviewed and considered the testimony and, the documentary evidence
presented at the hearing, I FIND the following FACTS in this matter:
Petitioner did not appear for the hearing despite being afforded proper notice of
the hearing date by email and regular mail. There is no indication that petitioner did not
receive notice of the hearing. Petitioner never called or wrote to the OAL explaining his

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
3
failure to appear for the hearing or to request an adjournment. 	I therefore FIND that
petitioner has abandoned his appeal.
Respondent is a regional public school district consisting of one high school,
Manchester Regional High School, which serves students from Haledon, North Haledon
and Prospect Park. A student who is domiciled in respondent’s school district may attend
Manchester Regional but may also attend Passaic County Technical Institute (“PCTI”). If
the student attends PCTI, respondent must pay the student’s tuition. 	The board of
education for the school district passed a resolution requiring annual verification of
residency for high school students who were determined to be eligible to attend
Manchester High School but attended PCTI instead. Petitioner’s son was such a student.
On September 26, 2022, Gary Lubisco, Jr., the superintendent of Manchester
Regional High School, sent B.M.’s mother a letter requesting residency verification for
B.M. to be provided no later than September 30, 2022. There was no response by B.M.’s
mother to that request. 	On November 16, 2022, Mr. Lubisco sent a second request to
B.M.’s mother seeking verification of B.M.’s residency. Again, there was no response by
B.M.’s mother to that request. On January 30, 2023, Mr. Lubisco sent a letter to B.M.’s
mother seeking to obtain verification of B.M.’s residency. Again, B.M.’s mother failed to
provide any residency information or respond in any way to Mr. Lubisco. On February 1,
2023, Mr. Lubisco sent another letter to B.M.’s mother seeking verification of B.M.’s
residency. Again, B.M.’s mother failed to respond to that request. On March 28, 2023,
Mr. Lubisco sent a letter to B.M.’s mother informing her that B.M. was not eligible to have
respondent continue to pay his tuition at PCTI based upon the lack of verification of B.M.’s
address. 	The letter gave B.M.’s mother until April 21, 2023, to provide verification of
B.M.’s residency. 	The letter also informed B.M.’s mother that there would be a hearing
regarding B.M.’s residency before respondent on April 27, 2023. Because B.M.’s mother
failed to provide the requested information, Mr. Lubisco resent his March 28th letter to
B.M.’s mother on April 5, 2023 and April 18, 2023. B.M.’s mother failed to respond to Mr.
Lubisco’s April 5th or April 18 th letters. On April 24, 2023, respondent sent B.M.’s mother
a letter entitled “Summary for Board Hearing”. That letter stated that B.M. was not eligible
to have respondent continue to pay his tuition at PCTI based upon his mother’s failure to
provide verification of B.M.’s residency. Respondent’s letter also informed B.M.’s mother

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
4
that there would be a hearing before the respondent on April 27, 2023 and that proof of
residency for B.M. could be provided prior to or at the hearing.
At the hearing, respondent determined that it was not established that B.M. lived
in the district. At the next Board meeting, on July 13, 2023, respondent voted to disenroll
B.M. from the district based on the failure of B.M.’s mother to provide the requested
verification of B.M’s residency. 	On July 14, 2023, the Board’s secretary sent B.M.’s
mother a letter advising that B.M. was not entitled to a tuition-free education in the district
or at PCTI since it was not established at the hearing that B.M. was domiciled in the
district. 	B.M.’s mother was also informed that tuition would be assessed upon her for
each day that B.M. attended Manchester Regional or PCTI when he was ineligible for a
tuition-free education in the district. The letter further advised that the estimated annual
cost of tuition was $10,864 and that respondent would continue to pay B.M.’s tuition while
any appeal of the respondent’s decision was pending.
Petitioner filed the instant appeal challenging the Board’s decision. B.M. continues
to attend PCTI during this school year and respondent has continued to pay his tuition
during the pendency of his appeal. Petitioner has failed to present any evidence that his
son was ever domiciled in any of the towns within the regional school district despite being
given notice and an opportunity to do so. As no evidence has been presented that B.M.
was domiciled in the school district during this school year, respondent seeks tuition
reimbursement for B.M’s attendance at PCTI for this school year. Respondent’s school
year started on September 7, 2023. 	Respondent’s daily tuition rate is $60.35. 	Eighty-
seven school days, excluding holidays, have elapsed from the start of the school year to
the date of issuance of this decision. The amount of tuition due to the respondent as of
the date of this decision is $5,250.45.
LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS
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

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
5
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).
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).
Where the local board determines that a child is not properly domiciled in its district,
N.J.S.A. 18A:38-1(b)(2) provides a right of appeal to the parents.
N.J.A.C. 6A:22-6.2(a) authorizes the Commissioner of Education to assess tuition
for non-resident students. It states:
If in the judgement of the Commissioner the evidence does
not support the claim of the resident, he shall assess the
resident tuition for the student prorated to the time of the
student’s ineligible attendance in the school district. 	Tuition
shall be computed on the basis of 1/180 of the total annual
per pupil cost to the local district multiplied by the number of
days of ineligible attendance and shall be collected in the
manner in which orders of the Commissioner are enforced.
On appeal, the petitioner has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of
the evidence that their minor child was domiciled in the school district. N.J.S.A. 18A:38-
1(b)(2). 	Here, the petitioner has failed to appear for the scheduled hearing, without
explanation, and as a result, I CONCLUDE that the petitioner has abandoned his appeal
and the petition should be dismissed.
Based upon the facts adduced at the hearing and the exhibits introduced by
respondent, I CONCLUDE that petitioner has not demonstrated that B.M. is domiciled in
the school district. I also CONCLUDE that respondent is entitled to tuition reimbursement
in the amount of $5,250.45.

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
6
ORDER
I ORDER that the petitioner’s residency appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice. I
further ORDER that respondent’s counterclaim seeking tuition reimbursement in the
amount of $5,250.45 is GRANTED.
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.
January 8, 2024
DATE 	DANIEL J. BROWN, ALJ
Date Received at Agency: 	January 8, 2024
Date Mailed to Parties: 	January 8, 2024
dr

OAL DKT. NO. EDU 08009-23
7
APPENDIX
Witnesses
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
Gary Lubisco, Jr
Exhibits
For Petitioner:
None
For Respondent:
R-1 	Annual Residency Verification resolution, dated November 4, 2022
R-2 	Notice of Residency Verification, dated July 7, 2022
R-3 	Second Notice of Residency Verification, dated November 16, 2022
R-4 	Third Notice of Residency Verification, dated January 30, 2023
R-5 	Third Notice of Residency Verification, dated February 1, 2023
R-6 	Notice of Initial Determination of Ineligibility, dated March 28, 2023
R-7 	Notice of Initial Determination of Ineligibility, dated April 5, 2023
R-8 	Notice of Initial Determination of Ineligibility, dated April 18, 2023
R-9 	Summary for Board Hearing, dated April 24, 2023
R-10 	Notice of Unsuccessful Residency Verification, dated April 27, 2023
R-11 	Disenrollment Resolution, dated July 27, 2023
R-12 	Disenrollment Letter, dated July 14, 2023
R-13 	Tuition Contract for County Vocational School, 2023-2024 School Year