NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0600-20 BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TOWNSHIP OF BARNEGAT, OCEAN COUNTY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE FREEHOLD REGIONAL HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, MONMOUTH COUNTY, Respondent-Appellant. _____________________________ Argued January 20, 2022 – Decided April 1, 2022 Before Judges Hoffman, Whipple and Susswein. On appeal from the New Jersey Commissioner of Education, Docket No. 294-11/19. Mark G. Toscano argued the cause for appellant (Comegno Law Group, PC, attorneys; Mark G. Toscano and Alexandra A. Stulpin, of counsel and on the briefs; John Conor Lowenberg, on the briefs). Jessika Kleen argued the cause for respondent Board of Education of the Township of Barnegat (Machado Law Group, attorneys; Jessika Kleen, of counsel and on the brief; Arian Rouzbehnia, on the brief). Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent New Jersey Commissioner of Education (David L. Kalisky, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of brief). PER CURIAM This appeal arises from a dispute between two school districts on whether to apportion the costs of educating a severely disabled special needs student, T.M.,1 who attends an out-of-state boarding school. T.M.'s parents are divorced and reside in different school districts. The Board of Education of the Freehold Regional High School District (Freehold Regional) appeals an October 6, 2020 final state agency decision of the Commissioner of Education (Commissioner). The Commissioner adopted the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) granting summary judgment in favor of the Board of Education of the Township of Barnegat (Barnegat). The Commissioner concluded that under the governing regulatory framework, the domicile of the minor student could not be determined because there was no court order or written agreement designating 1 We use initials throughout this opinion to protect the identity of the minor student. See R. 1:38-3(d)(17) A-0600-20 2 the child's school district and he was not residing with either parent but rather lived year-round at the American School for the Deaf (ASD) in West Hartford, Connecticut. The Commissioner directed an equitable determination of shared responsibility for the costs of the child's out-of-district education pursuant to N.J.A.C. 6A:22-3.1(a)(1)(ii). After carefully reviewing the record in view of the applicable legal principles, we affirm. I. Because we affirm substantially for the reasons explained in the Commissioner's thorough written opinion, which is, in turn, based on the ALJ's comprehensive written opinion, we need only briefly summarize the pertinent facts and procedural history. T.M. is eligible for special education and related services due to his severe cognitive disability and bilateral deafness. T.M.'s parents divorced in December 2007. Their final judgment of divorce designated H.L, T.M.'s mother, as the parent of primary residence and P.M., the child's father, as the parent of …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals