The Commissioner granted interim relief on March 10, 1992. In this case, neither district provided petitioner with an opportunity to submit information concerning her children's right to attend the districts' schools, before making their determinations of nonresidency. Although the districts advised petitioner of her right to appeal to the Commissioner of Education in a timely fashion, that does not excuse respondents' failure to provide the parent with all due process required by the Commissioner's regulation. Nonetheless, since the matter is now before me and petitioner has had ample opportunity to present evidence in support of her claim, I will address the merits. In reviewing the record, I find the weight of the evidence to suggest that petitioner's children are not residents of the respondent districts.
Petitioner supplies no evidence of a continuing effort to return to the respondent districts.
Petitioner also urges that her children be allowed to attend respondents' schools because continued attendance in the districts would be in their best interests. It is undisputed that petitioner's children do not reside in the respondent districts. If petitioner subsequently returns to the districts, nothing in this decision precludes her from submitting to respondents additional documentation to reestablish her children's residency there. On the record before me, however, I find that petitioner's children are not residents of the respondent districts and, consequently, are not entitled to attend the public schools of the districts without the payment of tuition.