Elizabeth Paeck and Natalie Paeck, Minors,
By Laurie Wilson, their
Natural Mother and Guardian
v.
Pen Argyl School District et al.

No. 1850 C.D. 2006 (Pa. Commonwealth, 2007)

The school district filed an appeal following a decision against them by the Northampton Court of Common Pleas to re-enroll students Elizabeth and Natalie Peck. Contested in that case was the students’ enrollment status in the school district and their legal residency.

Upon hearing from neighbors that the students were living primarily in another school district, owing to the fact that their mother and step-father owned a second property in a neighboring district, the school board proceeded to remove them from enrollment based upon board residency policy. Before the Northampton Court their mother successfully argued that, though they spent the majority of the week living in the other district, since they received mail, paid taxes, were registered through the state transportation department at that address, and regularly stopped over at the house in the mornings to groom themselves and take care of their pets, that they were meeting state and school board residency statutes and policies. Additionally, she argued that conditions at the new school were not good for her daughters’ educations, and so she preferred them to stay enrolled in the district. After due process at the local level and investigation, the board subsequently ruled against her.

The trial court found that the principle issue of the case was “whether the Students could attend the School District despite maintaining a primary residence outside the School District’s boundaries.” The court then reversed the district’s decision based upon an earlier Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision, In re Residence Hearing Before Board of School Directors, Cumberland Valley School District, 560 Pa. 366, 744 A.2nd 1272 (2000). This decision defined and interpreted the word resides as used in the Pennsylvania School Code.

The Commonwealth Court reversed the Northampton Courts decision, prohibiting the enrollment of the students “until such time that Wilson ‘resides’ at the George Street Address [within Pen Argyl School District].” The appellate court based its decision on the Pennsylvania School Code of 1949 and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Cumberland Valley School District.

Upon hearing the facts of the case and reviewing the lower court’s decision, the Commonwealth Court determined that a “test” should be applied to determine whether or not the Paeks actually had residence in the Pen Argyl School District. It was determined that they actually had only nominal residence due to spending a minority of their living time at the house (despite having pets, mailing address, etc. at the location). The court termed their residence to be one of mere “appearance” and “convenience,” hardly satisfying the statute’s requirement of true residence. Specifically, the court cited the part of the Cumberland Valley decision that defined residence and domicile as a place of “true, fixed” occupation, and determined that the mother’s and daughters’ actions were in effect “school shopping,” which the court further decided was against the General Assembly’s intention when passing the residency statute.    

Written by Kurt Schmtt July 2007