Why We Are Speaking Publicly

We did not choose to make this situation public lightly.

For weeks, we attempted to resolve these matters privately and respectfully through the appropriate channels at North Valley Christian Academy. We requested meetings, asked for clarification, proposed restorative options, and raised safeguarding concerns in good faith. Those efforts were declined, delegated away, or left unaddressed. Ultimately, the Board of Directors confirmed that it would not review the matter.

Our daughter — a minor — was removed from her school midyear without being accused of any misconduct. No restorative process was offered. No meaningful inquiry into her well-being occurred. Decisions with irreversible consequences were made quickly, defended after the fact, and insulated from independent review.

We are speaking publicly for the following reasons:

Once it became clear that private processes would not address what occurred, our responsibility as parents shifted to ensuring our daughter’s experience was not misrepresented, minimized, or repeated. Silence would have allowed a narrative to stand that placed blame on a child who did nothing wrong.

Our daughter did not violate policy. She was not accused of misconduct. Yet she bore the full consequences of adult decisions without her voice being heard.

When leadership and governance structures decline to review serious concerns — particularly those involving a child — public transparency becomes one of the few remaining avenues for accountability.

This is not about retaliation or punishment. It is about ensuring that decisions affecting minors are subject to appropriate scrutiny, proportionality, and care.

As parents, we sought guidance from the Phoenix Police Department regarding two specific situations:

• our daughter being prevented from leaving a classroom after repeatedly asking to do so and requesting that a parent be present; and
• the decision by school administration to have our daughter located, observed, and recorded off campus, on a weekend, during a non-school activity.

These inquiries were made solely to understand our legal rights and to ensure our daughter’s safety. At the time, the school had not acknowledged or addressed concerns regarding our daughter’s inability to leave a meeting when she requested to do so. We had also been informed that school administration had arranged for off-campus observation of her activities in connection with an enrollment decision.

We did not file a complaint or make allegations of criminal conduct. We sought information and guidance, as any reasonable parent would when faced with unresolved safeguarding concerns involving a minor.

We later learned that NVCA became aware of our contact with law enforcement and cited it as an additional reason our daughter was not permitted to return to school after the fact. We believe that a parent seeking information to protect a child should not be treated as adversarial or used as justification for removing that child from her school.

Many parents assume that if a concern arose involving their child, it would be handled with care, fairness, and a willingness to listen. We once assumed the same.

By sharing our experience, we hope other families are better informed, ask better questions, and understand how concerns may be handled when they arise — particularly when safeguarding issues are involved.

We are not attacking faith, Christian education, or the mission of serving students. We are asking whether the actions taken in this case align with the values publicly professed and with the responsibility schools have to protect the children entrusted to them.

We remained open to constructive resolution and dialogue. We would have preferred that these matters be addressed privately, thoughtfully, and with care for our daughter.  They were not.

Speaking publicly is not our first choice.

It is our last resort.