Sent Monday, January 12th - No response

Good Morning Mr. Schoenleb,

After careful prayer and review, we must formally object to the characterization, process, and conclusions set forth in your letter, and we respectfully request that the record be corrected.

To ensure clarity and fairness, we respond below in the same sequence and order as the assertions contained in your letter, addressing each stated basis for withdrawal.

A. Alleged “Sustained Pattern of Adversarial Communication”

The assertion that there exists a “sustained pattern of adversarial communication” is unsupported by contemporaneous documentation.

Our communications throughout the semester were focused on our minor daughter’s emotional safety, medical condition, and academic continuity — all matters squarely within reasonable and appropriate parental advocacy. At no point were we advised that our communications were improper, policy-violating, or grounds for withdrawal until after safeguarding concerns were raised.

Notably absent from your letter is any allegation of misconduct by our daughter herself. She maintained strong academic performance, positive peer relationships, and no disciplinary history. The decision instead relies on retroactive character judgments about parents, which were not raised as disqualifying at enrollment or at any point leading up to December 11, and were invoked only after concerns regarding staff conduct and student welfare were brought forward.

B. Reliance on Prior School Matters and AIA Hardship Appeal

Your letter cites a hardship appeal related to our daughter’s prior school. That appeal involved different facts, a different institution, and a different time period. It was known prior to enrollment and was not identified as a barrier to admission or an indicator of misalignment at that time.

Retroactively relying on this appeal — absent any current student misconduct — to justify removal of a minor student reinforces the appearance of pretext rather than a good-faith policy determination.

C. Statements Regarding Employment and Advocacy for a Sibling

Your letter references statements made during the December 17 meeting regarding prior employment and advocacy related to our son.

For the avoidance of doubt and to correct the record: after 23 years of service with a former employer — during which the father was never disciplined and consistently served as a top-producing salesperson and branch manager — his position was eliminated as part of a corporate restructuring immediately preceding the sale of the company for approximately $200 million. That restructuring resulted in multiple departures. The matter was litigated over a three-year period, resulting in a multi-million-dollar resolution. The dispute did not involve misconduct, dishonesty, or performance deficiencies and was fully resolved well before our daughter’s enrollment or our relocation to Arizona.

Characterizing this resolved corporate restructuring and litigation as evidence of a “pattern of organizational conflict” is factually inaccurate, misleading, and unsupported by any cited policy. We request that this reference be withdrawn and corrected.

For further clarity, the reference to prior employment experience during the December 17 meeting was made to express a preference for partnership and resolution rather than litigation. That statement was offered in response to comments by Mr. Jason Mitchell suggesting that escalation might occur and was intended to convey that, both professionally and personally, the father has consistently sought to resolve matters collaboratively where possible.

Similarly, the reference to advocacy on behalf of our son was raised to illustrate the role of grace and proportionality when matters involve minors. That contrast was offered to underscore that this situation involves adult decision-making and conduct, while the consequences have fallen entirely on our daughter — a teenager who did not engage in misconduct and who has been harmed by actions outside her control.

D. Correction of Record Regarding Credibility Allegation

For completeness of the record, we also address a statement made during the meeting with Mr. Jason Mitchell, Mrs. Collins, and yourself, in which the father was characterized as being untruthful regarding JP2’s Saturday basketball schedule and our daughter’s participation.

That characterization is factually incorrect and readily verifiable through MaxPreps online. Publicly available scheduling records reflect that St. John Paul II Catholic High School Junior Varsity boys’ basketball teams did not play games on Saturdays during the 2024–25 season, and as such, Junior Varsity Cheer did not cheer outside of scheduled games. As stated during the meeting, the comment made was that, based on that historical scheduling, we did not understand at the time of cheer enrollment in August that a required Saturday commitment would be imposed in December with no flexibility.

In addition, the AIA hardship appeal, drafted with the assistance of Mrs. Collins, documents two incident reports and corresponding insurance claims related to injuries our daughter sustained during practices at JP2. These materials further corroborate the accuracy and good-faith basis of the information provided.

Given the availability of these objective records, the allegation of dishonesty was unfounded and should be corrected.

E. Improper Reliance on a Minor Sexual Assault Matter Involving Our Son

Your letter also implicitly relies on advocacy related to our 11-year-old son, who was sexually assaulted by a classmate at a different school.

This matter is wholly irrelevant to our daughter, to NVCA, and to the circumstances cited. We find it deeply troubling that parental advocacy on behalf of a child who was the victim of sexual assault would be characterized as evidence of instability or misalignment.

In that matter:

• The assault occurred at a public school
• The school’s principal and an on-duty officer recommended that charges be filed
• As Christians, and after prayerful consideration, we chose not to pursue charges, extending grace to the other child, who was also a minor and in foster care

There are no ongoing conflicts involving our son’s school. He is one of only two students in his grade to achieve placement on the Principal’s List for both quarters this year and, like his sister, is regarded positively by staff.

Any reliance on this matter must be withdrawn.

F. Alleged Lack of Support for Coaching Staff

Your letter asserts a “demonstrated lack of support” for coaching staff. That characterization is inaccurate.

When concerns arose, they were reported directly to the Athletic Director, Mrs. Collins, following appropriate channels. Those concerns were student-focused and safeguarding-oriented — including the manner in which certain coaches communicated with minor athletes, including conduct attributed to Mrs. Lisa Walker, such as comments on a minor’s physical appearance during a volleyball evaluation and negative commentary directed at athletes during practices and games.

Further, NVCA’s handling of other coaching conduct raises concerns regarding consistency and proportionality in enforcement. By way of example, a coach accompanied two female student-athletes on a long-weekend trip to Newport Beach, California, where a photo shoot was conducted with the coach posing with the students. To our knowledge, no disciplinary action was taken in connection with that conduct, and all individuals involved remain active 

participants on varsity teams and employed. This example is offered solely to illustrate concerns regarding consistency and proportionality in enforcement, not to accuse individual students.

Against that backdrop, it is difficult to reconcile how our daughter’s absence from a single game

 — in which she was not a competing participant — was escalated to removal from both a team and the school.

Accordingly, we formally request that NVCA identify and provide any written policies, standards, or precedents across other athletic programs under which missing a single game results in immediate removal from a team or authorizes off-campus surveillance of a student.

The severity of the outcome bears no proportional relationship to the conduct alleged, particularly in the absence of any student or parental misconduct.

G. Reference to Contact with Law Enforcement

Your letter characterizes contact with law enforcement as an improper escalation. That characterization omits critical context and warrants clarification.

We did not contact law enforcement lightly or prematurely. We did so only after we were left with no reasonable alternative following a series of serious safeguarding events and after our daughter was withdrawn from school:

• Our daughter was detained by a coach in a classroom for approximately ten minutes despite repeatedly requesting to leave or to have a parent present
• We were not notified of this detention until after the fact
• Shortly thereafter, we learned that Mr. Jason Mitchell, acting in his role as principal, hired an individual to locate and video our daughter at an off-campus, non-school-sponsored athletic event without parental knowledge or consent

That individual was able to locate our daughter despite the fact that we never disclosed where she would be playing, which team she was on, or which court she was assigned to. The sole purpose of this surveillance, as later communicated, was to gather material to justify her removal from school.

If it is appropriate for a school to consult legal counsel when faced with potential exposure, it is equally appropriate for parents to seek guidance from law enforcement when they believe their child may be at risk and when trusted adults in positions of authority are acting in ways that are unexpected, opaque, and inappropriate.

Law enforcement was contacted for guidance and safeguarding purposes only, not to pursue charges or escalate conflict.

H. Handbook Citation and Request for Policy Authority

Your letter cites the Parent/Student Handbook but does not identify any provision authorizing the conduct described. Accordingly, we formally request copies of all policies, training manuals, or written standards that NVCA contends authorize:

• Detaining a student after requesting to leave or have a parent present
• Off-campus surveillance or recording of students
• Hiring third parties to locate or monitor students
• Use of off-campus recordings in disciplinary decisions
• Use of on-campus overheard conversations in disciplinary decisions
• Removal from athletics or enrollment based on parent conduct
• Retroactive characterization or justification of conduct not previously identified as a violation

If no such authority exists, please state that explicitly.

To date, no written findings, factual determinations, or evidentiary basis have been provided to support the actions taken by NVCA’s Athletic Department, administration, or coaching staff.

I. Mischaracterization of Statements and Proposed Communication Contract

Your letter states that a parent acknowledged prior actions were inappropriate. That characterization is inaccurate.

At no point was wrongdoing or policy violations admitted. What was stated was a willingness — if requested — to apologize for not fully understanding at enrollment in August that cheer participation would require absolute exclusivity for an extended period. That statement was offered in humility and reconciliation, not as an admission of fault.

J. Absence of Administrative Accountability or Ownership

Throughout this process — including interactions with Mr. Jason Mitchell, Mrs. Collins, Mrs. Lisa Walker, and yourself — no NVCA administrator or coach has acknowledged responsibility or ownership for any aspect of what occurred with our daughter.

There has been no acknowledgment or review of:

• The appropriateness of detaining a minor student after she requested to leave or to have a parent present
• The tone, manner, or substance of coach-to-student communications raised as concerns
• The decision to engage in off-campus surveillance of a minor without parental knowledge or consent
• Misstatements or characterizations regarding our daughter’s trustworthiness or commitment
• Any opportunity for reflection, correction, or improvement in staff conduct

Responsibility has instead been placed entirely on parents, while concerns regarding adult conduct have been dismissed or reframed as a “lack of support.”

At no point following these events did any administrator, coach, or board representative inquire about our daughter’s physical or emotional wellbeing, despite being informed of the distress she experienced and the medical attention it required.

K. False Statements to Students and Team Members

We must correct a material misrepresentation made by Mrs. Lisa Walker to the cheer team, in which she stated that our daughter was removed due to a lack of “commitment.”

That statement is inaccurate. Our daughter had no unexcused absences, remained academically eligible, and continued participating in approved activities. Recasting her removal as a commitment issue misrepresents the facts and unjustly harms her reputation among peers.

This was not an isolated instance. On a prior occasion, Mrs. Walker represented that our daughter was behind academically when removing her from activities and demanding a parental meeting without notice. That assertion was also incorrect.

The repetition of such mischaracterizations is concerning, particularly when communicated to students, as it creates a false narrative about our daughter and exacerbates the harm she has already experienced.

L. Board Escalation and Refusal to Review

Following the December 17 meeting and the subsequent written communication confirming withdrawal, we formally contacted the NVCA Board of Directors requesting review of the circumstances surrounding our daughter’s removal, including the safeguarding concerns outlined above.

That request was declined. No substantive review was undertaken, and no independent assessment of the facts, policies, or conduct at issue was offered. The response was issued within minutes of our request.

At no point prior to the withdrawal decision were we provided notice of alleged deficiencies, an opportunity to respond, or a chance for corrective action.

M. Premature Disclosure of Enrollment Status

Before our daughter had any opportunity to inform her peers, Mrs. Wick disclosed to her own child — and through her, to other students — that our daughter would not be returning to NVCA. This disclosure occurred prior to appropriate communication with our family or our daughter and was inappropriate under the circumstances.

N. Litigation Hold and Preservation of Evidence

This correspondence serves as formal notice of a litigation hold. NVCA is directed to preserve all documents, communications, recordings, images, videos, notes, metadata, and electronically stored information relating to our daughter, our family, athletic program decisions, off-campus surveillance, internal deliberations, and board communications, including but not limited to board materials, personal-device communications, third-party surveillance records, insurer and legal communications, and any pastoral or dual-role records created in a leadership or governance capacity.

Please confirm in writing that this litigation hold has been implemented and that no responsive materials have been destroyed, altered, or deleted.

O. Request for Response and Notice of Escalation

Given the seriousness of the safeguarding, governance, and factual issues outlined above, a substantive written response is required.

If we do not receive a timely response addressing the corrections, policy authority, and requests for clarification set forth in this email, we will have no option but to escalate this matter as we deem appropriate, including through legal, board, regulatory, and other external review channels.

We respectfully request a response no later than Friday, December 16.

We look forward to your response and the requested documentation.

Sincerely,

Parents of Former NVCA Student