A California state appeals court has affirmed the decision of a trial court, which declined to intervene in an eligibility dispute involving the parent of a student athlete and the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF).
In so ruling, the appeals court agreed that the parent altered the necessary forms to gain eligibility, leading to the CIF’s ruling.
Brandon Saliba and Estephen Saliba were successful swimmers at Saint John Bosco High School (St. Bosco) in Bellflower, Cal. Brandon was in the ninth grade, and Estephen was in the 10th grade. Sometime after Brandon was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), their mother, Sylvia Saliba (Mrs. Saliba), decided to transfer both sons to Mater Dei High School (Mater Dei) in Orange County, because of “what she understood to be its allegedly superior programming for Brandon’s special needs,” according to the court.
In order to make the transfer to Mater Dei, the plaintiffs needed approval from CIF, a voluntary nonprofit organization authorized by the California Legislature to govern regional and statewide interscholastic activities.
The CIF bylaws require that students seeking transfers will have only limited eligibility for one year, which prohibits competition at the varsity level. However, under a hardship waiver, students may be able to transfer schools with unlimited eligibility. CIF Bylaw 208 defines a hardship as an unforeseeable, unavoidable, and uncorrectable circumstance that burdens the student’s family, such as a valid change of residence. CIF Bylaw 202 allows the CIF to disqualify students from interscholastic athletics when a parent provides false information regarding eligibility on behalf of a student, even if the student is unaware of his or her parent’s conduct.
Seeking help with the transfer, Mrs. Saliba emailed Monty McDermott, the athletics director at St. Bosco, about hardship waivers McDermott wrote that hardship petitions “are very difficult to obtain,” and are normally only possible in cases of “‘unforeseeable, unavoidable and uncorrectable’ circumstances,” such as the “divorce of parents . . . and change of custody.”
Nevertheless, Mrs. Saliba completed a Form 207, the Athletic Transfer Eligibility Application, and claimed the transfer was made pursuant to a “valid change of residence,” which would allow for unlimited eligibility. This is where the discrepancies emerged in the parent’s paperwork.
On May 3, 2010, staff from Mater Dei and CIF-SS met and discovered the discrepancies in parent’s paperwork. Seven days later, CIF-SS Commissioner James T. Staunton wrote to the principal of Mater Dei with findings from the meeting. He confirmed that there was no evidence that the family satisfied the requirements of a valid change of residence. As a result, he declared appellants ineligible for interscholastic competition through May 5, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed the ruling.
The panel upheld the decision of CIF-SS based on the fact that Mrs. Saliba” had provided false information to gain eligibility.” The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandate on November 24, 2010. They claimed “the panel hearing was unfair, panelists abused their discretion, evidence was insufficient to support the finding, a fundamental right was at issue, they had exhausted all administrative remedies, and relevant evidence was improperly excluded at the hearing.”
In April 2011, the trial court denied the plaintiffs’ petition, finding that “substantial evidence supported the panel’s findings.” The plaintiffs, again, appealed.
“On appeal, our function is identical to that of the trial court, as we too must determine whether substantial evidence supports the administrative decision,” wrote the panel. “This deferential standard requires us to presume the correctness of the administrative ruling, as all reasonable doubts must be resolved in favor of it.” (Ryan v. California Interscholastic Federation-San Diego Section (2001) 94 Cal.App.4th 1048, 1077-1078, fns. omitted (Ryan).)
The panel agreed with the trial court noting “substantial evidence to support the finding that Mrs. Saliba provided false information to obtain interscholastic eligibility for her sons at Mater Dei.”
The appeals court also examined the plaintiffs’ argument that CIF-SS “deprived them of due process. They argue they were unable to examine witnesses or offer evidence in unspecified proceedings. (They) also claim that the same CIF administrative body that heard their eligibility appeal also rendered their initial eligibility determination.
“The federal Constitution requires due process claimants to demonstrate a recognized liberty or property interest. (See Ryan, supra, 94 Cal.App.4th at p. 1059.) In Ryan, the court determined that students have no such interest in interscholastic activities. (Ibid.) Similarly, appellants here have no recognized right to compete in swimming at Mater Dei. Under the California Constitution’s due process provisions, a claimant need not demonstrate a property or liberty interest if he or she can identify a statutorily conferred benefit or interest. (Id. at pp. 1069, 1071.) As the Ryan court held, no statutes confer a benefit on students to participate in interscholastic activities. (Id. at pp. 1072-1073.) Accordingly, appellants have no statutory right to swim for Mater Dei.”
The plaintiffs claimed that “the same agency that issues preliminary eligibility decisions also handles the appeals process. The evidence indicates otherwise. CIF-SS Commissioner Staunton rendered the first decision on the appellant’s eligibility. The appeal to the State CIF Appeals Panel was held at a separate office with different panel members. Thus, the evidence does not support appellants’ claim, and shows no violation of due process.”
Brandon Saliba et al., v. California Interscholastic Federation; Ct.App.Cal., 2d App. Dist., Div.; 4B233531, 2014 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 1558; 3/4/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Brandon Saliba and Estephen Saliba, pro per. Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, Diane Marshall-Freeman, and Cynthia M. Smith, for Defendant and Respondent.
