As every organization, ACS has its bureaucratic needs. The most important thing to ACS is to keep and expand its budget. They receive millions and millions of dollars from state and federal sources. In order to keep up the appearance that they are trying to "help" the children of NYC, they must show annual reports that show how many families they have " helped." Let us be clear, to actually help a struggling family requires expertise and a commitment that ACS workers do not posses. Thus, they are left with the way easier option of making pretend to help, already functioning families. This is the reason why parents are bullied into "programs. ACS knows that if they can throw a family into a year long program, they can then claim that they have "fixed" the parents and continue to receive their funding. It is the equivalent of washing a car that is already clean. This is the root of all of the ACS tactics and pressure to get parents into these programs. In reality, ACS has failed the children of New York City at an alarming rate, and no one is held accountable. According to the Brooklyn Grand Jury report, 19 children have died under ACS care. Here is one of those stories.The most famous one being an angel named Nixmary Brown. Why was no one fired? Where is the federal government? The City of New York has abandoned its children and worse, ACS has declared war on good parents. This must change.
Supreme Court of the State of New York Appellate Division: Second Judicial Department AD3d Argued - May 17, 2022 FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P. JOSEPH J. MALTESE PAUL WOOTEN LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ. 2021-07543 DECISION & ORDER In the Matter of Lexis B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner-respondent; Natalia B. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 1) In the Matter of Joseph B. (Anonymous). Administration for Children’s Services, petitioner-respondent; Natalia B. (Anonymous), appellant, et al., respondent. (Proceeding No. 2) (Docket Nos. N-1916-21, N-1917-21) Michael S. Discioarro, New York, NY, for appellant. Sylvia O. Hinds-Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Deborah A. Brenner and Andrea Nishi of counsel), for petitioner-respondent. Anne M. Serby, Long Beach, NY, attorney for the child Lexis B. In related proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, the mother appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County ...
Comments
Post a Comment