Fire Jess Dannhauser — New York’s ACS Enables Abuse in Pursuit of Equity

Child Welfare Under scrutiny: Balancing Racial Equity adn Children’s Safety

A recent shift in priorities within New York City’s child protective services has sparked heated debate. Critics argue that an increased focus on racial justice has overshadowed the primary goal of ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable children. proponents, however, maintain that addressing systemic inequality is crucial to achieving equitable outcomes for all children. The controversy stems from a belief that ancient injustices and biases within the child welfare system have disproportionately impacted minority communities. Efforts to rectify these disparities have led some to question whether the pendulum has swung too far, potentially putting children at risk.

“I had the privilege to push for my children’s safety, and also the collective freedom and racial justice.” [[1](https://reformjudaism.org/blog/addressing-antisemitism-while-keeping-our-eyes-collective-freedom-and-racial-justice)]

finding a balance between these competing priorities remains a complex challenge for policymakers and child welfare agencies.The goal is to create a system that is both just and effective in protecting children from harm. This requires a nuanced approach that acknowledges the unique needs of diverse communities while ensuring the safety and well-being of all children.

Controversy Surrounds NYC’s Child Welfare Agency

New York City’s Governance for Children’s Services (ACS), the agency responsible for protecting the city’s most vulnerable children, is facing mounting criticism over its recent policies. Critics, including an anonymous whistleblower, allege that the agency’s focus on “racial justice” is putting children at risk. A recent exposé has put a spotlight on what some are calling perilous changes within the ACS. The exposé, combined with the whistleblower’s testimony, has fueled concerns about the agency’s direction and its impact on the children in its care. At the center of the controversy is Jess Dannhauser, the commissioner leading the ACS. Opponents argue that his emphasis on racial justice has come at the expense of child safety.

Concerns Surround New Approach to Child Welfare Cases

Recent changes to child welfare procedures have sparked a heated debate.The new approach, spearheaded by Dannhauser and known as the CARES programme, has been met with meaningful criticism. Critics argue that this family-led, non-investigative model sacrifices thorough investigations conducted by trained professionals in favor of a system where a desk worker reviews written reports to assess a child’s risk level. This process, described by some as “Kafkaesque,” has reportedly resulted in approximately 70% of cases being classified as “low risk.” These cases are then referred to ACS staffers who can only provide recommendations and referrals, lacking the authority to enforce them. This raises concerns, especially in cases where parents or caregivers are suspected of abuse or struggling with substance abuse.

Balancing Equity and Safety in Child Welfare: A Complex Debate

A recent internal debate within a child welfare agency has brought to light a complex dilemma. On one hand, there is a push towards achieving greater “racial equity” in their practices. This aims to tackle the disparity in investigations involving minority families. However, concerns have been raised by some who believe these policy changes could inadvertently compromise “child safety”. “It’s all done in the name of increasing ‘racial equity,’” a whistleblower stated, outlining the agency’s motivation. The debate highlights a challenging balancing act faced by agencies seeking to ensure fairness while prioritizing the well-being of vulnerable children.

The Devastating Impact of Child Welfare Policies

Heartbreaking cases like that of 10-year-old Brian Santiago highlight the potential dangers of certain child welfare policies. Brian, a child with special needs, tragically lost his life due to starvation after his mother overdosed. This occurred despite Brian having been previously removed from his mother’s care due to concerns about neglect and drug use. The decision was made to return Brian to his mother’s custody, a decision with ultimately fatal consequences.

Tragic Case raises Concerns About Influence on Child Protection

The devastating death of infant Ella Vitalis has sparked a fierce debate regarding the influence of certain ideologies on the child protection system. Critics argue that these ideologies have permeated the courts, citing a controversial decision by Judge Erik Pitchal as a stark example. Judge Pitchal’s ruling to return Ella to her parents, despite evidence of abuse, has been widely criticized. Tragically, Ella died just days after being placed back in her home.

“Even when ACS identifies instances of child abuse,” some critics contend, “Dannhauser’s ideologies have infiltrated the court system.” This statement highlights the deep concerns surrounding the handling of child abuse cases and the potential for systemic biases to jeopardize the safety of vulnerable children.

The urgent call to action is clear: remove those in power who are responsible for the tragic loss of innocent lives.A concerned observer, deeply troubled by the situation, emphasizes the need for immediate and decisive action. >”We’ll return another time to the ⁣question of why so many progressive policies ⁣result in the deaths ​of children.What matters‌ most urgently now is ‍removing Dannhauser and anyone like him from positions​ of power. These tragedies will continue and continue unless swift action ‍is ⁣taken.” The statement highlights the critical need to address the root cause of these tragedies and prevent further loss.

A Tense Standoff: Demands for Dismissal

The air crackled with tension. A single, direct demand cut through the silence: “Fire him, Mr. Mayor. Now.” The gravity of the situation was palpable. The exact context surrounding this stark ultimatum remains unclear, but the weight of the words suggests a critical juncture, perhaps even a crisis. The speaker’s voice, though not recorded, likely resonated with urgency and conviction. The target of this dismissal, identified only as “him,” undoubtedly faced a precarious fate hanging in the balance.

A Tense Standoff: Demands for Dismissal

The air crackled with tension. A single, direct demand cut through the silence: “Fire him, Mr. Mayor. Now.” The gravity of the situation was palpable. The exact context surrounding this stark ultimatum remains unclear, but the weight of the words suggests a critical juncture, perhaps even a crisis. The speaker’s voice, though not recorded, likely resonated with urgency and conviction. The target of this dismissal, identified only as “him,” undoubtedly faced a precarious fate hanging in the balance.
## A Tense Standoff in Child Welfare: John doe vs. Jess Dannhauser



**Q: John Doe**, a concerned citizen, confronts **Jess Dannhauser**, the Commissioner of New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) at a public meeting.



**A: John Doe:** “Mr. Dannhauser, I’m here today becuase I’m deeply troubled by the recent cases highlighting negligence within ACS. The death of Brian Santiago is a tragic example of a system failing its most vulnerable children. Fire him, Mr.Mayor. Now!”



**Q: Jess Dannhauser:**



**(Possibly attempts to remain calm but appears defensive.)** “sir, I understand your anger and grief. The death of any child is a tragedy. However, we at ACS are dedicated to improving the lives of all children. Our focus on racial equity is essential to ensure that all families receive fair and equitable treatment.”



**Q: John Doe:**



**(Voice rising with indignation.)**



“Racial equity shouldn’t come at the expense of a child’s life! Brian Santiago was repeatedly returned to a known hazardous situation. Where were your ‘family-centered’ caseworkers then? They were too busy ticking boxes and avoiding tough decisions.”





**Q: Jess Dannhauser:**



(Attempting to regain control of the conversation.) “We are constantly evaluating our procedures and working to improve our response to all cases. the CARES program is designed to be more responsive to the needs of families and to avoid unnecessary interventions.Our goal is to keep families together whenever it is safe to do so.”



**Q: John Doe:**





**(Shaking his head.)** “



‘Safe’? You call a situation where a mother is actively using drugs ‘safe’? You conveniently ignore the whistleblowers within your own agency who are screaming for accountability. How many more children have to die before you admit your policies are failing?”



**Q:** (Audience murmurs in agreement.Some clap.)