NCCPR news and commentary round-up, week ending June 2, 2026

● A lawsuit challenging the New York City family police agency’s misuse of its power to tear apart families without even going through the pro-forma process of asking a judge first was the subject of stories in The Imprint, the New York Daily News, and some extraordinary journalism in The New Yorker. I have a blog post with links to all of those stories, with particular attention to what The New Yorker published. I want to highlight just one part of that story here: 

In the lawsuits against A.C.S., a legal victory may actually be less important than changing public perception, because the law as written isn’t the main problem: the problem is that A.C.S. isn’t following it. A.C.S. isn’t following it because public pressure is pushing it in only one direction. Insofar as most people know anything at all about child-protective services, they know that its caseworkers are people who rescue children from danger. They hear about A.C.S. only when this mission fails and a child ends up dead. Therefore, A.C.S. follows the mantra of “better safe than sorry,” where “safe” often means preventing the kind of harm to a child that A.C.S. might be blamed for, while discounting the harm of separating children from their families. An unpublished report in 2020 found that some A.C.S. staff “described an internal culture that operates on fear and intimidation. . . . This frequently means that staff err on the side of safety for themselves, by seeking removal.” 

This means sending into foster care thousands of children who would be better off with their parents. …  The litigators hope that the seizure lawsuit will bring public attention to unwarranted A.C.S. removals, because, if sufficient outrage can be generated, then “safe”—both for children and for A.C.S. staff—can be redefined. 

● Some of the same groups that brought the lawsuit about emergency removals won a victory in an earlier suit involving that kind of separation. As The Imprint reports: 

A federal appeals court has revived a closely watched lawsuit brought by a Bronx father who alleges that New York City’s child welfare agency violated his family’s constitutional rights by taking custody of his infant son without a court order and without adequate justification. The two were separated for nearly three years even though the father was accused of no wrongdoing. 

● Last week, I highlighted a story from Abortion, Every Day that begins this way: 

Child Protective Services (CPS) has targeted mothers in multiple states who helped their daughters seek out abortions. In one case, CPS removed a teen from her home—and threatened her mother with murder charges—to stop her from getting an abortion. 

After forcing that girl to give birth, “CPS opened up an investigation into the teen for being a young mother.” 

On MS Now, Ali Velshi recaps the story and discusses the implications with Prof. Dorothy Roberts, author of Shattered Bonds, and Torn Apart (and a member of NCCPR’s Board). Media Matters for America published this video excerpt and has a transcript of Prof. Roberts’ interview. 

          

● The Associated Press has the latest in a long line of superb exposés of the “troubled teen” industry - this time focusing on a subset of “residential treatment centers” that specialize in institutionalizing adopted children. In addition to exposing allegations of widespread, horrific abuse, the AP story examined the business strategy of Embark Behavioral Health, the for-profit firm that runs many such institutions. From the story: 

“DOING EPIC SH$T” was printed on the cover of the August 2020 “Embark Academy Sales & Marketing Conference” handbook. It featured a session on how to “overcome objections” with sales tactics to “build your client base and keep your pipelines full!” 

Attendees were urged to touch hearts to help “assure a doubting child or resentful spouse.” In a session that touted admissions as a vital part of the treatment team, the handbook noted: “The admissions person sells hope when the family is at their lowest and most hopeless, scary, and vulnerable time.” 

A sidebar looks more closely into how the industry exploits loopholes and lax supervision by governments, who appear just fine with having the children out-of-sight and out-of-mind. 

(One footnote: The story also inadvertently exposes something else: The idiocy of management at the AP. Because in the very last line, Sally Ho, one of the authors of this story, and so many other great stories, including exposing the harm of Pittsburgh’s predictive analytics child welfare algorithm, is listed as "a former Associated Press reporter.")