Kid-killing ACS is indefensible, Mayor Adams — why are you even trying?

New York Post - May 7th, 2025

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) in New York City is under fire following revelations that at least seven children have died while under the agency's oversight since the start of 2024. Mayor Eric Adams defended the agency's approach, which reportedly avoids removing children from dangerous environments due to 'equity' concerns. This stance has led to significant criticism, as in cases like Jahmeik Modlin, a four-year-old who died from starvation despite his parents having multiple neglect reports filed with ACS. The agency's policies have been called into question for failing to provide necessary intervention and protection for vulnerable children, especially in communities of color.

This controversy highlights the ongoing debate over child welfare practices and the balance between protecting children and respecting familial structures. The criticism of ACS, led by Jess Dannhauser, centers on the perceived failure to act decisively in dangerous situations, resulting in preventable tragedies. The implications of this issue are profound, as it raises questions about systemic failures within child protective services and the need to reassess policies that prioritize bureaucratic processes over the immediate safety of children. The situation demands urgent attention to prevent further loss of life and to ensure that the principles of equity do not overshadow the fundamental duty to protect vulnerable children.

New York City Eric Adams Child Welfare Jess Dannhauser Administration For Children’s Services Neglect And Abuse Equity And Policy

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

3.4

Unfair Story

Approach with caution

The article addresses a significant public interest issue regarding the performance of the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) and child welfare in New York City. While it is timely and has the potential to influence public opinion, the piece is undermined by a lack of factual accuracy and balance. The absence of supporting evidence and authoritative sources, combined with an emotive and biased tone, detracts from the credibility and impact of the reporting. To enhance its quality, the article would benefit from a more balanced approach, inclusion of diverse perspectives, and verifiable data. Despite these shortcomings, the story raises important concerns that warrant further investigation and discussion.

Accuracy

The story presents several factual claims, such as the assertion that at least seven children have died in ACS care since 2024, which lacks corroboration from official data. The article also claims that 44% of neglect reports saw no services provided, but this figure is not directly supported by available ACS data. The specific cases of Jahmeik Modlin and Promise Cotton are mentioned, but the details require verification through official records. While the article highlights racial disparities in the foster care system, it does not provide data to support the claim of preventable deaths. The story's accuracy is undermined by these unverified claims and lack of evidence.

Balance

The article exhibits a clear bias against the Administration for Children's Services (ACS) and its leadership. It frames ACS policies as failures without presenting alternative perspectives or the complexities involved in child welfare decisions. The piece heavily criticizes Jess Dannhauser and Mayor Eric Adams without exploring their viewpoints or potential justifications for their actions. The lack of a balanced approach and the omission of voices from ACS or child welfare experts contribute to an imbalanced portrayal of the issue.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and direct manner, making its critical stance on ACS evident. However, the tone is highly charged and lacks neutrality, which may affect the reader's ability to objectively assess the information. The structure is straightforward, but the emotive language and lack of supporting evidence can detract from the clarity of the underlying issues. A more balanced tone and inclusion of factual support would enhance clarity.

Source quality

The article does not cite any sources or provide evidence to support its claims. There are no official reports, data, or expert opinions referenced. The reliance on anecdotal evidence and the absence of authoritative sources undermine the credibility of the reporting. The piece would benefit from a more diverse range of sources, including official ACS data, expert analyses, and statements from involved parties.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its reporting methodology and sourcing. It does not disclose how the information was obtained or provide context for the claims made. There is no explanation of the basis for the accusations against ACS and its leadership. The piece would be improved by clarifying the sources of information and any potential conflicts of interest that may affect the reporting.