Photo: Khalik Allah for New York Magazine
One hundred years from now, today’s child welfare system will surely be condemned as a racist institution—one that compounded the effects of discrimination on Black families by taking children from their parents, allowing them to languish in a damaging foster care system or to be adopted by more privileged people. School children will marvel that so many scholars and politicians defended this devastation of Black families in the name of protecting Black children. The color of child welfare system is the reason Americans have tolerated its destructiveness.
Dorothy Roberts
Shattered Bonds: The Color of Child Welfare
K.W. v. The City of New York
Date Filed:
April 2, 2025
Current Status: Oral argument was held on December 1, 2025 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Co-Counsel:
WilmerHale LLC, Brustein Law PLLC, and Risman & Risman P.C.
Relevant Legal Documents:
Brief
Coverage of the Case:
New York Magazine: A father’s yearslong struggle to regain custody of his son
Background:
Six days after Mr. W. brought his son, K.A., home from the hospital to their Bronx apartment after his birth, the New York City Administration for Children’s Services (“ACS”) took him away in what ACS calls an “emergency removal,” without a judge’s order and without even allowing Mr. W. to say goodbye. Although ACS filed a neglect petition against his son’s mother, ACS never alleged that K.A. was unsafe in Mr. W.’s care and never charged Mr. W. with mistreating his son. ACS sent K.A. to live with strangers for the next two years and eight months, before the family court returned him to Mr. W.’s custody. Mr. W. never had the chance to give K.A. bottles and change his diapers, missed his first steps and first words, and was deprived of providing loving support to his son.
Representing Mr. W. and K.A. on appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, FJLC, along with co-counsel WilmerHale, Brustein Law, and Risman & Risman, argue, inter alia, that ACS’s “emergency removal” of K.A. violated his Fourth Amendment right to be free from unconstitutional seizure. The appeal also contends that ACS violated Mr. W.’s and K.A.’s due process rights to being together as a family over the next three years.