The following document was recovered by fixcas from the website of Rick Thoma.

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
 -----------------------------------------X
 MARISOL A., by her next friend,          :
 Rev. Dr. James Alexander Forbes, Jr.;
 LAWRENCE B., by his next friend,         :
 Professor Mitchell I. Ginsberg;
 THOMAS C., by his next friend,           :
 Dr. Margaret T. McHugh; SHAUNA D.,
 by her next friend, Professor Kathryn    :
 Conroy; OZZIE E., by his next friends,
 Jill Chaifetz and Kim Hawkins;           :
 DARREN F. and DAVID F., by their
 next friends, Juan A. Figueroa and       :
 Rev. Marvin J. Owens; BILL G. and
 VICTORIA G., by their next friend,       :
 Sister Dolores Gartanutti; BRANDON H.,
 by his next friend, Thomas J. Moloney;   :
 and STEVEN I., by his next friend,
 Kevin Ryan, on their own behalf and on   :      COMPLAINT FOR
 behalf of and all others similarly              DECLARATORY AND
 situated,                                :      INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

                      Plaintiffs,         :      CLASS ACTION

          --against--                     :      95-Civ. - ________

 RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI, Mayor of the City   :
 of New York; MARVA LIVINGSTON HAMMONS,
 Administrator of the Human Resources     :
 Administration and Commissioner of the
 Department of Social Services of the     :
 City of New York; KATHRYN CROFT,
 Executive Deputy Commissioner of the     :
 City Child Welfare Administration of
 the City of New York; GEORGE E. PATAKI,  :
 Governor of the State of New York; and
 BRIAN J. WING, Acting Commissioner       :
 of the Department of Social Services
 of the State of New York,                :

                      Defendants.         :
 -----------------------------------------X








                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  1

JURISDICTION AND VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  6

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  7

PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

    Named Plaintiffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

    Defendants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

STRUCTURE OF THE NEW YORK CITY CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM. . . . . . 15

LEGAL FRAMEWORK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

     The United States Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

     The Adoption Assistance and Child
     Welfare Act of 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

     The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act. . . . . . . 22

     The Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening,
     Diagnosis and Treatment Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

     The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 . . . . . . . . . . 24

     The Americans With Disabilities Act and the
     Rehabilitation Act of 1973. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

     The New York State Constitution . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

     The New York State Social Services Law,
     Family Court Act and Regulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS . . . . . . . . 27

     Marisol A.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

     Lawrence B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

     Thomas C. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

     Shauna D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

     Ozzie E.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

     Darren F. and David F.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

                                i



     Bill G. and Victoria G. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

     Brandon H.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

     Steven I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES. . . . . . 62

     Protective Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

     Preventive Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

     Permanency Planning for Children. . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

     Assessments and Case Plans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

     Out-Of-Home Placements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

     Services to Foster Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

          Health Care and Related Services . . . . . . . . . . 76

          Educational Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

          Reunification Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

          Adoption Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

          Independent Living Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

     Caseworker Screening, Training,
     Retention and Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

     Monitoring and Supervision of Private Agencies. . . . . . 87

     Administrative and Judicial Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . 90

     Information System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9l

     Ineffective Maximization of Resources . . . . . . . . . . 93

     Lack of Planning, and Prevailing Priorities . . . . . . . 94

HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
AND DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FAILURE. . . . . . . . . . . 96

CAUSES OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .102

PRAYER FOR RELIEF. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107


                               ii




                          INTRODUCTION

     1.   This is a civil rights action on behalf of all children

who are or will be in the custody of the New York City Child

Welfare Administration ("CWA"), and those children who, while not

in the custody of CWA, are or will be at risk of abuse or neglect

and whose status is known or should be known to CWA.  Defendants

in this action have systematically denied these children their

rights under the United States Constitution, federal statutes,

the New York State Constitution, state laws and regulations, and

the State plans provided to the federal government as a condition

of receiving federal funds to support the state's child welfare

system.

     2.   The child protection system supervised and operated by

defendants presents the opportunity to help vulnerable children

and give them a chance for a decent childhood.  Instead, and at

great public expense, defendants are producing new generations of

young people so damaged by their childhood that they will be

unable to function as independent, productive adults.

     3.   There are now approximately 43,000 children in foster

care in New York City.  Countless thousands more are the subjects

of abuse and neglect allegations.  Defendants' failure to protect

these children and provide them and their families with

appropriate, legally required services has jeopardized their

health, education, safety, essential sense of stability and

permanency, and developmental well-being.  In some instances, as

the recent death of Elisa Izquierdo has once again tragically

demonstrated, defendants' failures also jeopardize these

children's very lives.

     4.   New York City has perhaps the most dysfunctional child

welfare system in the country, despite the fact that New York

State spends more per capita than any other state on child

welfare and most of this expense is incurred in New York City.

Children in need of foster care placement often get turned away

at the door, while those children who wind up in placement spend

a substantial part of their childhood growing up in government

custody.

     5.   Despite the increasing needs of children, the foster

care placement rate in New York City is declining.  The average

length of stay in foster care for New York City children,

however, has increased seventy-five percent since 1988.  It is

now 4.2 years, as compared to a national average of 1.4 years.

     6.   As a direct result of defendants' pattern of actions

and inactions, New York City's child welfare system is rife with

systemic deficiencies that prevent it from meeting constitutional

and statutory requirements.  Among other failings:

        a.   defendants fail to appropriately accept reports of

     child abuse and neglect for investigation;

        b.   defendants fail to investigate those reports of

     child abuse and neglect that are accepted in the time and

     manner required by law;

        c.   defendants fail to provide mandated preplacement

     preventive services to enable children at risk of being


                               2



     placed in foster care to remain at home safely with their

     families whenever possible;

        d.   defendants fail to provide children in need of

     foster care placement with the least restrictive, most

     family-like placements designed to meet their individual

     needs;

        e.   defendants fail to provide foster children, their

     birth families and their foster families with the services

     necessary to ensure that the children do not deteriorate

     physically, psychologically, educationally or otherwise

     while in CWA's custody;

        f.   defendants fail to provide foster children

     suffering from disabilities, including but not limited to

     those with HIV and AIDS, with placements and services

     appropriate to their individual needs and necessary to allow

     these children fully to participate in the City's child

     welfare system;

        g.   defendants fail to provide foster children with

     appropriate case management, case plans and the services

     required by the case plans to ensure that they do not spend

     their entire childhoods in foster care, but rather are

     returned home or discharged to alternative permanent

     placements as quickly as possible;

        h.   defendants fail to provide children for whom

      adoption is appropriate with services necessary to ensure


                                3



     that they are adopted quickly and do not languish needlessly

     in foster care;

        i.   defendants fail to provide teenage children who

     will leave the foster care system to live on their own with

     services adequate to prepare them to live independently;

        j.   defendants fail to provide foster children with

     the administrative, judicial and dispositional reviews to

     which they are legally entitled, and with the services

     ordered at these reviews;

        k.   defendants fail to provide caseworkers with

     sufficient training, support and supervision to enable them

     to serve children and families in accordance with the law

     and reasonable professional standards; and

        l.   defendants fail to maintain an adequate

     information system to monitor, track and plan for children,

     and to manage the child welfare system in a manner that is

     both cost effective and complies with the law.

     7.   There has been extraordinary turnover in both the

leadership of the agency and the corps of front-line caseworkers.

Many CWA administrators are political appointees who lack the

skills, experience and support necessary to engage in appropriate

problem-solving or long-term, strategic planning on CWA's behalf.

They cannot and do not provide necessary, professional guidance

and support to their subordinates.  High level city officials

have not provided the leadership, support or pressure necessary

to ensure that the child welfare system complies with the law and


                               4



provides adequate protection and services to New York City's most

vulnerable children.

     8.   CWA contracts for the provision of the vast majority of

child welfare services with a series of private agencies.  While

CWA maintains legal responsibility for all children in the child

welfare system, it delegates much of the day-to-day provision of

services to these agencies.  These private agencies are not

properly monitored or supervised.  Some provide excellent

services; others do not.  CWA has no consistent, rigorous system

for ensuring that agencies are held accountable for providing

quality services in accordance with the law.  In many instances

CWA's own administrative requirements make it impossible for even

the most diligent agencies to perform necessary tasks in a manner

consistent with reasonable professional standards.

     9.   In recent years, all of these deficiencies have been

repeatedly documented in reports by the New York State

Comptroller's Office, the New York City Comptroller's Office, the

New York City Office of the Public Advocate, the Child Fatality

Review Panel, academicians and various other groups.  Defendants

have thus long been well aware of their systemic, ongoing failure

to adequately serve the children who depend on defendants for

their health, their safety, and sometimes for their very lives.

Although defendants have from time to time engaged in superficial

reform efforts, few if any meaningful changes have resulted.  In

fact, the lack of even basic reliable data regarding children in

the system renders it essentially impossible for defendants to


                               5



monitor these children and effect essential improvements.  The

deprivations experienced by New York City's most vulnerable

children thus have worsened significantly over time, leading to

the desperate conditions prevailing today.

     10.  And despite the inadequacy of New York City's child

welfare system today, current signs portend much worse.  CWA's

every recent "reform" effort has been aimed -- baldly and

exclusively -- not at providing improved services or even at

eliminating expensive waste and inefficiency caused by

mismanagement, but only at reducing expenditures for vulnerable

children and families.

                     JURISDICTION AND VENUE

     11.  This is an action pursuant to 42 United States Code §

1983, alleging violations of the United States Constitution,

federal statutes, the New York State Constitution, and state

statutes and regulations.  This court has jurisdiction over the

federal claims pursuant to 28 United States Code §§ 1331 and

1343(a)(3), and over the state claims pursuant to the doctrine of

pendent, or supplemental, jurisdiction pursuant to 28 United

States Code § 1367(a).

    12.  Venue in this district is proper pursuant to 28 United

States Code § 1391(b) because the claims arise in the district.

Although the Child Welfare Administration -- the agency most

directly responsible for the pattern of failures alleged

herein -- is responsible for children from all five boroughs of

New York City, including those boroughs in the Eastern District


                               6



of New York, all of CWA's administrative and managerial functions

are operated out of its headquarters, which is located in the

Southern District of New York.

                    CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

     13.  This action is properly maintained as a class action

pursuant to Rule 23 (a) & (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure.

     14. The class is defined as:

         All children who are or will be in the custody of
     the New York City Child Welfare Administration ("CWA"),
     and those children who, while not in the custody of
     CWA, are or will be at risk of neglect or abuse and
     whose status is known or should be known to CWA.

     15.  The plaintiff class is sufficiently numerous.  There

are approximately 43,000 children in the custody of CWA.  Tens of

thousands of additional children are victims of alleged child

abuse or neglect and are known or should be known to CWA.  In

fiscal year 1995, more than 75,000 New York City children were

the subjects of abuse or neglect allegations.  Upon information

and belief, in total the class numbers well over 100,000

children.

     16.  The questions of law and fact raised by the claims of

the named plaintiffs are common to and typical of those raised by

the claims of the putative class members.  Each named plaintiff

and each putative class member is in need of child welfare

services, must rely on defendants for the provision of those

services, and is subject to CWA's systemic deficiencies.

     17.  Common questions of fact include:


                               7



        a.   whether defendants fail to accept reports of child

     abuse and neglect for investigation as required by law;

        b.   whether defendants fail to investigate reports of

     child abuse and neglect in the manner and within the time

     periods required by law;

        c.   whether defendants fail to offer legally mandated

     services to children at risk of foster care placement to

     avert that risk;

        d.   whether defendants fail to provide children in

     their custody with safe, secure foster care placements that

     comply with national standards, as required by law;

        e.   whether defendants fail to provide foster children

     with legally required services necessary to prevent them

     from deteriorating physically and psychologically while in

     state custody, including but not limited to appropriate

     medical and educational services;

        f.   whether defendants fail to provide foster children

     with disabilities with placements and services appropriate

     to their particular needs, as required by law; and

        g.   whether defendants fail to create and implement

     appropriate, legally mandated plans for children to assure

     their proper care and their prompt placement in permanent

     homes.

     18.  Common questions of law include:


                               8



        a.   whether defendants' actions and inactions violate

     plaintiffs' rights under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth

     Amendments to the United States Constitution;

        b.   whether defendants' actions and inactions violate

     plaintiffs' rights under the Adoption Assistance and Child

     Welfare Act of 1980, 42 United States Code §§ 620-628, 670-

     679a; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42

     United States Code §§ 5101-5106a; the Early and Periodic

     Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment program of the Medicaid

     Act, 42 United States Code §§ 1396a, 1396d(a) & (r); the

     Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, 42 United States Code §

     622(b)(9); the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 United

     States Code §§ 12101 et seq.; and the Rehabilitation Act of

     1973, 29 United States Code § 794, 794a; and

        c.   whether defendants' actions and inactions violate

     plaintiffs' rights under Article XVII of the New York State

     Constitution; the New York State Social Services Law,

     Articles 2, 3, 6 & 7; the New York State Family Court Act,

     Articles 6 & 10; and applicable State regulations codified

     at 18 N.Y.C.R.R., §§ 400-484.

     19.  The legal violations alleged by the named plaintiffs

are typical of those raised by the claims of each and every

member of the putative class.  The harms suffered by the named

plaintiffs are typical of the harms suffered by all children

similarly situated.


                               9



     20.  The named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class.  They are represented by attorneys

employed by Children's Rights, Inc., a privately-funded, non-

profit organization (formerly the Children's Rights Project of

the American Civil Liberties Union) with extensive experience in

complex class action litigation involving child welfare systems,

and by attorneys employed by Lawyers for Children, Inc., a non-

profit organization with extensive experience representing

thousands of individual New York City foster children each year.

Plaintiffs' counsel have the resources, expertise and experience

to prosecute this action.  Each named plaintiff child appears by

a next friend, and each next friend is sufficiently familiar with

the facts and circumstances of the child's situation to represent

the child's interests in this litigation.

     21.  Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds

generally applicable to the class, making declaratory and

injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole

appropriate and necessary.  Counsel for the plaintiffs know of no

conflicts among members of the class.

                             PARTIES

                         Named Plaintiffs

     22.  Plaintiff MARISOL A.1 is a five-year-old girl who

entered foster care a few months after her birth, and has


____________________
     1    To protect their confidentiality, the plaintiff
children in this action appear by pseudonym.


                               10



remained in foster care for much of her life.  She is in CWA's

custody, and resides in a foster home.

     23.  Marisol appears in this action by her next friend, Rev.

Dr. James Alexander Forbes, Jr.  Reverend Forbes is the Senior

Minister of The Riverside Church in Manhattan.

     24.  Plaintiff LAWRENCE B. is a seventeen-year-old boy who

entered foster care in January, 1995.  He is in CWA's custody and

has been placed in a group home, but is now an in-patient at Beth

Israel Medical Center where he is being treated for AIDS-related

illnesses.

     25.  Lawrence appears in this action by his next friend,

Mitchell I. Ginsberg, Professor and Dean Emeritus of the Columbia

University School of Social Work.

     26.  Plaintiff THOMAS C. is a fifteen-year-old boy who has

been in foster care since the age of seven.  He is in CWA's

custody, and has been placed in a group home.

     27.  Thomas appears in this action by his next friend, Dr.

Margaret T. McHugh.  Dr. McHugh is a Clinical Associate Professor

of Pediatrics at the New York University School of Medicine, and

the Director of Adolescent Ambulatory Services and the Child

Protection Team at Bellevue Hospital Center.

     28.  Plaintiff SHAUNA D. is a two-year-old girl, about whom

CWA has received an abuse and neglect complaint that the agency

has failed to investigate.

     29.  Shauna appears in this action by her next friend,

Professor Kathryn Conroy.  Professor Conroy is Assistant Dean and


                              11



Director of Field Work at the Columbia University School of

Social Work.

     30.  Plaintiff OZZIE E. is a fourteen-year-old boy who

entered foster care in April, 1995.  He is in CWA's custody, and

now resides in a group home.

     31.  Ozzie appears in this action by his next friends, Jill

Chaifetz and Kim Hawkins.  Ms. Chaifetz is the Legal Director,

and Ms. Hawkins is a Staff Attorney, at The Door -- A Center of

Alternatives, a multi-service center for youth in Soho.

     32.  Plaintiff DARREN F. is a seven-year-old boy who has

been in foster care for virtually his entire life.  He is in the

custody of CWA, and is now in a residential treatment center.

     33.  Plaintiff DAVID F., Darren F.'s twin brother, has also

spent most of his life in foster care.  He is in the custody of

CWA, and is in the same residential treatment center as his twin

brother.

     34.  Darren and David appear in this action by their next

friends, Juan A. Figueroa and Reverend Marvin J. Owens.  Mr.

Figueroa is President and General Counsel of the Puerto Rican

Legal Defense and Education Fund, and Reverend Owens is the

Minister of the Williamsburg Christian Church in Brooklyn.

     35.  Plaintiff BILL G. is a fourteen-year-old boy who has

spent virtually his entire life in foster care.  He is now in the

custody of CWA, and lives in a foster home.

     36.  Plaintiff VICTORIA G., who is Bill G.'s sister, is a

ten-year-old girl who also has spent virtually her entire life in


                              12



foster care.  She is in the custody of CWA, and lives in the same

foster home as her brother Bill.

     37.  Bill and Victoria appear in this action by their next

friend Sister Dolores Gartanutti.  Sister Gartanutti the founder

and Director of Noah's Ark, an emergency shelter for adolescent

youth in Ozone Park, Queens, and Vice-President of the Empire

State Coalition of Youth and Family Services.

     38.  Plaintiff BRANDON H. is a seven-year-old boy who has

lived his entire life in foster care.  He is in the custody of

CWA, and lives in a foster home.

     39.  Brandon appears in this action by his next friend,

Thomas J. Moloney.  Mr. Moloney is a partner in the law firm of

Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, and the Chairman of the

Committee on Legal Assistance of the Association of the Bar of

the City of New York.

     40.  Plaintiff STEVEN Z. is a sixteen-year-old boy who has

lived his entire life in foster care.  He is in the custody of

CWA and is assigned to a group home, but is now living primarily

on the streets.

     41.  Steven appears in this action by his next friend, Kevin

Ryan.  Mr. Ryan is the Deputy Director of the Legal Services

Office at Covenant House, a shelter for homeless and runaway

youth.

                           Defendants

     42.  Defendant RUDOLPH W. GIULIANI is the Mayor of the City

of New York, and is sued in his official capacity.  He is


                              13



responsible for ensuring that all New York City agencies comply

with all applicable federal and state law, pursuant to the

Charter of the City of New York, Ch. 1, §§ 3 & 8.

     43.  Defendant MARVA LIVINGSTON HAMMONS is the Administrator

of the Human Resources Administration and the Commissioner of

Social Services of the City of New York, and is sued in her

official capacities.  She is responsible for the welfare of all

children in need of public assistance, care, support or

protection who reside in New York City; for overseeing the

administration of CWA; and for ensuring compliance by the New

York City Human Resources Administration ("HRA"), by CWA, and by

the private agencies with which CWA contracts with all applicable

federal and state law, pursuant to the Charter of the City of New

York, Ch. 24, §§ 603-604, and New York City Executive Order No.

82 (1985).

     44.  Defendant KATHRYN CROFT is the Executive Deputy

Commissioner of the New York City Child Welfare Administration,

and is sued in her official capacity.  She is responsible for

CWA's policies, practices and operation, and for ensuring that

CWA and the private agencies with which it contracts comply with

all applicable federal and state law.

     45.  Defendant GEORGE E. PATAKI is the Governor of the State

of New York, and is sued in his official capacity.  He is

responsible for ensuring that government agencies in the state,

including the Department of Social Services, comply with all

applicable federal and state law, pursuant to Article IV, § 3 of


                              14



the New York State Constitution and New York State Executive Law

§ 6.

     46.  Defendant BRIAN J. WING is the Acting Commissioner of

the New York State Department of Social Services, and is sued in

his official capacity.  He is responsible for the policies,

practices and operation of the New York State Department of

Social Services ("DSS"), and for ensuring DSS's compliance with

all relevant federal and state law, pursuant to New York State

Social Services Law §§ 11, 12 & 17.

                 STRUCTURE OF THE NEW YORK CITY
                      CHILD WELFARE SYSTEM

     47.  New York City's child welfare system has an unusually

complex structure involving the City, the State and numerous

private agencies.

     48.  Children in foster care in New York City are in the

legal custody of the New York City Commissioner of Social

Services, who delegates her authority over them to CWA.2 CWA,

in turn, assigns the majority of these children's day-to-day care

to a group of approximately seventy private, "voluntary"

agencies.  However, by law, CWA always maintains legal custody

and legal responsibility for all foster children, and the private



____________________
     2    It is common practice in New York City to refer to
foster children as being "in the custody of CWA."  As CWA itself
follows this practice, this complaint will as well.


                              15



agencies act as CWA's agents in executing CWA's responsibilities

to the children and their families.3

     49.  Most children enter the foster care system after a

family court finds, pursuant to Article 10 of the Family Court

Act, that the child is in danger of abuse or neglect if left with

his/her family.  Additionally, some children are voluntarily

placed in foster care by their parents.  This voluntary placement

must be approved by the family court, and once in care these

children's status and treatment does not differ significantly

from that of children placed as a result of an Article 10

proceeding.

     50.  Once in foster care, most children are placed, by CWA,

with a voluntary agency.  That agency, in turn, places the

children in either a foster home (which is the least restrictive,

most family-like setting), a group home or a residential

treatment center ("RTC").  The latter are the most restrictive

settings, properly reserved only for older children with severe

behavioral problems.

     51.  For those foster children whom CWA places with private

agencies, the agency assumes "case planning" responsibility for



____________________
     3    Both New York State, through its Department of Social
Services ("DSS"), and HRA have legal responsibility for
overseeing CWA to ensure that CWA complies with all applicable
federal and state laws.  Moreover, DSS has a further
responsibility to ensure that CWA complies with all elements of
the state plans which DSS signs as a condition of receiving child
welfare funds from the United States Department of Health and
Human Services.  The State also provides funding to the City
which is spent on child welfare services.


                              16



the child.  As part of this responsibility, the agency must

complete case plans -- known as uniform case records, or

"UCRs" -- for each child, describing the child's status, the

child's physical and mental health needs, and whether the child's

permanency goal is family reunification, adoption or independent

living.  The agency case plan must also list the services

necessary to meet the needs identified in the UCRs, as well as

services necessary to help the child achieve his/her permanency

goal.  Finally, the agency must provide, or ensure the provision

of, all the services deemed necessary in the case plan.

     52.  CWA maintains "case management" responsibility for

these children.  Such responsibility includes: reviewing the UCRs

to make sure they are properly and professionally completed;

ensuring that each child has an appropriate permanency goal, and

is making progress toward that goal; overseeing and supervising

the private agencies to ensure that all necessary services are

actually being provided; and ensuring that agency activities

conform with applicable laws and regulations.

     53.  In addition to children whom CWA places with private

agencies, CWA also provides foster care directly for

approximately 12,000 children, through its Division of Foster

Care Services ("DFCS").  In such cases, CWA has both case

planning and case management responsibility.

     54.  Finally, throughout every child's stay in foster care,

the child's status must be periodically reviewed to ensure that

the child is not lost in the system or allowed to drift without


                              17



progress towards a permanency goal.  CWA is obligated to schedule

administrative and judicial reviews for this purpose, and to

provide information sufficient to support reasoned

decision-making at the hearings.

     55.  Beyond caring for foster children, both the City and

State have certain legal obligations to protect all New York City

children from abuse and neglect.  To this end, DSS is legally

required to maintain a telephone "hotline" for receiving

allegations of child abuse or neglect.  CWA, in turn, is legally

mandated to commence an investigation of such reports within

twenty-four hours, to complete an initial investigation within

seven days, and to complete a full investigation within sixty

days.

     56.  When reports of suspected abuse or neglect are found to

be "indicated" -- i.e., when some credible evidence of the

alleged abuse or neglect exists -- CWA must either provide

necessary services to the family to enable the child to safely

remain at home, or, when that is not appropriate, must remove the

child from the home and place the child in foster care.

                         LEGAL FRAMEWORK

     57.  Plaintiffs allege that defendants are violating their

rights under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments to the

United States Constitution; the Adoption Assistance and Child

Welfare Act of 1980 ("Adoption Assistance Act"), 42 United States

Code §§ 620-27, 670-79a; the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment

Act ("CAPTA"), 42 United States Code §§ 5101-06a; the Early and


                              18



Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment ("EPSDT") program of

the Medicaid Act, 42 United States Code §§ 1396a, 1396d(a) & (r);

the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, 42 United States Code §

622(b)(9); the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 United

States Code §§ 12101 et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 United States Code § 794, 794a;

Article XVII of the New York State Constitution; New York State

Social Services Law, Articles 2, 3, 6 & 7; the New York State

Family Court Act, Articles 6 & 10; the state regulations

governing the child welfare system, 18 N.Y.C.R.R., §§ 400-484;

and the state plans provided to the federal Department of Health

and Human Services as a condition of receiving federal funds for

the operation of New York State's child welfare program, of which

New York City's child welfare program is a part.

     58.  Taken together, these statutes and constitutional

standards establish a broad range of specific duties that must be

followed by defendants in administering New York City's child

welfare system.

                 The United States Constitution

     59.  The Fourteenth Amendment of the United States

Constitution guarantees to each child in state custody the right

to be free from harm.  That right encompasses the right to

treatment in accordance with reasonable professional standards,

and the right to the services necessary to prevent children from

deteriorating physically, psychologically or otherwise while in

state care, including but not limited to safe, secure foster care


                              19



placements, appropriate monitoring and supervision, case planning

and management, permanency planning and medical, psychiatric,

psychological and educational services.

     60.  The First and Ninth Amendments guarantee the rights to

privacy and family integrity, and grant children the right not to

be removed from their families absent a showing of compelling

necessity.

     The Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980

     61.  The federal Adoption Assistance Act requires defendants

to implement and operate in New York City:

        a.   a preplacement preventive services program

     designed to help children remain with their families, when

     appropriate;

        b.   a service program designed to help children, when

     appropriate, return to the families from which they have

     been removed, and when this is not possible to be placed for

     adoption or legal guardianship; and

        c.   an information system from which the status,

     demographic characteristics, location and goal of every

     foster child can readily be determined.

     62.  The Adoption Assistance Act and relevant regulations

further require that defendants take the steps necessary to

ensure that:

        a.   foster family homes and child care institutions

     are licensed, relicensed and operated in conformity with

     appropriate national standards;


                              20



        b.   each child in need of a foster care placement is

     placed in the least restrictive, most family-like setting

     available, consistent with her best interests and individual

     needs;

        c.   each foster child is provided with a written case

     plan, containing specified elements, that is reviewed and

     updated at specified intervals, and that services are

     provided in accordance with that plan;

        d.   each foster child receives proper care while in

     state custody and that she, her parents and her foster

     parents receive the services necessary to address her needs

     and to assure her return home or her referral to an

     alternative permanent placement;

        e.   the status of each foster child is reviewed once

     every six months either administratively or judicially to

     determine the continuing necessity for and appropriateness

     of placement, the extent of compliance with the child's case

     plan and the extent of progress which has been made toward

     alleviating or mitigating the causes necessitating placement

     in foster care; and

        f.   each foster child receives a dispositional hearing

     by a family court no later than 18 months after her original

     placement and periodically thereafter to determine and

     evaluate the status of and plan for the child.

     63.  Under the Adoption Assistance Act, states receive

certain federal reimbursements so long as they have a plan


                              21



approved by the federal Department of Health and Human Services

and comply with its terms.  The State of New York receives

federal funding under the Act and has submitted such a plan,

certifying to the federal government that it provides the child

welfare services required by the Act.  Children eligible for

those child welfare services are the intended beneficiaries of

the State plan.

     64.  The Plan incorporates provisions of the New York State

Social Services Law, the New York State Family Court Act, and

each statute's implementing regulations.  These incorporated

provisions have the force of law and are binding on DSS, HRA and

CWA.

          The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

     65.  The federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act

requires that defendants take the steps necessary to ensure,

among other things, that:

        a.   a system is in place to receive allegations of

     suspected child abuse or neglect;

        b.   reports of suspected child abuse or neglect are

     investigated promptly, and immediate steps are taken to

     protect abused or neglected children and children in danger

     of abuse or neglect; and

        c.   DSS, HRA and CWA have in effect the procedures,

     training, personnel programs, services and facilities to

     adequately address cases of child abuse and neglect.


                              22



     66.  New York State receives federal funding under this

statute, and both the State and New York City are bound by its

terms.

           The Medicaid Early and Periodic Screening,
                Diagnosis and Treatment Program

     67.  The Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and

Treatment ("EPSDT") portion of the federal Medicaid Act is

designed to ensure that all Medicaid-eligible children up to the

age of twenty-one receive comprehensive physical, developmental

and mental health care.  All foster children in New York City are

eligible for Medicaid, and are therefore entitled to receive the

comprehensive health care required by the EPSDT program.

     68.  And because foster children are in the legal custody of

CWA, it is CWA's obligation to ensure that these children

actually receive the full panoply of health services under EPSDT,

including but not limited to:

        a.   periodic comprehensive health screenings, at age-

     appropriate intervals deemed proper by a board of medical

     professionals, including general physical examinations, eye

     examinations, dental examinations, hearing examinations,

     lead blood tests, vaccinations or boosters, and mental

     health examinations, all performed by competent medical

     professionals; and

        b.   any and all follow-up physical or mental health

     service or treatment deemed necessary to treat or address

     any condition diagnosed at any periodic screening, performed

     in a timely manner by competent medical professionals,


                              23



     regardless of whether any such treatment or service is

     otherwise covered by the New York State Medicaid plan.

              The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994

     69.  The Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994 requires that

public agencies engage in aggressive efforts to recruit potential

foster and adoptive parents who reflect the racial and ethnic

diversity of the children for whom such foster and adoptive

placements are needed.

             The Americans with Disabilities Act and
                  The Rehabilitation Act of 1973

     70.  The Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibit discrimination

against individuals with handicaps or disabilities in federally

funded programs.  These laws require that programs such as child

welfare and foster care programs be administered to enable

children with handicaps or disabilities to participate fully in,

and receive all the benefits of, the programs.  The protections

of the ADA extend not only to children with physical

disabilities, but also to children with mental health problems,

or cognitive medical disabilities, including children with AIDS.

                 The New York State Constitution

     71.  Article XVII of the New York State Constitution

guarantees the right to appropriate aid to all persons in New

York State deemed to be "needy," and the right of all persons so

designated to not have this aid arbitrarily or capriciously

denied.  Abused or neglected children and foster children are


                              24



needy, and are thus entitled to a variety of services delineated

in New York State statutes and regulations.

             The New York State Social Services Law,
              Family Court Act and State Regulations

     72.  State law pertaining to the provision of child welfare

services is set forth in the New York State Social Services Law,

the New York State Family Court Act, and applicable regulations.

These laws require, among other things, that defendants take the

steps necessary to:

        a.   operate a system for receiving allegations of

     child abuse or neglect; initiate investigations into reports

     of child abuse and neglect within twenty-four hours; conduct

     a full investigation, including a home visit with a face-to-

     face interview with the child, and obtain information from

     collateral sources such as schools, hospitals, police and

     social service agencies; complete a preliminary written

     report within seven days to determine whether the child is

     in immediate danger of serious harm; make a final

     determination within sixty days as to whether the allegation

     is indicated or unfounded;

        b.   take a child into protective custody if the child

     is determined to be in imminent danger, and initiate a

     judicial proceeding by the next business day;

        c.   provide each child determined to be eligible for

     pre-placement services, or services while in foster care,

     with a comprehensive needs assessment and service plan

     (commonly known as a uniform case record or "UCR"),


                              25



     including an initial risk assessment and service plan with

     all required elements within thirty days from the case

     initiation date, a comprehensive assessment and service plan

     with all required elements within ninety days from the case

     initiation date, and a reassessment and service plan review

     with all required elements within six months from the case

     initiation date and every six months thereafter;

        d.   identify and provide each child and family with

     services in accordance with the child's comprehensive

     assessment and service plan, including but not limited to

     case planning and case management services, casework

     contacts, day care services, homemaker services, family

     planning services, home management services, clinical

     services, parent aide services, parent training services,

     transportation services, emergency cash services, emergency

     shelter services, housing services, and intensive family

     preservation services;

        e.   ensure that the type or level of foster care

     placement in which a child resides is appropriate to the

     individualized needs of the child and family;

        f.   adequately investigate potential foster homes in

     the manner required by law before granting licenses or

     certificates to foster parents and placing children in their

     homes, and appropriately evaluate and review the foster

     homes and families before renewing their licenses or

     certificates;


                              26



        g.   supervise, visit and inspect foster homes on a

     regular basis after licensing them;

        h.   ensure that all foster children achieve permanency

     either by being returned to their families at the earliest

     date on which it is safe to do so, or, when reunification is

     not appropriate, by terminating parental rights and

     arranging for adoption as soon as possible;

        i.   provide children placed in foster care pursuant to

     FCA Article 10, with periodic judicial reviews at least

     every twelve months; provide children voluntarily placed in

     foster care with reviews at least every 18 months; provide

     children who have been freed for adoption and placed in a

     pre-adoptive home unit for whom no adoption petition has

     been filed with reviews at least every twelve months;

     provide children who have been freed for adoption but not

     placed in prospective adoptive homes with reviews every six

     months; provide all foster children with the dispositional

     hearing required by federal law within 18 months after

     entering placement; and

        j.   promulgate the policies and secure the personnel

     necessary to fulfill all federal and state mandates in

     accordance with reasonable professional standards.

         FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING NAMED PLAINTIFFS

Marisol A.

     73.  Plaintiff Marisol A., who is five years old, spent

several months of her life locked in a closet, so badly starved


                              27



that she ate her own feces, black plastic bags and a cardboard

shoebox.  Her mother let her out of the closet to administer

beatings which knocked out her front teeth and fractured a tibia,

and to burn her with cigars and scalding water.  All of this

abuse occurred despite multiple reports to CWA of Marisol's dire

condition.  CWA failed to respond to these reports of suspected

abuse as required by applicable law and reasonable professional

standards.

     74.  Marisol was born on August 15, 1990, only two days

after her mother, Ms. A., was arrested on charges of drug

dealing.  Due to her incarceration, Ms. A. made arrangements for

a neighbor, Ms. C., to take informal custody of Marisol until her

release.

     75.  Although this was intended to be a temporary

arrangement while Ms. A. remained in jail, upon her release Ms.

A. decided that she did not wish to resume custody of Marisol,

and voluntarily signed her into foster care.  As a result, Ms. C.

applied for, and received, certification as a foster parent.

Marisol remained in Ms. C's home from August 23, 1990, until

February, 1994.

     76.  During her three and one-half years in Ms. C.'s care,

CWA's permanency goal for Marisol was reunification with her

mother.  CWA maintained this goal without any reasonable basis to

believe that such a goal was appropriate for Marisol or in her

best interest, and took no steps to implement the goal.  CWA

never sought or obtained Ms. A's cooperation or participation in


                              28



planning for Marisol.  In fact, Ms. A. and her boyfriend were

still dealing drugs in their home.  And although Ms. A. and Ms. C

lived in the same neighborhood, Ms. A visited Marisol only eight

times during the entire three and one-half years of her first

placement, and only at the insistence of Ms. C.  Ms. A. missed

several of Marisol's birthday parties, despite Ms. C's repeated

invitations.  CWA knew or should have known all of this.

     77.  At this point, there were adequate legal grounds for

CWA to file a petition seeking termination of Ms. A.'s parental

rights, but CWA did not do this, and failed to take any

reasonable steps to reassess the appropriateness of Marisol's

permanency goal of reunification.

     78.  At some point during Marisol's placement, Ms. A.

decided to seek the child's return, though she told her sister

and others that she did not love Marisol.

     79.  In January, 1994, CWA allowed Ms. A. to have weekend

visits with Marisol.  After every visit, Marisol returned to Ms.

C.'s home filthy and unfed.  She reported that there was no bed

for her to sleep on in Ms. A.'s apartment, and that there was a

lot of violence in the house.  Police officers were sent to Ms.

A.'s home on several occasions to settle domestic disputes.

Despite being informed about this by Ms. C., Marisol's CwA

caseworker failed to investigate Ms. A.'s home or to reevaluate

the appropriateness of unsupervised visits.  Instead, the

caseworker merely told Ms. C. that this was not her concern.


                              29



     80.  In February, 1994, CWA returned Marisol to Ms. A.'s

custody without conducting a reasonable investigation to

determine whether she would be safe or whether Ms. A. could

provide adequate care and supervision for her.  CWA had reason to

believe that Ms. A. and her live-in boyfriend were still dealing

drugs in the home, and that Ms. A. had severe psychiatric

problems.  Ms. A.'s sister reported that Ms. A. had a long

history of "bizarre behavior," including eating cigarette butts

and running naked through the streets.  CWA nonetheless

discharged Marisol to Ms. A.'s home, and failed to provide any

counseling or other services to the family.  Instead, although

CWA knew or should have known of Ms. A.'s drug dealing and

troubled history, CWA took no steps to supervise or monitor Ms.

A.'s home to ensure that Marisol was safe and being adequately

cared for.

     81.  Eight days after the discharge, Ms. A. brought Marisol

to St. Luke's Hospital with vaginal bleeding and infection.  St.

Luke's then mistakenly called Ms. C., her former foster mother,

to question her about these injuries.  Fearing for Marisol's

safety, Ms. C. wrote a letter to a CWA supervisor on April 1,

1994, reporting that Marisol was at risk of being abused or

neglected.  CWA did not investigate these allegations, and did

not follow up on the report that Marisol had been hospitalized

for vaginal bleeding.  Instead, CWA wrote to Ms. C. stating that

they had met with Marisol at the field office, had spoken with


                              30



her mother, and had concluded that both mother and daughter were

"adjusting well" to the situation.

     82.  In October, 1994, Ms. A.'s own sister reported to CWA

that Ms. A. was abusing Marisol.  Again, CWA failed to conduct an

adequate investigation of the allegation.  When a child

protective services worker finally visited the A. home, Ms. A.

stated that Marisol was not available because she was visiting

relatives in the Dominican Republic.  Rather than confirm the

truth of the story, the protective service worker left without

seeing Marisol, and concluded that the allegation was unfounded.

     83.  But Marisol was not in the Dominican Republic.  She was

locked in a closet.

     84.  Marisol spent several months confined by her mother in

a closet, until she was discovered in May, 1995.  Her discovery

came not by CWA, but through the chance arrival of a housing

inspector.  This inspector saw an older boy run up and hit her on

the head with full force.  The inspector became suspicious when

he noticed that Marisol did not react to this abuse with a shout

or a cry, but merely blinked.  Recognizing the signs of abuse

from his previous career as a police officer, the housing

inspector immediately notified the police.

     85.  When police officers arrived at Ms. A.'s apartment,

they found a four-year-old girl lying naked beneath a urine-

soaked sheet, shell-shocked from living in a closet, and starved

so severely that her stomach was distended.  When subsequently

given a laxative to cleanse her system, Marisol excreted pieces


                              31



of black plastic bags, and it was later revealed that she had

been forced to eat her own feces, garbage bags and cardboard

boxes in order to survive.

     86.  Doctors at Harlem Hospital reported that Marisol was so

severely abused that "no part of her body [was] unmarked."  She

had a splintered tibia; bruises covered most of her body; her

front teeth were knocked out; she had been sexually molested; her

feet "looked cooked" because of the boiling water that had been

poured onto her; much of her body was covered with burns from

cigars; and she had been pulled by her head so hard that large

clumps of hair were missing.  It was later reported that the

housing inspector and police officers had rescued Marisol in the

nick of time, as "her body couldn't take any more."

     87.  Ms. A. and her boyfriend were indicted on charges of

first degree assault and endangering the welfare of a child.

     88.  In May, 1995, upon Marisol's release from Harlem

Hospital, Ms. C. took custody of her and was recertified as her

foster parent.  Marisol was so disfigured by her abuse that Ms.

C. -- who had raised the little girl for more than three years --

could barely recognize her.

     89.  Ms. C. has informed CWA that she is anxious to adopt

Marisol.  However, CWA has not informed Ms. C. of Marisol's

permanency planning goal, and has taken no steps to initiate the

home study to determine whether Ms. C. can be approved as a pre-

adoptive parent.  Because CWA has not begun the process of

terminating Ms. A.'s parental rights and freeing Marisol for


                              32



adoption, Marisol remains in jeopardy of being returned to her

mother or removed from the foster family that has provided the

only safety and stability she has ever known.  Upon information

and belief, CWA has neither developed nor begun the

implementation of a permanency plan that complies with reasonable

professional standards for this already damaged child.

     90.  In addition to her severe physical injuries, Marisol

has also suffered significant psychological trauma, and currently

needs intensive counseling and other support services.  Although

Ms. C. began requesting that CWA provide her with a Medicaid card

for Marisol in May, 1995, she only recently received one.

Moreover, CWA has failed to ensure that Marisol receives

counseling necessary to address the sexual trauma she endured

while in her mother's home.  As a result, Marisol exhibits

behavior and language inappropriate for a child her age.

     91.  Defendants have violated Marisol's constitutional and

statutory rights by failing to protect her from harm; by failing

to investigate reports of suspected abuse or neglect as required

by law and reasonable professional standards; by failing to

provide services and supervision necessary to support and/or

monitor her discharge from foster care; and by failing to develop

and implement an appropriate permanency plan.

     92.  As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions,

Marisol has been and continues to be irreparably harmed.  Marisol

and her foster family do not know whether her goal is adoption or


                              33



reunification with her mother, and as a result she lives in a

constant state of terrifying uncertainty.

Lawrence B.

     93.  Plaintiff Lawrence B. is in the final stages of AIDS-

related illness.  Despite this fact, CWA has consistently failed

to provide him with an appropriate placement, to ensure that he

receives necessary services, or to do anything to help this young

man cope with his life-threatening illness.

     94.  In fact, CWA is either so oblivious or so indifferent

to Lawrence's needs that, in documents which CWA recently filed

with the court, CWA described Lawrence as doing well and

recommended that he receive training in preparation for a

transition to independent living.

     95.  Lawrence first entered the foster care system pursuant

to a voluntary agreement signed by his aunt on January 26, 1995,

when he was seventeen years old.  His mother had died of AIDS in

or around 1985, and his father had died years before of unknown

causes.  Lawrence's aunt, his primary caretaker, could no longer

care for him.

     96.  CWA failed to offer services so Lawrence could remain

with his aunt and, after assuming custody of Lawrence, failed to

properly evaluate his medical needs in a timely fashion.  Despite

clear indication that he was ill, CWA did not secure a complete

medical assessment for nearly two months.  In fact, Lawrence was

severely ill with AIDS.  The absence of a proper assessment made


                              34



it impossible for CWA to obtain a suitable placement which could

provide for Lawrence's individualized needs.

     97.  Lawrence was initially placed in a diagnostic facility.

Although such facilities are intended to be temporary placements

for ninety-day diagnoses, CWA left Lawrence at this diagnostic

center for seven months, although CWA knew or should have known

that this placement was inappropriate for him.  While at this

facility, Lawrence was permitted to miss school classes and stay

out with his peers -- where his medical condition could not be

monitored or treated.  As a result of the absence of adequate

supervision, Lawrence's condition may have deteriorated more

quickly than it would have if he had been in an appropriate

placement.

     98.  Sometime in August, 1995, CWA attempted knowingly to

place Lawrence in an inappropriate group home which did not have

a medical staff to provide the type of supervision which he

needed.  At no time during its discussions with the potential

placement agency did CWA mention that Lawrence had AIDS.  When

the agency specifically asked for Lawrence's medical records, CWA

stated that it did not have these records, and withheld crucial

information.  The potential placement subsequently fell through.

     99.  On or about September 1, 1995, CWA transferred Lawrence

to a private agency group home for teens whose goal is

independent living.  In transferring Lawrence's case to this

agency, CWA sent the agency inaccurate medical records indicating

that Lawrence was completely healthy.


                              35



     100. In a letter dated September 19, 1995, to Craig Longley,

Assistant Deputy Commissioner of CWA, the Associate Executive

Director of the private agency stated that in transferring

Lawrence's case a CWA case manager handed a package of medicine

to an agency employee and "indicated that the medicine was for

the youngster's ear infection and that he was also taking calcium

pills."  No other substantive medical information was provided

regarding Lawrence.  "We are extremely concerned," the letter

continued, "that our agency was not provided with adequate

medical information about the health status of this youngster

which could have seriously compromised his health . . . ."

     101. CWA knew or should have known that this agency did not

have the capability to supervise children with symptomatic AIDS.

Even when the agency notified CWA that it could not provide for

Lawrence's increasing medical needs, and that he needed hospice

care, CWA failed to transfer Lawrence to an appropriate

placement.  Instead, CWA merely told the agency that the group

home staff should take Lawrence to the hospital when necessary.

     102. Despite his severe medical condition, CWA continues to

ignore Lawrence's medical needs.

     103. Lawrence has been hospitalized intermittently for AIDS-

related illnesses since being placed at the group home.  Rather

than transferring him to a hospice that could provide him with

the services he desperately needs, CWA continues to insist that

Lawrence be returned upon each discharge from the hospital to the

group home which cannot meet his needs.


                              36



     104. CWA has neglected to ensure that Lawrence is provided

with necessary psychological services.  Because the group home is

not accustomed to handling children in Lawrence's condition, it

has failed to provide Lawrence with counseling to prepare him for

the next phase of his illness.  As a result, Lawrence is still in

partial denial, and, sadly, has been unable to pursue the issues

of closure that are associated with terminal illness.

     105. CWA has also failed to develop a case plan for Lawrence

that has any relevance to his condition or his individual needs.

In a recent petition for review of his foster care status, CWA

recommended that foster care be continued in the current

placement, because "[c]hild is doing well in agency's group home"

and is receiving "vocational planning for discharge to

independent living."  The petition contains absolutely no mention

of his severely deteriorating health.  In fact, Lawrence's

medical status is now so grave that he will never be capable of

living on his own -- a fact CWA cruelly ignores.

     106. Lawrence will soon reach his eighteenth birthday, and

CWA still maintains a goal of "independent living" for him which

could result in his being left to die on the streets or, at best,

to spend his remaining days in a group home which has admitted

that it cannot provide him with the level of medical care and

counselling he requires.

     107. Defendants have violated Lawrence's constitutional and

statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by failing

to provide him with proper care, even though CWA knew that he was


                              37



not receiving adequate care; by failing to provide an appropriate

placement and sufficient services; by failing to conduct an

adequate assessment to determine whether placement in the group

home was appropriate; by failing to develop and implement an

appropriate case plans that contain the required elements, in

accordance with the law and reasonable professional standards;

and by failing to implement the case plan.

     108. As a result of defendants' actions and inactions,

Lawrence has been and continues to be irreparably harmed and

deprived of an opportunity to spend his remaining days in an

appropriate environment which can stabilize his medical condition

and provide for his emotional needs.

Thomas C.

     109. Plaintiff Thomas C. is fifteen years old and has been

in foster care since the age of seven.  Defendants have failed --

and are continuing to fail -- to take necessary steps to provide

Thomas with a permanent home and a way out of foster care.

Moreover, they have failed even to ensure Thomas's physical

safety while in foster care, and, in the past eight years, Thomas

has been repeatedly physically and sexually abused.

     110. Thomas was born on March 21, 1980.  His mother was a

drug abuser who was unable to care for him, and during his first

two years of life Thomas lived with numerous caretakers.  At the

age of two, Thomas went to live with his grandmother, but three

years later his mother forcibly took him back.  For the next

year-and-a-half, Thomas lived with his mother in squalid


                              38



conditions, where he was physically and psychologically abused.

Thomas's grandmother ultimately regained custody of Thomas, but,

unable to care for him, on July 22, 1987, she placed him in

foster care.

     111. CWA failed to provide an appropriate placement or

develop an adequate plan for Thomas.  Instead, over the next two

years Thomas was moved through four placements, including a

diagnostic center and Bellevue Hospital, where -- at the age of

seven -- he was treated for suicidal ideation.

     112. On July 25, 1989, CWA placed Thomas at a residential

treatment center ("RTC").  CWA still failed to develop an

adequate plan for Thomas or to take any steps to secure a

permanent placement for him.  Although it was clear that Thomas's

mother would never be able to provide a home for him, CWA did not

ensure that necessary steps were taken to free Thomas for

adoption, or to seek an adoptive home for him in a timely manner.

Indeed, Thomas's parents' rights were not terminated until July

31, 1993, a full six years after he entered foster care.  And

even then, CWA failed to take any steps to seek or secure a

permanent home for Thomas.

     113. During his time at the RTC, Thomas became friendly with

a minister, Reverend D., who was employed there.  In 1993,

Reverend D. moved to South Carolina and offered to take Thomas

with him.  In the absence of any alternative placement for

Thomas, CWA approved Thomas's placement with Reverend D., and

Thomas was sent to South Carolina.  Upon information and belief,


                              39



CWA did not ensure that the mandates of the Interstate Compact on

the Placement of Children were followed.

     114. After Thomas was transferred to the home of Reverend

D., CWA failed to ensure that Thomas's placement was properly

monitored, although Thomas remained in CWA's legal custody and

such monitoring is legally required.  CWA also failed to ensure

that South Carolina officials were supervising the placement, as

required by the Interstate Compact.  Reverend D. was failing to

return telephone calls from caseworkers at Thomas's New York RTC,

was not cooperating with the RTC, and would not confirm that he

had obtained necessary counseling for Thomas -- all of which was

or should have been known to CWA.  CWA took no steps to determine

whether the placement was appropriate, or whether Thomas was even

safe.

     115. In fact, Thomas was being sexually abused by Reverend

D.  CWA only learned of this fact when Thomas ran away to the

police, who confirmed his allegation and returned him to the RTC

in New York on June 9, 1994.

     116. As a result of all he has experienced, and the lack of

stability and permanence in his life, Thomas has experienced --

and continues to experience -- severe, multiple problems since

his return to the RTC.  The RTC's records indicate that he has

been physically threatened and attacked by other boys, and that

on two occasions he has attempted suicide by jumping off the roof

of a building.  But CWA has taken no steps to determine whether

the RTC is an appropriate placement for Thomas.  And although


                              40



Thomas is legally freed for adoption, CWA has taken no steps to

seek or secure an appropriate adoptive home for him.

     117. Earlier this year, Thomas ran away from the RTC.  He

lived in various locations -- including sleeping on the roofs of

buildings -- and ultimately ended up living with a drug dealer

and the dealer's girlfriend.  The drug dealer physically abused

Thomas, who subsequently returned to the RTC, walking all the way

from Greenwich Village to the RTC in Westchester County.

     118. Although Thomas now has severe psychological problems,

he is reluctant to participate in counseling at the RTC because

he fears that his problems would not be held in confidence and

believes that the staff and residents already know about his

sexual abuse in South Carolina.  Although the RTC has been

ordered by the family court to provide counseling from an outside

agency for Thomas, it has failed to do so, and CWA has taken no

steps to ensure that such counseling is provided to this

desperately unhappy and possibly suicidal young man.

     119. The defendants have violated Thomas's constitutional

and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by

failing to provide appropriate planning and services that would

provide him with the opportunity to be placed in a permanent

home, as required by law and reasonable professional standards;

by failing to obtain and supervise an appropriate placement; by

failing to provide services necessary to prevent him from

deteriorating while in foster care; and by failing to protect him

from physical and psychological harm while in foster care.


                              41



     120. As a result of defendants' actions and inactions,

Thomas has been and is being irreparably harmed.  Thomas is

growing up without a permanent family, has been physically and

sexually abused while in defendant CWA's custody, is being

subjected to the uncertainty of foster care status, and is being

deprived of an opportunity for healthy development and a normal

childhood.

Shauna D.

     121. Plaintiff Shauna D. is two years old and lives with her

drug-addicted mother, Ms. D.  Despite receiving reports

indicating that Shauna is in danger of serious abuse or neglect,

CWA has failed to investigate these reports in the manner

prescribed by law.  CWA's failure is especially troublesome here

because Ms. D. has already lost custody of her six other children

after findings that she abused or neglected them, and because Ms.

D. admittedly continues to require drug treatment.

     122. On September 12, 1995, Ms. M., a friend of Ms. D. who

had been caring for Shauna, filed for formal custody of Shauna.

At a hearing on October 13, 1995, Shauna's law guardian informed

the court that Shauna was living with Ms. M., but that Ms. M. was

not financially able to care for her.  The law guardian further

informed the court that Ms. D. was not helping to feed or clothe

Shauna, and was an active drug user.  Finally, the law guardian

informed the court that Shauna had not received necessary

immunization shots.


                              42



     123. The court directed Shauna's law guardian to call in a

report of suspected abuse or neglect to CWA regarding Shauna.  On

October 13, 1995, Shauna's law guardian called in the report to

CWA, but no action was taken.

     124. On November 5, 1995, Ms. D. forcibly took Shauna from

Ms. M.'s home.  Ms. M. later saw Ms. D. on the street taking

drugs.  As of this date, CWA had still taken no action upon the

report of suspected abuse or neglect.  In fact, several weeks

after being assigned to investigate this case, the child

protective services worker had failed even to contact either

Shauna or Ms. M., and was unaware that six of Ms. D.'s other

children had been removed from her after findings of abuse or

neglect.

     125. On November 9, 1995, twenty-six days after the first

report of suspected abuse or neglect -- and after four follow-up

calls to CWA by Shauna's law guardian -- a CWA caseworker finally

contacted Ms. D. to begin investigating the allegations.  CWA's

"investigation," however, consisted solely of a telephone call to

Ms. D. in which Ms. D. stated that she was trying to get into a

drug treatment program.  The caseworker failed to contact or

interview Shauna or Ms. M., and ignored Ms. D.'s failure to

obtain necessary immunization shots for Shauna.

     126. On November 14, 1995, the CWA caseworker took Ms. D. to

register at an residential drug treatment program which would

allow Shauna to live with her during treatment.  Although the

caseworker had knowledge that Ms. D would not be able to enter


                              43



the program for at least a week, the caseworker made no

provisions for Shauna's care or safety during this week-long

interval.  As winter arrived, the caseworker also continued to

fail to arrange for Shauna to receive her immunization shots.

     127. On November 21, 1995, Shauna's law guardian again

called the CWA caseworker.  The caseworker stated that he did not

know whether Ms. D. had, in fact, entered the drug treatment

program.  Nevertheless, despite the failure to conduct a proper

investigation as required by law, the caseworker stated that the

report of suspected abuse or neglect would be determined

unfounded based solely upon Ms. D.'s representation that she

would enter a drug treatment program.

     128. To date, CWA has failed to investigate the report of

suspected abuse or neglect in the manner required by law, and has

failed to file a written report detailing the elements of the

investigation or the reasons for its conclusion.  Upon

information and belief, CWA is continuing to inadequately monitor

Shauna or Ms. D.'s status, and has never arranged for Shauna to

receive her immunization shots.

     129. The defendants have violated Shauna's constitutional

and statutory rights by failing to investigate reports of

suspected abuse or neglect as required by law and reasonable

professional standards, by failing to protect her from harm; and

by failing to offer Shauna timely medical attention according to

reasonable professional standards.


                              44



     130. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions,

Shauna has been and is being irreparably harmed.

Ozzie E.

     131. Plaintiff Ozzie E. is a fourteen-year-old child who

should not be in foster care.  Ozzie wants to return to live with

his mother, Ms. E., who wants to take him home.  All that stands

between reuniting mother and son is CWA's refusal to provide

services to allow Ms. E. to care for Ozzie, who suffers from

seizure disorder, brain lesions and behavioral problems.

     132. After his parents separated, Ozzie initially went to

live with his father.  But Ozzie's father, Mr. Q., frequently

traveled for work and left Ozzie with his female companion.

During one of these trips in early 1995, Ozzie had a seizure and

was placed in the hospital by Mr. Q.'s companion.  When Mr. Q.

returned and refused to take Ozzie home from the hospital, CWA

placed Ozzie in a group home.  Ozzie's father voluntarily placed

him in foster care on April 26, 1995.

     133. When CWA officials contacted Ozzie's mother, Ms. E., to

ascertain whether she would care for Ozzie, she indicated that

she had a job and, given Ozzie's physical and emotional

difficulties, could not properly care for him.  CWA officials

never suggested to Ozzie's mother that family preservation

services -- such as homemaker services, special schooling or day

treatment -- could be made available to help her care for Ozzie.

     134. For the next six months, CWA kept Ozzie in care,

listing his permanency goal as return to mother but failing to


                              45



offer any of the services necessary to achieve that goal.  CWA

has conceded, moreover, that Ozzie's present placement in a group

home is inappropriate because the group home does not provide

services necessary to address his neurological problems.

     135. After Ms. E. learned -- from Ozzie's law guardian, not

CWA -- about the possibility of supportive community-based

services to help her care for Ozzie, she stated that with such

help she would very much like to have Ozzie return home and live

with her.

     136. To date, despite the fact that CWA admits that Ozzie's

present placement is not appropriate, and despite the fact that

Ozzie's goal is return home, CWA refuses to provide the services

that would make Ozzie's return possible.  As a result, CWA is

needlessly continuing to keep mother and son apart.

     137. The defendants have violated Ozzie's constitutional and

statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; and by

failing to provide appropriate planning and services that would

permit him to be returned to his mother, as required by law and

reasonable professional standards.

     138. As a result of defendants' actions and inactions, Ozzie

has suffered and continues to suffer irreparable harm.  Ozzie is

growing up without a permanent family, is being subjected to the

uncertainty of foster care status, and is being deprived of an

opportunity for healthy development and a normal childhood.


                              46



Darren F. and David F.

     139. Plaintiffs Darren F. and David F. are seven-year-old

twins who have been in foster care virtually their entire lives.

Because of CWA's failure to provide psychological and other

counseling, their condition is rapidly deteriorating and they are

on the verge of losing what may be their only chance for adoption

and permanency.

     140. Darren and David were born in 1988, and at age one were

placed by their mother in the custody of CWA, which placed them

in a foster home.  At that time, CWA's goal for the children was

return to their mother, on the conditions that she find a job or

obtain public assistance, and get an apartment.  However, the

case plan (embodied in the uniform case report, or "UCR")

which CWA approved -- failed to indicate what steps the foster

care agency or CWA had taken, or would take, to help the mother

achieve these goals.

     141. In May, 1990, Darren and David, who remained in foster

care, were placed with their grandmother.  Although their

grandmother was too old to care for them adequately, and would

often leave them for many hours in front of the television with

the volume turned up loud, CWA and the voluntary agency failed to

properly investigate or address this problem.  The three UCRs

filed for the twins during this period -- which CWA also

approved, on 6/7/90, 3/25/91 and 6/24/91 -- made no mention of

the issue.  Indeed, the last of these UCR's stated that the twins

"both appear to be very comfortable in the home."


                              47



     142. Darren and David were removed from their grandmother's

home after CWA and the agency learned from the police, who were

called to the home to restore peace, that the grandmother allowed

the natural mother, a known drug addict, to move into the foster

home with the children.

     143. In November, 1991, at the age of three, Darren and

David were placed with a new foster parent, Ms. R., who had been

a teacher's aid in a special education class and was better able

to address the children's special needs.  By the time Darren and

David arrived at Ms. R.'s home they were already showing signs of

psychological trauma: they had not been toilet trained, often

drank out of the toilet bowl, and smeared feces on the walls.

     144. CWA was aware of these problems, but failed to provide

any services to prevent Darren and David's continuing

psychological deterioration.  Without CWA's assistance, Ms. R.

enrolled the twins in therapeutic day care, which began to

stabilize their behavior.  At the same time, the twins' foster

care agency began the process of terminating their natural

mother's parental rights in April, 1992.  The boys' case plan

listed a goal of adoption by Ms. R.

     145. In September, 1994, Darren and David entered public

school, and soon thereafter their behavior again deteriorated.

They began using racial slurs, swearing and running around

uncontrollably when outside Ms. R.'s home.  Ms. R. repeatedly

asked the foster care agency for assistance, but the agency

refused to make any treatment referrals; CWA took no action to


                              48



help them either, although CWA knew or should have known about

the children's need for services.

     146. In May, 1995, a psychiatric evaluation of the twins was

conducted after Ms. R. indicated that she could no longer cope

with their behavior.  Darren and David at first refused to talk

with the psychiatrist.  When one of them did speak he began with

the following:

          They smash the cake, they beat my face, it
          was dumb, it was stupid, I told you I don't
          want to hear it, I will kill myself, I will
          choke myself....

The evaluation recommended that both boys immediately be enrolled

in a day treatment program while continuing to live with Ms. R.,

and specifically named three such programs.  The evaluation also

stated that the agency should not consider the radical step of

taking such young children out of a home setting and placing them

in a residential treatment center until a day treatment program

was tried first.

     147. Neither the private agency nor CWA made any attempt to

make the referrals recommended by the twins' doctors.  Instead,

the agency -- in flagrant disregard of the evaluations --

recommended that Darren and David be immediately placed in a

residential treatment center.  In November, 1995, the twins were

sent to a residential treatment center.

     148. Today, Darren and David continue to live at the

residential treatment center -- an institution designed for older

children with severe emotional or behavioral problems, which

until recently would not even accept children under the age of


                              49



twelve.  This setting is entirely inappropriate for children the

twins' age, contradicts the advice of the doctors who examined

them, and is causing them harm.  Moreover, because CWA continues

to fail to consider the option of day treatment, the twins can no

longer live with Ms. R., the person they have come to think of as

their mother.  Indeed, the separation may cause Ms. R. to

relinquish her hopes of adopting them, thus depriving the twins

of their best chance for a permanent and stable home.

     149. The defendants have violated Darren and David's

constitutional and statutory rights by failing to provide

services necessary to prevent them from mentally and

psychologically deteriorating while in foster care; by failing to

develop and implement appropriate case plans that contain the

required elements, in accordance with the law and reasonable

professional standards; by failing to make appropriate casework

contacts with them and monitor their progress as required by law

and reasonable professional standards; and by failing to provide

appropriate planning and services that would permit them to be

placed in a permanent home.

     150. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions,

Darren and David have been and are being irreparably harmed.

Darren and David are growing up without a permanent family, and

are being deprived of an opportunity for healthy development and

normal childhoods.


                              50



Bill G. and Victoria G.

     151. Plaintiffs Bill G. and Victoria G. are brother and

sister, ages fourteen and ten, and have spent virtually their

entire lives in foster care.  Because of CWA's continual failure

to appropriately plan for these children, Bill and Victoria have

never had any real chance of leaving the child welfare system and

enjoying a secure and permanent home.  And because of their

increasing ages, if CWA does not act soon it will become, as a

practical matter, impossible to provide these children with a

permanent home and a relatively normal childhood.

     152. In September, 1985, shortly after Victoria's birth, she

and Bill were placed in foster care pursuant to a finding of

neglect against their natural parents.  At that time, their

parents were living together.  Bill is mentally retarded and

suffers from a mild form of cerebral palsy.  He is labeled as a

special needs child and requires supportive services.

     153. Bill and Victoria were placed together under the

supervision of a private agency, in the foster home of Ms. H.

From September, 1985, to August, 1987, the children's permanency

goal was return to parent.  In order to achieve that goal, the

agency developed -- and CWA approved -- a case plan which called

for parenting classes, psychiatric counseling for Mrs. G.,

completion of an A.A. program by Mr. G., the location of adequate

housing, and regular parent/child visitation.

     154. Neither CWA nor the agency took any steps to implement

the children's case plan by securing Mr. and Mrs. G.'s


                              51



cooperation with the service plan and monitoring their progress.

As a result, there were infrequent parent/child visits, including

an absence of any visits between March 11, 1986, and June 24,

1986 -- a fact CWA did not know because there were no caseworker

contacts with either the children or parents during this three-

month period.

     155. On August 26, 1987, the legal authority for the

children's placement lapsed due to defendants' negligence.  For

nearly two years thereafter, defendants evidenced no awareness

that Bill and Victoria remained in Ms. H.'s home without a legal

placement.  On July 9, 1989, CWA finally obtained a voluntary

placement agreement from Mr. and Mrs. G.

     156. During this period, Bill and Victoria's permanency goal

remained reunification with their parents.  The service plan for

the family repeated the goals of completion of A.A. and parenting

programs, regular visitation, and completion of psychiatric

counseling for Mrs. G.  Despite the parents' longstanding refusal

to comply with identical service plans, CWA failed to work with

them to render it more likely that compliance with the plan --

and achievement of the children's permanency goal -- would occur,

or to justify a change in the children's goal.

     157. In August, 1989, Bill and Victoria reported that they

had been beaten by their parents during an unsupervised weekend

visit.  CWA refused to investigate this report.  Although an

investigation was conducted as the result of a court order, CWA

permitted bi-weekly parent/child visitation to continue.  The


                              52



allegations of abuse against Mr. and Mrs. G. were eventually

deemed "indicated", or founded.

     158. Despite Mr. and Mrs. G.'s well-documented failure to

comply with the elements of the service plan, defendants

continued to fail to develop an appropriate plan for Bill and

Victoria, or to reconsider the children's goal of reunification.

Instead, CWA allowed the children to drift in foster care with no

realistic goal, as it was clear that Mr. and Mrs. G. showed

little interest in having their children returned home.  In fact,

Bill and Victoria were not visited at all between August 8, 1990,

and November 9, 1990.  During the few subsequent visits, Mr. G.

often remained in his bedroom and did not interact with the

children.  And Mr. and Mrs. G. still failed to enter counseling

or A.A. in accordance with their service plan.

     159. On January 17, 1991, nearly five and one-half years

after their initial placement, the Family Court itself

acknowledged that the children's permanency goal was

inappropriate and ordered defendants to file a petition seeking

termination of Mr. and Mrs. G.'s parental rights within 90 days.

While the goal was officially changed to TPR/adoption, defendants

ignored the court's order and failed to file the termination

petition until June 19, 1991 -- more than five months after the

court's order.

     160.  At an August, 1992 hearing, CWA was forced to withdraw

the TPR petition because it had failed to make sufficient


                              53



diligent efforts to work with the Mr. and Mrs. G., and thus

lacked the legal basis to terminate their parental rights.

     161.  In May, 1992, Mr. G. left New York for South Carolina,

and maintained only sporadic contact with the children until his

return in December, 1993 -- nineteen months later.  While this

absence of contact, alone, may have justified the termination of

his rights, CWA failed to pursue this course.  Instead, at a

December, 1993 hearing, CWA claimed that they still had failed to

make diligent efforts to work with the family.  To date, CWA

still has not attempted to obtain a TPR.

     162. When Mr. G. returned to the New York City area in

December, 1993, he demanded that his children be discharged to

his care.  After allowing Bill and Victoria to drift through the

foster care system for nearly eight years, CWA once again changed

the children's goal from adoption to return home.

     163. As in the past, however, CWA failed to ensure that a

reasonable plan be developed and implemented to achieve this

goal.  Instead, the family's service plans in December 1993, June

1994, and December 1994 continued to call for Mr. G. to complete

a general counseling program, an alcohol treatment program and a

parenting program, to obtain adequate housing, and to visit with

the children regularly.  But CWA failed -- and continues to fail

-- to ensure that Mr. G. complies with the same service plan

which he has repeatedly failed to complete for the past decade,

or to pursue a more appropriate goal for these children.  Mr. G.

still only visits the children on a sporadic basis, and there is


                              54



no indication that he has completed, or even begun, any of the

programs required by the plan.

     164. Bill and Victoria have lived with their foster mother,

Ms. H., for the past ten years, and Ms. H. has expressed a desire

to adopt them.  Bill is now fourteen years old and has lived with

Ms. H. since he was three.  Victoria, who is now ten years old,

has been in foster care nearly her entire life.  Ms. H. is

essentially the only mother both children have ever known.  As a

result of CWA's failure to properly manage their case, Bill and

Victoria may lose their chance to be adopted by Ms. H., and may

be returned to an abusive father who has effectively abandoned

them for ten years.

     165. These children remain uncertain as to whether they will

remain with their foster mother or return to their natural

father.  Defendants have failed to provide Bill and Victoria with

psychological counseling to address this lack of stability and

certainty, to prepare them to return to their father, or even to

identify the need for supportive services to render the

transition less traumatic.

     166. Ms. H. has been trained to address Bill's special needs

and, according to CWA's records, she has provided a "stable and

secure" home for Bill and Victoria.  By contrast, Mr. G. is

diagnosed as suffering from "chronic schizophrenia" and "alcohol

abuse."  Removing these children from their current environment

would cause them irreparable harm.


                              55



     167. After a weekend visit with their father in May, 1995,

Bill and Victoria reported that he had neglected to feed them.

Moreover, the children have emphatically stated that they do not

want to live with their father, and that they want to live with

Ms. H., whom they refer to as "Mommy."  While the agency has

cancelled further weekend visits with Mr. G., the children's

permanency goal remains return to home.

     168. Defendants have violated Bill and Victoria's

constitutional and statutory rights by failing to protect them

from harm; by failing to develop written case plans that contain

the required elements in accordance with the law and professional

standards, and are likely to lead to permanency; by failing to

review case plans within the required time periods; by failing to

implement the case plans to ensure their permanent placement, as

required by law and reasonable professional standards; by failing

to conduct an adequate assessment to determine whether placement

with their father is appropriate; and by failing to provide these

children with services necessary to meet their needs.

     169. As a result of defendants' actions and inactions, Bill

and Victoria have been and continue to be irreparably harmed, and

are being deprived of a permanent home and the opportunity for

healthy development.

Brandon H.

     170. Plaintiff Brandon H. is seven years old and has lived

his entire life in foster care.  Despite the fact that his

parents' parental rights have been terminated, and despite the


                              56



fact that he has a potential adoptive parent willing to adopt

him, CWA has failed to take the necessary steps to allow him to

be adopted and to bring the psychologically damaging limbo of

foster care to a close.

     171. Brandon was born on May 25, 1988.  His mother was

twelve years old, and was herself in foster care.  Brandon was

immediately removed from his mother and placed in foster care.

     172. Because CWA failed to extend Brandon's initial

placement under a finding of parental neglect, the legal basis

for his placement lapsed, and on November 27, 1991, CWA filed a

second neglect petition.  This petition -- ultimately upheld by

the court -- alleged, inter alia, that:

          [Brandon's] mother has stated that she likes to
          make babies cry because she likes the way they
          sound and the way their bodies shake.  [Brandon's]
          mother also stated that she likes to overfeed
          babies to see them vomit.

     173. On February 13, 1992, a court ordered CWA to file a

petition seeking termination of Brandon's mother's parental

rights.  Despite this order, and despite Brandon's mother's

obvious inability to care for Brandon, CWA failed to file the TPR

petition until October 5, 1992 -- almost eight months later.

     174. In early 1992, Brandon was placed in a pre-adoptive

home with Ms. W., who, according to a UCR filed on May 25, 1992,

Brandon called "Mommy."

     175. On March 29, 1994, Brandon's mother's parental rights

were terminated by court order.  Despite the fact that Brandon

was now freed for adoption, and despite the fact that a potential


                              57



adoptive parent -- Ms. W. -- had long been identified, CWA failed

to take any of the steps necessary to allow Ms. W. to actually

adopt Brandon.  Almost two years after Brandon was freed for

adoption, CWA has failed to file a petition for adoption, and,

inexplicably, has failed even to transfer Brandon's case to the

CWA adoption division which could begin these procedures.  As a

result, Brandon continues to live in the impermanent and

psychologically damaging limbo of foster care, while CWA does

nothing to address his paramount need for permanency.  Moreover,

by failing to schedule a hearing to review Brandon's status, as

required by law, CWA continues to allow Brandon to be lost in a

system without any oversight or monitoring.

     176. The defendants have violated Brandon's constitutional

and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by

failing to implement his permanency plan and allow him to leave

foster care and enjoy a permanent and secure home; by failing to

provide him with services to facilitate his adoption as required

by law and reasonable professional standards; by failing to

prevent the psychological deterioration caused by such

impermanence; and by failing to schedule mandated hearings, thus

depriving Brandon of his right to mandated oversight of his

status.

     177. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions,

Brandon has been and is being irreparably harmed.  Brandon is

growing up without a permanent family, is being unnecessarily

subjected to the uncertainty of foster care status, and is being


                              58



deprived of an opportunity for healthy development and a normal

childhood.

Steven I.

     178. Plaintiff Steven I. is sixteen years old, and has been

in foster care his entire life.  CWA has never provided

appropriate and legally mandated case and permanency planning,

and has failed to provide services to help Steven address the

severe psychiatric and emotional problems which he has developed

while in foster care.  Although the doctors who have treated

Steven claim that he needs long-term residential treatment, CWA

has ignored -- and continues to ignore -- his need for such care.

Instead, CWA inappropriately assigned Steven to a group home,

from which he ran away in 1994.  Steven has never returned to

this inappropriate placement, choosing instead to live on the

streets.

     179. Steven was born on July 12, 1979, with drugs in his

bloodstream, and was removed from his mother's care soon

thereafter, as the result of a neglect finding.  Steven was

placed in foster care first with his grandmother, and, after her

death, with an aunt.  Steven's case was supervised directly by

CWA, not by a voluntary agency.

     180. By age twelve, Steven was demonstrating severe

emotional problems and engaging in violent behavior at school,

including attempting to rape a nine-year-old girl, soliciting

oral sex from two other girls, stabbing people with pencils and


                              59



setting fires.  Despite this behavior, CWA failed to provide

proper services to Steven to deal with these problems.

     181. Because of his violent behavior, Steven's aunt took

Steven for a diagnostic psychiatric evaluation.  The doctors who

evaluated Steven recommended that to prevent his further

psychological deterioration he should be placed in a long-term

residential treatment facility with the experience and expertise

to address his severe psychiatric needs.  CWA failed to refer

Steven for such a placement, or to provide Steven and his aunt

with services sufficient to address his problems.

     182. When CWA refused to take the steps necessary to prevent

Steven's psychological condition from further deteriorating,

Steven's aunt, on her own initiative, took him to a clinic for

psychiatric help.  For several months after visiting the clinic,

Steven's behavior improved.  But in December, 1992, and again in

December, 1993, he attempted to molest other children.  As a

result, the doctors at the clinic recommended long-term

residential treatment to address Steven's needs and prevent

further deterioration of his condition.

     183. Again, CWA failed to act.  In September, 1994, at the

age of fifteen, Steven was committed to New York Hospital, where

he was labeled a "sexual predator."  Despite this, upon his

release in October, 1994, CWA placed Steven in a group home which

lacked the facilities to address his increasingly severe

emotional problems.  Predictably, Steven ran away from this group

home, and now lives primarily on the streets.


                              60



     184. Two weeks ago, Steven's aunt -- with whom he is

intermittently in contact -- took him to the clinic which had

previously treated him and tried to get him admitted for

psychiatric treatment.  CWA initially delayed the authorization

for payment for such treatment, and, several hours later, after

numerous phone calls, when CWA agreed to pay for such treatment,

Steven and his aunt had already left the hospital without

obtaining help.  Since that time, CWA has made no attempts to

find Steven -- who remains in CWA's legal custody -- or to

provide him the care he desperately needs.

     185. The defendants have violated Steven's constitutional

and statutory rights by failing to protect him from harm; by

failing to provide services necessary to prevent him from

psychologically deteriorating while in foster care; by failing to

develop and implement case plans that contain the required

elements, in accordance with the law and reasonable professional

standards; by failing to make appropriate casework contacts with

Steven and monitor his progress as required by law and reasonable

professional standards; and by failing to provide planning and

services that would permit him to be placed in a permanent home.

     186. As a result of the defendants' actions and inactions,

Steven has been and continues to be irreparably harmed.  Steven

is growing up without a permanent family, is being subjected to

the uncertainty of foster care status, is living on the streets,

is receiving no care for his severe psychological problems, and


                              61



is being deprived of an opportunity for healthy development and a

normal childhood.

       FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SYSTEMIC DEFICIENCIES

     187. The experiences and current situations of the named

plaintiffs are neither unusual nor aberrational.  Rather, they

are merely several examples of the defendants' systemic failure

to fulfill their legal responsibilities to the entire class of

children whom they are legally obligated to serve.

     188. The failures delineated herein all result from

defendants' long-standing pattern and practice of illegality, and

their deliberate indifference to the needs of the children in the

plaintiff class.  Any attempts defendants may have made to remedy

these failings have been ineffective.

     189. Defendants have long been aware of the need to redress

these problems, and have had the authority to ameliorate them.

But they have refused to exercise their authority, and refused to

ensure that adequate funds are available and used appropriately

to ensure compliance with the law.

                       Protective Services

     190. Protective services are those services aimed at

protecting vulnerable children from physical or psychological

abuse and neglect.

     191. Defendants fail to protect children in circumstances

when they have received reports notifying them that a particular

child is in danger of abuse or neglect.  Many investigations are

neither timely nor adequate, with the result that numerous


                              62



children are harmed -- often severely, and even fatally --

because CWA has failed to meet its obligation to protect them.

     192. The law requires that defendants have in place a system

for accepting reports of suspected child abuse or neglect.  In

New York, this system is the State Central Register, operated by

the state Department of Social Services and commonly known as the

"hotline."

     193. The State Central Register is understaffed, making it

extremely difficult to actually report suspected child abuse or

neglect.  Calls either go unanswered or, once answered, are

placed on hold interminably.

     194. Currently, State Central Register staff will not accept

a call for investigation unless the caller can offer what amounts

to proof of child abuse or neglect on the telephone.  Many well-

founded reports of child abuse or neglect -- even those made by

credible, professional sources such as doctors or teachers -- are

deemed insufficient to warrant investigation.

     195. The state hotline fails to maintain any records on the

number of allegations of abuse and neglect it refuses to accept

for investigation.

     196. Those reports that are accepted frequently linger

without proper CWA investigation well beyond the mandatory

investigative time period.

     197. The law specifies that investigations must be initiated

within twenty-four hours, that a preliminary investigation report

be written within seven days, and that the investigation be


                              63



completed within sixty days.  Defendants fail to meet these

requirements.

     198. CWA's records indicate that in 1993 only 39.5 percent

of its protective service investigations were completed within

the legal timeframe.  Of the 44,758 protective service

investigations pending in November, 1993, 39,057 were delinquent,

and 14,072 had been pending for more than six years.

     199. To address the enormous backlog of protective service

investigations, between December, 1993, and February, 1994, CWA

"administratively expunged" 13,000 cases with long-outstanding

investigations--that is, the agency simply removed the cases from

its computer files, while doing nothing to ensure that the

investigations had been completed, or even begun.

     200. Many of the investigations that are conducted are

perfunctory and inadequate to protect children.  Investigations

often fail to include visits to the child's home, face-to-face or

telephone interviews with the child, or the collection of

information from informed sources such as police officers,

teachers, and medical professionals, though all these steps are

required by law.

     201. According to a recent memorandum by a CWA attorney,

some child protective services caseworkers -- who are responsible

for investigating allegations of abuse or neglect, and are also

known as "protective/diagnostic" or "P/D" workers -- condone

violence against children, including corporal punishment, in

violation of CWA's policies.


                              64



     202. On account of these multiple failings, numerous

children are allowed to remain in homes in which they are in

danger.  Many children are physically injured, often severely.

Some have been killed before CWA took the initiative to commence

or complete the investigations.

     203. Despite the absence of credible evidence that the

actual incidence of child abuse and neglect is declining, the

percentage of allegations deemed "indicated" by CWA has declined

significantly in recent years.  In 1989, 54.3 percent of the

allegations were indicated; in 1990, 49.6 percent; in 1991, 44.8

percent; and in 1992, 32.1 percent.

     204. During the five-year period from 1990 to 1994, 197 New

York City children who had been subjects of calls to the State

Central Register died.  According to a report by CWA's Child

Fatality Review Panel, forty-seven percent of these deaths --

ninety-three children -- died by homicide, and in most of these

cases the perpetrator was the child's parent or caretaker.

     205. In 1990, CWA had 1,080 P/D workers.  Due to a series of

layoffs, buyouts and early retirement incentives, earlier this

year only 712 remained.

     206. P/D workers are not provided the most basic necessary

equipment, including beepers to facilitate contact with them when

they are out in the field.  An absurd back-and-forth between

notes left on unanswered doors and telephone messages left at

empty offices results in unacceptable delay, during which no

actual investigation occurs, placing children in grave danger.


                              65



     207. Child Welfare League of America standards state that

protective service caseworkers should carry no more than twelve

investigative cases at a time, but many of CWA's protective

service caseworkers have caseloads far in excess of this number.

This City-wide problem is particularly acute in Kings and Bronx

Counties, where caseloads can reach thirty or more.  Such

caseloads prevent even the finest, most dedicated caseworkers

from doing their jobs effectively and protecting children.

     208. Upon information and belief, the number and percentage

of reports of suspected child abuse or neglect that are accepted

for investigation vary substantially over relatively short

periods of time.  Upon further information and belief, these

changes reflect management decisions regarding the number of new

cases the system "can handle."  The changes do not result from

changes in the number or severity of calls made to the hotline.

     209. When investigating allegations of child abuse or

neglect, caseworkers often misuse voluntary placements.  Rather

than take the time and do the paperwork to file abuse and neglect

charges, or provide the services necessary to avoid foster care

placements, caseworkers urge parents to sign documents

"voluntarily" placing their children in foster care.  While this

is easier for the caseworker, it undermines the children's and

parents' rights to the provision of appropriate services, and to

certain procedural protections before a family is broken apart.

     210. This practice also places children in jeopardy, because

many children placed "voluntarily" into foster care are placed


                              66



from homes in which they are in danger of abuse or neglect.  And

it is much easier for parents to obtain the release of children

placed voluntarily, and to return them to the same dangerous

situations from which they were "voluntarily" removed.

     211. Defendants are particularly reluctant to investigate

allegations that teenagers have been abused and neglected, for

reasons having nothing to do with the likelihood that such

allegations are true.  Because CWA lacks sufficient placements

for adolescents, CWA is loathe to admit them to a system where

they will remain in long-term foster care, unlikely to be

adopted.  Instead, defendants refer vulnerable teenagers to

emergency homeless shelters or private facilities such as

Covenant House, despite the fact that teenagers may remain in

these facilities for only thirty days.

                       Preventive Services

     212. Preventive services are services provided to children

at risk of placement in foster care.  These legally required

services are designed to help families remain together whenever

possible by helping families address whatever problems have

placed the child(ren) at risk of foster care placement.

     213. CWA provides almost no services to avert the need for

foster care placement in appropriate circumstances.

     214. CWA routinely fails to respond to serious problems

within families that could lead to a child's placement in foster

care, even when these problems are known to the agency.


                              67



     215. When service plans are written, they are not adjusted

over time in response to families' changing needs.

     216. CWA has very few programs to preserve families and

avert the need for foster care placement under appropriate

circumstances.  Those programs that exist are woefully inadequate

to meet the needs, and legal rights, of the plaintiff children.

     217. CWA has failed to develop and ensure access to a

sufficient number and type of service providers, though legally

required to do so.  This failure has resulted in long waiting

lists for such services as day care, family therapy and housing

assistance.  The current waiting list for mental health services,

for example, is between eight and nine months, and will be

exacerbated once several child psychiatric treatment centers are

closed, as is scheduled.  Treatment programs for drug abuse and

family violence are similarly limited.

     218. In recent months, homemaker services to families at

risk of having children removed into foster care have been

dramatically reduced.

     219. After making referrals to private service providers,

CWA caseworkers do not follow up to ensure that the family

follows through or that the agency actually has the capacity and

ability to provide the family with the services that it needs.

     220. The types and degree of services available to keep

families together -- and the decision whether to provide such

services to particular families and children -- are driven not by

the families' needs or the likelihood that the services will


                              68



succeed in keeping a family together, but by fiscal concerns and

prevailing ideologies.

     221. As a result of these failures, many children are now in

foster care who would be home with their families had appropriate

preventive services been provided, as required by law.

                Permanency Planning for Children

     222. Foster care is intended as a temporary system, in which

the government agency quickly assesses the problems and service

needs of a child and family, decides whether a child can and

should be returned to the family, provides services to try to

implement the goal of returning the child, determines whether the

goal is unrealistic or cannot or should not be accomplished

within a reasonable period of time and, if the child cannot or

should not be returned, makes every effort to find another

permanent family for the child, usually through adoption.

     223. Although the law requires caseworkers to establish a

goal to achieve permanency for a child within a reasonable period

of time, and to develop a step-by-step strategic plan for

achieving this goal, in New York this almost never occurs.

224. Instead, planning for New York City children takes

place by default, in violation of reasonable professional

standards.  Children languish in foster care for years, with no

realistic planning taking place.  That is why New York City

children remain in foster care three times longer than the

national average: 4.2 years as compared to 1.4.


                              69



     225. As a result of CWA's totally unprofessional decision-

making, CWA has a recidivism rate of twenty per cent, with many

children returned home without adequate investigation,

supervision or supportive service, only to have the same problems

recur, requiring a return to foster care.  Such "planning" as

takes place often consists merely of a caseworker appearing at

periodic court reviews -- when these occur at all -- and stating

that the child's goal is "extension of foster care placement."

This problem is so acute that one New York City judge has posted

a sign on the wall of her courtroom that reads: "Extension of

placement is not a goal."

     226. Instead of making a careful, individualized judgment

about the appropriate long-term goal for a child, virtually all

children are initially assigned a goal of return home -- whether

the child has been seriously abused over a long period of time,

whether the parent has abused other siblings or evidenced any

interest in having the child returned, and whether the child has

previously been in foster care because of the parent's inability

or unwillingness to care for the child in the past.

     227. Despite having a goal of returning a child to the

parent, however, CWA often does little to ensure that this goal

is accomplished, either by providing necessary services to the

parent or ensuring that its contract agencies provide these

services.  Thus those parents who could resume custody of their

children were services provided to help them are often unable to

do so.


                              70



     228. At the same time, children whose parents cannot or will

not benefit from services, and whose sole hope for permanency is

adoption, often cannot be adopted because CWA fails to change

their goal to adoption for extraordinarily long periods of time.

CWA does not even begin the process of attempting to free a child

for adoption until after the child's goal has been changed,

regardless of whether legal grounds exist to do so.

                   Assessments and Case Plans

     229. Although assessments and case plans are the key to

ensuring that children receive appropriate services and necessary

treatment, and that permanency goals for children are

implemented, many children do not get service assessments and

case plans in a timely and professional manner as required by

law.  Caseworkers frequently prepare assessments and plans

several weeks or sometimes months after they are due.  In some

cases, they do not prepare any assessment or plan.  Although CWA

must approve every assessment and case plan prepared by a

voluntary agency, it routinely approves plans months after they

have taken effect.

     230. Service assessments frequently fail to accurately

identify the reasons why a child is at risk of foster care

placement or is in foster care.  While a parent's drug abuse or

mental illness account for a large percentage of foster care

placements, caseworkers are not trained to recognize these

problems, and assessments frequently do not reflect them.


                              71



     231. Assessments often fail to describe adequately the role

of each member of a child's family, and how that family member

contributed to the problems that placed the child in foster care

or at risk of foster care placement.  For example, assessments

and case plans often fail to account for issues of domestic

violence in a family, even if an abusive father or boyfriend is

the primary perpetrator of abuse.

     232. Case plans do not contain necessary and appropriate

service referrals.  Most plans contain the same two service

referrals -- "parenting skills" and "therapy" -- without regard

to the individualized needs of the families for whom the plans

are prepared.  It is not unusual for case plans to refer mentally

ill parents to "general counselling," or to refer parents who

simply lack housing to a parenting class.

     233. There are inadequate attempts to develop service plans

that provide for a comprehensive package of services to families

and children with serious psychiatric and medical needs.  Often,

for example, sexually abused children do not receive referrals

for necessary psychiatric and medical services.

     234. Because many referrals are inappropriate, severely

abused children often bounce from service provider to service

provider, undermining the continuity essential to the effective

delivery of services.

     235. CWA fails to ensure that those services identified as

necessary are available and actually provided.


                              72



     236. Service plans do not track a family's ongoing efforts

or failures in resolving the problems that led to the need for

service intervention, documenting the parents' progress or lack

thereof in meeting established goals.  Instead, many case plans

merely repeat the contents of the previous service plan, in

rubber-stamp fashion.

     237. Service plans are not reviewed in the manner required

by law.  Although parents are to be included in the review, they

often are not invited, do not receive copies of the plans, and do

not sign the plans indicating that such plans have been explained

to them and that they are in agreement with the plans' contents.

Because of their exclusion, parents frequently do not know what

is required of them under the plan and what tasks they must

accomplish to facilitate their child's discharge from foster

care.  The result is that children stay in foster care for

unnecessarily long periods of time.

     238. When the caseworker assigned to a case goes on

vacation, no temporary caseworker is assigned, so all assessment

and case planning activity ceases, and nobody monitors the

child(ren).

                     Out-of-Home Placements

     239. When children are removed from the family setting, they

are placed on a "hit-or-miss" basis in whatever bed is available,

often with foster parents who have not been appropriately

screened or trained.


                              73



     240. Because defendants have not developed a sufficient

range of different types of placements to meet the needs of

children, many children are placed inappropriately.

     241. Because of an insufficient number of adolescent

placements, teenage foster children are either not taken into

placement when necessary, or are pushed out of the foster care

system and forced to live either on the streets or in one

temporary shelter facility after another.

     242. Because of a lack of appropriate mother-child

placements, many girls who give birth while in foster care are

separated from their babies.  Mothers and their babies are placed

in a series of inappropriate placements, undermining their

healthy development.

     243. Because of a lack of adequate placements for children

with special psychiatric or medical needs, many children with

serious problems deteriorate further while in defendants'

custody.  Although foster care placements are supposed to be as

stable and family-like as possible, CWA's lack of adequate

placements and managerial ineptitude undermine these goals.

Children frequently bounce from one placement to another, with no

stability at all.  One young man, for example, was recently moved

to his seventy-seventh different foster care placement since

1991.

     244. Many foster homes are not reasonably in accord with

required standards for such homes.  Initial home studies and

investigations are superficial, and foster care license renewal


                              74



requirements are disregarded.  Some foster parents are barely

functional.  Some individuals who are given foster parent

licenses have no real interest in children, but are simply

interested in the additional income.  Others, whose homes have

been decertified as foster homes because of allegations of abuse

or neglect, simply wait several months, apply for certification

with another private agency, and get recertified because the

absence of data prevents adequate background checking.  Upon

information and belief, between five and ten percent of foster

parents have criminal records.

     245. Reports of children being abused and neglected while in

foster homes are not investigated in the manner or within the

time periods required by law.  Abuse or neglect by foster parents

often is not even reported, because CWA and the voluntary

agencies tolerate behavior from foster parents which would be

unacceptable if exhibited by birth parents.  Caseworkers

routinely delay action, despite their knowledge of a foster

child's abuse, jeopardizing the child's safety.

     246. Defendants have failed to ensure that foster parents

receive the training necessary to enable them to provide proper

care to the children placed with them.  As a result, many

children who have entered defendants' custody with problems

created by abuse or neglect in their own homes are further

deteriorating under CWA's care.


                              75



                   Services to Foster Children

     247. Foster children do not receive the services necessary

to keep them free from harm while in foster care, and to enable

them to return home, to be freed for adoption, or to live

independently once they leave defendants' custody.

     248. While in foster care, children suffer a myriad of

substantial deprivations, including but not limited to inadequate

physical health care, inadequate mental health care and

inadequate educational services.

Health Care and Related Services

     249. Although CWA is required to ensure that children in its

custody receive adequate health care, many foster children's

physical and mental health care needs go unaddressed.  These

failures include the entire spectrum of health care services

required by law, from well-child exams to care for end-stage AIDS

patients.

     250. Foster children have particularly high health care

needs -- which is unsurprising among a group of children who have

been abused and neglected.

     251. A study conducted by the New York State Department of

Social Services Office of Quality Assurance and Audit, released

in May, 1995, paints a picture of devastating failure:

          a.   Fewer than one percent of foster children's

     medical records have all the required components.


                              76



          b.   Only eighteen percent of foster children receive

     complete comprehensive medical examinations, as mandated by

     law.

          c.   Only half of foster children's records indicate

     that they have received immunizations as required by law.

          d.   Less than thirty-four percent of foster children

     receive age-appropriate lead blood tests.

          e.   Children in direct foster care (i.e., serviced

     directly by CWA, not by one of the voluntary agencies) fare

     the worst, have the worst health problems, and suffer from

     the poorest documentation of their medical records.

     252. A study conducted by the United States General

Accounting Office, also released in May, 1995, reveals a similar

pattern of failure:

          a.   "Important health-related needs, including routine

     medical examination and various specialized services,

    remain[] unmet for nearly one-third of the young foster

    children in the locations reviewed[, including New York]."

          b.   More than one-third of foster children receive no

    immunizations.

          c.   Children placed in foster care with their

    relatives are less likely than children in other foster care

    settings to receive necessary and required health care.

    253. Children enmeshed in the child welfare system have much

more severe and pervasive mental health needs than children

generally.  Yet CWA and private agency caseworkers often lack the


                              77



skills necessary to recognize the symptoms of mental illness and

to take appropriate action.

     254. And for those children whose mental health care needs

are identified, there is a critical lack of appropriate services.

CWA has failed to develop and provide a sufficient range and

quantity of mental health care services -- from relatively

informal counseling to in-patient psychiatric care -- to address

the needs of the children it is required to serve.

     255. Adolescents who need specialized clinical or

psychotherapeutic intervention typically do not receive it.

     256. Defendants also fail to provide foster children with

disabilities -- including but not limited to those with HIV and

AIDS -- with the services necessary to allow them to participate

fully in the City's child welfare system as required by law, nor

do they ensure that the private agencies with which they contract

provide such services.

     257. There is an insufficient number of appropriate

placements for foster children with HIV, AIDS and other acute

disabilities.

     258. Foster children with disabilities requiring medical

care often do not receive it.

     259. Foster children who rely upon a mechanical apparatus

such as a wheelchair or leg braces do not receive necessary parts

and supplies, and as a result are sometimes home-bound and forced

to miss school.


                              78



Educational Services

     260. CWA, directly and through the private agencies with

which it contracts, is required to take such steps as are

necessary to ensure that all children in foster care receive

education appropriate to their needs and in accordance with the

requirements of the state education laws; to maintain an active

and direct liaison with all foster children's schools; and to

ensure that all foster children receive appropriate educational

and vocational guidance.  CWA is systemically failing to meet any

of these obligations.

     261. Because of CWA's failure, foster children face a

variety of problems, including but not limited to the following:

          a.   Foster children's biological parents are not

     included in educational decision-making.

          b.   Foster children are disproportionately and

     inappropriately placed in special education, adding to the

     stigma inherent in being in foster care, and increasing the

     likelihood that these children will either drop out of

     school or become so demoralized that they fall behind grade

     level.

          c.   Some foster children are placed in residential

     facilities with in-house education programs, which are often

     insufficient, and are inadequately monitored by CWA.

          d.   When foster children must change schools -- which

     occurs with alarming frequency, as children move from

     placement to placement -- their educational records do not


                              79



     follow them, so educational continuity becomes impossible.

     And when children leave foster care and return to their

     neighborhood school or high school of choice, their

     educational records from their time in foster care often do

     not follow them, so they receive no credit for schoolwork

     completed while in foster care.

     262. Foster children with learning disabilities do not

receive the testing necessary to document their disability, and

thus are precluded from receiving legally mandated accommodations

for it.

     263. CWA has failed to foster an appropriate working

relationship with the New York City Board of Education, though

such a relationship could facilitate appropriate school

placements, transportation of educational records, and continuity

of educational services.

Reunification Services

     264. Foster children are not provided with services

necessary to facilitate the prompt reunification of their

families, as required by law.

     265. Once a child is placed in foster care, caseworkers

frequently cease to work with the child's family members to

address the problems that led to the placement and prepare for

the child's return home.

     266. Because parents are not included sufficiently in

planning for their children's permanent discharge from foster


                              80



care, they frequently do not even know or understand what they

must do to secure their children's discharge.

     267. As a result of these failures, children often spend

years longer than necessary in government custody.

Adoption Services

     268. Because case planning and case management are so inept,

CWA does not set appropriate permanency goals for children.  Even

long after it is clear that a child will never be able to return

home, CWA does not set a goal of adoption.  While waiting for

their goals to be changed, thousands of children get too old to

be strong candidates for adoption, and end up spending many

unnecessary years in foster care.

     269. At every stage of the adoption process, CWA and the

private agencies drag their feet interminably.  Thousands of

foster children who cannot return home remain unadapted because

CWA has failed to take the prerequisite actions by establishing a

goal of adoption, terminating parental rights, placing the

children in properly screened pre-adoptive homes, and moving the

legal adoption process forward.

     270. The failure to involve parents in planning for their

children often impedes the adoption process.  Many times

adoptions cannot move forward because CWA has not engaged in

legally required "diligent efforts" to reunify the child's

biological family.

     271. Once CWA sets a goal of adoption, it takes an average

of 3.2 years for CWA to complete the adoption, undermining the


                              81



child's paramount need for stability and permanency.  For

children in CWA's direct care -- not placed with a private agency

-- the average is 3.8 years.

     272. Currently, more than 18,000 New York City foster

children have a permanency goal of adoption, many of whom are

legally free for adoption.  But CWA completes only approximately

2,400 adoptions each year.

     273. CWA has failed to develop an aggressive adoptive home

recruitment program so foster children for whom adoption is

necessary have a chance to be placed in a permanent family.  And

defendants fail diligently to recruit potential adoptive parents

who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of New York City's

foster children.

     274. Children in need of adoption have already spent long

years in foster care.  Some of them have lived with foster

parents with whom they have formed significant bonds.  But these

foster placements have often been made initially on an emergency

basis, without regard to whether the foster parent would be an

appropriate adoptive parent.  As a result of CWA's lack of

planning and professionally responsible decision-making early in

the child's placement, coupled with the long delays in CWA's

initiating the adoption process, for many children the choice

often becomes a less than adequate adoptive parent or the

disruption of an existing emotional bond.


                              82



                   Independent Living Services

     275. Foster children who cannot return home or be adopted

are legally entitled to services designed to prepare them to live

independently upon leaving the foster care system.  These

services are not provided in any meaningful way.  Young people

regularly "graduate" from the foster care system at age eighteen

or older4 lacking the education, training and skills necessary

to live independent, productive lives.

     276. The independent living program consists primarily of

lessons on balancing a checkbook, despite the fact that most

participants have neither a job nor a bank account.

     277. The independent living program provides no meaningful

vocational training, so young people leaving foster care lack the

skills necessary to allow them to assume employment and become

self-supporting, nor does CWA ensure that these young people

receive vocational training elsewhere.  This problem is

compounded by CWA's failure to ensure that foster children

receive an appropriate education, with the result that an

extraordinarily high percentage of young people being discharged

from foster care have not even graduated from high school.

     278. Some foster children who will be making the transition

to independent living are not United States citizens, but are

entitled under federal law to receive permanent residency cards

____________________
     4    Young people who enter foster care before turning
eighteen are permitted to remain in the system through age
twenty-one.  CWA has the right to discharge them, but must
provide them with ninety days' notice and services in accordance
with a reasonable discharge plan.


                              83



(commonly called "green cards").  Although permanent resident

status would enhance these young people's ability to obtain

higher education, housing and employment, CWA does nothing to

help them obtain such status.

     279. Foster children with disabilities receive no assistance

with making the particularly difficult transition to independent

living.  They are provided no help learning how to live on their

own with their disabilities, and are not even informed of

programs and benefits available to them.  Instead, they are often

pressured to sign themselves out of the foster care system as

soon as they turn eighteen and are legally able to do so.

Caseworker Screening, Training, Retention and Support

     280. Applicants for CWA caseworker positions are not

properly screened by educational background or ability to

successfully carry out a difficult and important job, nor is a

caseworker required to have anything more than a bachelor's

degree in any subject.

     281. Before entering the field, caseworkers receive only

twenty days of training, most of which focuses not on child

development but on filling out forms and other paperwork tasks.

As a result, caseworkers are wholly unprepared to make critical

assessments, to provide and access necessary services, or to work

with children and families.

     282. According to CWA's own lawyers, some caseworkers speak

little or no English, and therefor cannot testify regarding the


                              84



facts of their cases or communicate with their clients or other

service providers.

     283. Although new caseworkers are required to attend

training classes, they are not required to demonstrate any level

of competency before assuming responsibility for a caseload.  In

November, 1994, for example, one third of the child protective

services caseworkers graduating from CWA's pre-service training

program at the James Satterwhite Academy scored below sixty

percent on the multiple-choice final exam.  These caseworkers

were nonetheless employed and entrusted with life and death

decisions.

     284. When caseworkers fail the examination at the conclusion

of their training, they are rarely terminated.

     285. When "too many" caseworkers fail the examinations at

the conclusion of their training, CWA does act -- by removing the

most difficult questions from the next examination and lowering

the passing score.  Standards are continually ratcheted down.

     286. Once employed, caseworkers are not provided with the

supervision and support necessary to investigate reports of abuse

or neglect adequately; to monitor foster care placements

properly; to ensure that children, their birth families and their

foster families receive the services that they need; or to engage

in necessary and legally required case planning and management.

     287. Because of frequent turnover and the fact that

promotions are based on seniority instead of merit, CWA lacks

managers and supervisors with appropriate skills and experience


                              85



to direct and be accountable for a workforce required to make

critical life and death decisions.  Although CWA supervisors are

required to have Master of Social Work degrees, most do not.

     288. Because their supervisors do not have the necessary

skills, experience or education, caseworkers do not receive

needed supervision, guidance or support.  Although immediate

supervisors are required to meet with their caseworkers either

individually or in a group for at least one hour per week, these

meetings do not occur.

     289. CWA supervisors sometimes attempt to transfer cases to

other units or managers quickly when they sense trouble, so that

if a case blows up the disaster occurs on someone else's watch.

When something does go wrong, the parties typically engage in

mutual recrimination, instead of working together so the problem

does not occur again.

     290. With high caseloads and a lack of adequate supervision,

support and training, a large number of CWA caseworkers leave

after one or two years.  Transferring from CWA to another agency

-- public or private -- is commonly viewed as a step up.  Upon

information and belief, the annual turnover rate among protective

service caseworkers exceeds sixty percent.  As a result, the

front-line staff is frequently young, inexperienced and poorly

trained.


                              86



          Monitoring and Supervision of Private Agencies

     291. CWA's "supervision" of the private, voluntary agencies

and its "management" of the cases referred to these agencies are

hollow shells.

     292. Although CWA has legal responsibility for all children

in foster care, it delegates the day-to-day responsibility for

the vast majority of foster children to a series of private

agencies.  CWA nevertheless has final authority with regard to

all decisions that must be made for these children, and the

obligation to ensure that all children's cases are handled in

accordance with the law and reasonable professional standards.

CWA frequently fails to carry out this responsibility, either by

passively ignoring agencies' failure to provide necessary

services, or by affirmatively impeding the agencies' ability to

do their job.

     293. While the private agency caseworker has responsibility

for developing and overseeing the day-to-day implementation of a

child's case plan, the CWA caseworker retains case management

responsibility for overseeing and ensuring the implementation of

the case plans and approving the child's long-term goals.

     294. Pursuant to this system, however, neither CWA nor the

private agency actually assumes ultimate responsibility for these

children.  As a result, the children frequently are allowed to

languish without appropriate goals or service plans because

neither the private agency nor CWA meets its responsibilities


                              87



independently -- and they fail to work together in the integrated

way envisioned, and required, by the law.

     295. For the approximately seventy percent of New York City

foster children who are placed with private agencies pursuant to

contracts with CWA, there is no clarity among the persons

involved regarding precisely what responsibilities remain with

CWA's supervisory caseworkers and what responsibilities are borne

by the private agency's caseworkers.  As a result, problems are

not addressed, but rather are tossed from worker to worker, and

agency to agency.

     296. Defendants do little to ensure that workers employed by

the private agencies are adequately trained and supervised or

that they have caseloads that enable them to fulfill their

obligations in a manner consistent with reasonable professional

standards.  Upon information and belief, many private agency

caseworkers carry caseloads that are above professionally

acceptable standards.

     297. Private agency caseworkers and agencies are not held

accountable for their actions.  Some private agencies provide

excellent services; others decidedly do not.  Many agencies are

routinely permitted to fall below professionally acceptable

service levels without penalty, and continue to have children

referred to them.  Even when private agencies' failures or

inadequacies are noted by CWA, the agencies are allowed to

continue to care for children without any attempt to ensure that

the problems are remedied.  CWA recently determined that two


                              88



agencies provided such sub-standard care that children should be

transferred to other agencies.  Nevertheless on information and

belief, it has still allowed hundreds of children to remain under

those two agencies' supervision.

     298. Beginning in 1980, a "Program Assessment Service

Report" ("PAS" Report) was prepared for each private agency,

purportedly to enable CWA to evaluate the agencies' performance.

Although these evaluations were never done adequately, in 1989

the evaluation process was made even less rigorous when the PAS

Reports were replaced with "Contractor Overall Performance

Evaluation" ("COPE") Reports.  COPE reports, which remain in use

today, are far less comprehensive and detailed than were the PAS

Reports and are used in conjunction with self assessments

prepared by the agencies to self "monitor" their performance.

     299. Not only does CWA fail to ensure that the private

agencies fulfill their responsibilities and legal obligations to

children, CWA often actively impedes their ability to do so.

Recently, for example, CWA transferred approximately 850 cases to

different private agencies.  Many agencies received memoranda

informing them that, effective immediately, they were responsible

for certain children's cases.  But the memoranda listed only the

children's names.  The children's physical whereabouts were not

provided, nor were their case records, their medical histories or

the identities, telephone numbers or addresses of their

biological or foster parents.


                              89



               Administrative and Judicial Reviews

     300. Defendants are required to provide children in the

child welfare system with administrative or judicial reviews of

their status at least every six months, with a dispositional

hearing after eighteen months, and with regular judicial reviews

thereafter.  The reason for these reviews and hearings is to

ensure that foster children's cases are periodically overseen by

a disinterested person, that children remain in foster care for

as short a period as possible, and that the children's progress

toward achieving permanency is monitored so they do not languish

interminably in foster care.

     301. New York City foster children routinely do not receive

these reviews and hearings in the time periods and manner

required by law.

     302. CWA fails to ensure that voluntary placement agreements

are reviewed by family courts within the required time period.

It routinely fails to file the motions necessary to extend foster

care placements.  As a result of these failures, many children

are placed in foster care or allowed to remain in foster care

without legal authority, subjecting them to unnecessary

instability and uncertainty.  And children are sometimes

discharged from foster care solely because legal custody has

lapsed.

     303. When hearings take place, CWA frequently fails to

provide information sufficient to allow informed decision-making.

As a result, meaningful periodic review of the appropriateness of


                              90



a child's placement, case plan and goal is, as a practical

matter, frequently impossible.

     304. When review of a child's placement does occur, CWA

frequently exhibits a complete lack of accountability for the

child's progress, or lack thereof.  The CWA attorney is often

unfamiliar with the case and the child, and is reduced to reading

the file during the hearing to learn something of what is going

on.  A common scenario has the caseworker from the private agency

handling the child's case defer to the caseworker from CWA, who

in turn defers to the attorney, who is still looking in the file

to learn the child's name.

     305. Orders that particular services be provided or

particular steps taken -- for example, that a petition to

terminate parental rights and free a child for adoption be filed

by a date certain -- are routinely ignored and violated.  By the

time the case returns for a subsequent hearing, many of the

persons who attended the previous hearing have been replaced by

new people unfamiliar with what was previously ordered.

Accountability for noncompliance is effectively impossible.

                       Information System

     306. CWA's information system is antiquated and inadequate.

Computer systems are nonfunctional and do not contain accurate,

up-to-date information.  Computer-generated reports are routinely

manipulated to produce statistics that CWA or DSS deems

acceptable, rather than statistics that reflect either agency's

performance.  Because necessary recording and paperwork tasks


                              91



that should be computerized are not, caseworkers spend fifty to

sixty percent. of their time completing required paperwork.

     307. Record-keeping is so poor that private agencies and CWA

hold widely divergent views about how many children are in the

agencies' care at a given time.  Many foster children cannot be

physically located because CWA has no accurate address for their

placement.

     308. A May, 1994, report by the Office of the New York State

Comptroller stated that while the private agencies in New York

City reported 29,468 children in their care, CWA's computerized

information system reported 25,653 -- a difference of 3,815

missing children.  And a 1994 report by the Office of the New

York City Comptroller found that CWA had listed nearly one of

every five foster children by the wrong address.

     309. Upon information and belief, in 1994 CWA simply lost

the files of 16,000 children who may have been abused or

neglected.

     310. When a case is transferred from one CWA unit to

another, the transfer process is not computerized.  Instead, the

physical transfer of the file frequently takes up to six months,

during which the case remains in bureaucratic limbo, with no

assessment, planning or monitoring.

     311. Case records are incomplete and disorganized.  Many are

simply lost.  Critical information is left for months on index

cards, awaiting entry into computer systems.  And once entered,

the information is not accessible to those who need it.


                              92



     312. A November, 1993, review of a series of CWA case files

indicated that it took, on average, two hours just to organize

each file sufficiently to evaluate its contents.

     313. Front-line caseworkers who must make critical decisions

do not have access to current information necessary to make wise

professional choices in the interests of children and families.

Upon information and belief, one of the factors precipitating

Elisa Izquierdo's recent death was that CWA's information about

her and her family was located into three separate computer

files.

              Ineffective Maximization of Resources

     314. Upon information and belief, defendants do not take the

steps necessary to ensure that the New York City child welfare

system receives the maximum amount of possible federal financial

support.  Some funds are lost because defendants do not keep

adequate records, a condition of receiving federal funds, even

though such revenue could provide additional, sorely needed

services to the plaintiff children.

     315. Many of the expenditures in the New York City child

welfare system are unnecessarily high, without providing benefits

for children and families.  Duplication, waste, inefficiency and

mismanagement have produced a system that is both bloated and

lacking in necessary services.  Defendants have never made

serious efforts to reallocate funds in a way that would eliminate

expensive waste while ensuring better services.


                              93



           Lack of Planning, and Prevailing Priorities

     316. Defendants do not engage in the type of long-term

strategic planning necessary to resolve the problems confronting

the child welfare system.  CWA commissioners rotate in and out,

averaging fifteen to eighteen months per term.  When new

commissioners arrive, all planning typically is placed on hold

for months.  Planning is episodic and in reaction to real or

perceived crises, not long-term and based on the needs of

children and families.

     317. There is no central control, guidance or leadership.

The system is not professionally or consumer-driven.  There is

inadequate collaboration with other human service systems or

state agencies.

     318. Despite the demonstrated inadequacy of its present

system and recommendations that child welfare and foster care

services be reorganized or decentralized in whole or part, CWA

has failed to seriously consider any organizational changes that

might help improve its ability to serve children and families.

     319. Although its provision of protection and services to

children and families is woefully inadequate, unprofessional and

illegal, CWA's current "reform" efforts are driven not by the

goal of improved services but in large part by a single clear

objective: spending less money on children and families.

     320. On June 30, 1995, CWA stopped providing children

leaving foster care to live on their own, or the parents to whom

they are discharged, with $500 "discharge grants" to help pay a


                              94



security deposit on an apartment or purchase furniture or clothes

to facilitate the transition out of government custody.

     321. On October 10, 1995, defendant Croft wrote a memorandum

to defendant Giuliani in which she stated that CWA's training

academy lacks the resources "to measure competency."  If

reductions in resources proceed according to current plans, the

memorandum continued, "it will not be possible to design or

implement comprehensive competency systems without the infusion

of sufficient, skilled staff."

     322. In 1996, CWA plans to implement a new "managed care"

foster care system which will reward those private agencies that

move children out of foster care more quickly, without giving

adequate consideration to the quality or appropriateness of the

services the agencies provide.

     323. CWA's focus on the financial bottom line is further

evidenced by a recent memorandum from CWA's Bronx Borough

Director to the social work supervisors in her charge.  Entitled

"Caseloads Control," the memorandum read: "Please encourage your

workers to follow this simple mathematical equation (for every

opening you should have two closings/transfers).  If we do so the

caseload levels will remain under control."

     324. After this memorandum was reported in the press,

defendant Giuliani defended it as "good management."


                              95



                 HISTORY OF INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE
            AND DEFENDANTS' KNOWLEDGE OF THIS FAILURE

     325. CWA's widespread failure to meet its legal obligations

to children and families is long-standing and well known.5 For

at least the past decade, these failings have been thoroughly

documented and repeatedly brought to defendants' attention.

     326. As early as 1984, a study prepared by the New York

State Department of Social Services ("DSS") Metropolitan Regional

Office -- entitled "Review of New York City Child Protective

Services Program" -- concluded that child protective

investigations were not completed in a timely manner in 40.5% of

the cases, and that children were not even seen by the

investigative worker in 27.5% of the cases.

     327. In the same year, the Bronx District Attorney -- in a

report entitled "The New York City Experience with Child Abuse"

-- concluded that caseworkers and supervisors were inadequately

trained in important areas of field work including evaluation of

medical evidence, interviewing techniques, acquisition of data,

preservation of evidence, and recognition and monitoring of

families who manifest high risk indicators of maltreatment.

     328. In 1985, the State Senate's Standing Committee on Child

Care -- in a report entitled "Child Protective Services: A System

Under Stress" -- determined that caseworkers often closed cases

prematurely and without delivering necessary services.  Nearly
_____________________

     5    Prior to 1987, CWA was known as Special Services for

Children.  For the sake of clarity, CWA is referred to

throughout.


                              96



half of the families sampled received no services during the

pendency of child abuse or neglect investigations.

     329. In 1986, a report prepared by the Neighborhood Family

Services Coalition -- entitled "The Continuing Crisis"

determined that the annual staff turnover rate among protective

service workers was fifty-five percent citywide, ranging from

twenty-five percent in Queens to eighty-nine percent in

Manhattan.

     330. In 1987, HRA itself found -- in a report entitled "New'

York City Child Protective Services, Work Analysis Project"

that half of the Protective/Diagnostic case records which were

reviewed were missing required documents.  HE further concluded

that in a significant number of cases service plans and

assessments were either non-existent, or exceedingly vague with

no indication of how to measure progress, and the permanency

goals often seemed unrealistic.

     331. In 1988, HRA found further problems with the City's

child welfare system.  In a report entitled "Overview of Foster

Care Services," HRA concluded that legally mandated caseworker

visits with children in foster border homes and their foster

families were completed in only forty-nine percent of the cases,

that only fifty-four percent of CWA workers attended in-service

training sessions, and that only half of all case managers were

formally trained.

     332. In 1989, a large number of reports regarding the City's

child welfare system were published.  The New York City


                              97



Comptroller's office -- in a report entitled "Now We Are Four"

determined that CWA altered dates and backdated forms in twenty-

two percent of its cases in order to document compliance with

case planning mandates.  Despite such fraudulent record-keeping,

the records indicated that mandated ninety-day reviews were

completed an average of thirty-nine days late, six-month UCR

reviews were completed from 14 to 104 days late, and in thirteen

percent of the cases studied CWA case planning had lapsed for at

least a year.

     333. Also in 1989, DSS concluded that CWA could not even

locate fifty percent of the records requested, and that service

plans often were not reviewed by supervisors or case managers.

     334. The State Comptroller found -- in a report entitled

"Management of Preventive Services Cases Assigned to Voluntary

Agencies" -- that CWA did not properly supervise the voluntary

agencies, and failed to ensure that the services provided by the

agencies were sufficient to meet client needs and achieve

established goals.

     335. Finally, a report by the Manhattan Borough President's

Advisory Council on Child Welfare -- entitled "Failed Promises:

Child Welfare in NYC" -- found that caseworkers were not meeting

with their clients and that, even when families were identified

as needing services, such services frequently were not provided.

     336. In 1990, a report prepared by CWA's Office of Field

Services -- entitled "Quality Assurance and Case Enhancement

Audit" -- concluded that home visits were not even attempted


                              98



within forty-eight hours in eighty-eight percent of child

protective investigations.

     337. That same year, a report by the Office of the State

Deputy Comptroller for the City of New York -- entitled "Delivery

of Preventive Services to Children and Their Families" -- found

that services deemed necessary for children and their families

were often not provided, and that families and children were not

receiving the minimum number of required face-to-face contacts

with their caseworkers.

     338. A 1990 report by the Task Force on Permanency Planning

For Foster Children -- entitled "Kinship Foster Care: The Double

Edged Dilemma" -- concluded that in kinship foster care cases,

the goal of discharge to parent was frequently unrealistic.  In

some cases, the goal of reunification was continued year after

year, even when the parents were doing nothing to remediate the

cause of the child's removal, or when their whereabouts were

genuinely unknown.

     339. In 1992, HRA's Child Fatality Review Panel Report

revealed that planning for the medical or health needs of

families was far below accepted standards of health practice.

Caseworkers often limited their review of the family's medical

care needs to noting whether the children had all their

inoculations.

     340. Also in 1992, an assessment of CWA prepared by New York

State Senator Franz S. Leichter -- entitled "New York State

Abandons Victims of Institutional Child Abuse" -- concluded that


                              99



rates at which child protective investigations were confirmed

were so low as to raise serious questions as to the effectiveness

of the investigative program.

     341. In 1993, Carol W. Williams, then of the Center for the

Study of Social Policy in Washington, D.C., now Associate

Commissioner of the Children's Bureau of the federal Department

of Health and Human Services, concluded -- in a report entitled

"The Placement and Evaluation Process for Children In New York

City's Foster Care System" -- concluded that:

          a.   The transfer of information between CWA and
     private agencies is "cumbersome and frequently never
     completed;"

          b.   "Case records are often incomplete and
     disorganized, making critical information about a child's
     background and needs difficult, if not impossible, to
     access;"

          c.   Evaluations of children's needs are not carried
     out in a timely manner or in accordance with good social
     work practice;

          d.   "Available placement resources that meet the
     specialized needs of children are severely inadequate in the
     City, particularly for troubled adolescents, children with
     severe behavioral and emotional problems, and young teens
     with babies;"

          e.   "Many children unnecessarily experience multiple
     placements;"

          f.   "Serious staffing, training and supervision
     problems throughout the system negatively impact on all
     areas of practice;" and

          g.   CWA's computer system does not support good social
     work practice.


     342. Also in 1993, a report prepared by the Courts Committee

of the Mayor's Commission for the Foster Care of Children --

entitled "Child Welfare at a Crossroads" -- concluded that


                             100



caseloads of CWA case managers and their supervisors had grown

unacceptably high and were at unmanageable levels.  Indeed, these

caseload levels virtually precluded any face-to-face contact

between the case manager, private agency staff and the families

served.

     343. In 1994, a study conducted by the State Comptroller's

office -- entitled "Children in Foster Care in Voluntary Agencies

Not Receiving All Required Services" -- determined that CWA was

failing to properly monitor the care provided to children by

private agencies.  Seventy-nine percent of the cases reviewed had

at least one private agency service plan that had not been

approved by a CWA case manager.

     344. Finally, also last year, a report prepared by the New

York City Comptroller -- entitled "Now We Are Nine" -- determined

that the timeframes set forth in state regulations and CWA

policies which seek to assure that no child experiences prolonged

stays in foster care, were consistently unmet and unenforced.

The report concluded that CWA's disregard for milestones had

deprived children of the permanency planning mandated by the law.

     345. Despite this year-after-year, comprehensive

documentation of defendants' illegal conduct, defendants have

failed to remedy these multiple problems or to bring the New York

City child welfare system into compliance with the law.


                             101



                        CAUSES OF ACTION

          First Cause of Action, Against All Defendants

     346. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, plaintiff children are being deprived of the

rights conferred upon them by the First, Ninth and Fourteenth

Amendments to the Unites States Constitution.  These rights

include but are not limited to their right to protection from

harm; their right not to be deprived of a family relationship

absent compelling reasons; their right not to be harmed --

physically, emotionally, developmentally or otherwise -- while in

state custody; their right not to remain in state custody

unnecessarily; their right to be housed in the least restrictive,

most appropriate and family-like placement; their right to

treatment; their right to equal protection of the law and not to

be discriminated against by virtue of their handicap or

disability; their right to receive care, treatment and services

consistent with competent professional judgment; and their right

not to be deprived of state or federally created liberty or

property rights without due process of law.

         Second Cause of Action, Against All Defendants

     347. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, the plaintiff children are being deprived of the

rights conferred upon them by the federal Adoption Assistance and

Child Welfare Act of 1980 and the State plan approved and adopted

as a condition of New York receiving federal funding under the

Act.  These rights include but are not limited to plaintiff


                             102



children's right to have defendants implement a preplacement

preventive services program designed to help children remain with

their families or be returned to their families; their right to

timely written case plans that contain mandated elements and to

the implementation and review of these plans; their right to

placement in foster homes or facilities that conform to

nationally recommended professional standards; their right to

placement in the least restrictive, most family-like setting;

their right to proper care while in custody; their right to

planning and services to secure their permanent placement at the

earliest possible time; their right to regular judicial and

administrative reviews of their foster care placements; their

right to dispositional hearings within eighteen months of

entering custody and periodically thereafter; and their right to

receive services in a child welfare system with an adequate

information system to permit decision-makers to make fully

informed choices in the children's best interests.

          Third Cause of Action, Against All Defendants

     348. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, the plaintiff children are being deprived of the

rights conferred on them by the federal Child Abuse Prevention

and Treatment Act.  These rights include but are not limited to

the plaintiff children's right to prompt and professional

investigations of allegations of abuse or neglect; their right to

protection form those who endanger their health and welfare; and

their right to such administrative procedures, trained and


                             103



qualified personnel, programs and facilities as are necessary to

address the problems of child abuse and neglect in New York City.

Fourth Cause of Action, Against All Defendants

     349. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, the plaintiff children are being denied the

rights conferred upon them by the Early and Periodic Screening,

Diagnosis and Treatment program of the federal Medicaid Act.

These rights include but are not limited to the plaintiff

children's right to receive periodic general physical health

examinations administered by competent medical professionals at

age-appropriate intervals determined by a panel of independent

health care experts; their right to receive periodic hearing and

eye examinations, mental health examinations, dental examinations

and lead blood tests, administered by competent medical

professionals at age-appropriate intervals; their right to

receive all necessary childhood vaccinations and boosters at

appropriate times; and their right to receive any and all

treatments deemed necessary by a qualified medical professional

conducting any of the above-mentioned periodic health

examinations.

          Fifth Cause of Action, Against All Defendants

     350. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, the plaintiff children are being deprived of the

rights conferred upon them by the federal Multiethnic Placement

Act of 1994.  These rights include but are not limited to the

right to have potential foster and adoptive parents aggressively


                             104



recruited from among racial and ethnic minority communities to

facilitate prompt. and appropriate foster and adoptive

placements.

          Sixth Cause of Action, Against All Defendants

     351. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, the plaintiff children who are handicapped or

disabled by their physical or emotional conditions are being

deprived of the rights conferred upon them by the federal

Americans with Disabilities Act and the federal Rehabilitation

Act of 1973.  These rights include but are not limited to the

plaintiff children's right to participate fully and receive the

benefits of the state child welfare and foster care programs; and

their right to receive any and all services necessary for them to

participate fully in the state foster care program despite their

handicaps or disabilities.

                     Seventh Cause of Action,
          Against Defendants Giuliani, Hammons and Croft

     352. As a result of the foregoing actions and actions of the

defendants, the plaintiff children are being denied the rights

conferred upon them by Article XVII of the New York State

Constitution.  These rights include but are not limited to the

plaintiff children's right to not arbitrarily or capriciously be

denied those benefits to which they are entitled by virtue of

their status as needy persons.

                     Eighth Cause of Action,
          Against Defendants Giuliani, Hammons and Croft

     353. As a result of the foregoing actions and inactions of

the defendants, the plaintiff children are being deprived of the


                             105



rights conferred upon them by state statutory laws and

regulations.  These rights include but are not limited to the

plaintiff children's right to have allegations of child abuse or

neglect investigated within specified time periods and in a

specified manner; the right of each child who is determined to be

eligible for pre-placement services or who is in foster care to

be provided with a service assessment and a service plan within

specified time periods and in a specified manner; the right of

each plaintiff child and her family to receive services in

accordance with the child's service assessment and plan,

including case contact, case planning and case management

services; the right of children in foster care to reside in a

placement appropriate to her particular needs and to receive

necessary supportive and rehabilitative services; the right to

have all potential foster homes, foster parents and other

placements investigated and monitored in a specified manner

before any plaintiff children are placed in them; the right to

have those homes and placements supervised, visited and inspected

periodically in a specified manner; the right of all foster

children to either be returned to their families or freed for

adoption and adopted so as not to languish interminably in foster

care; the right to have their cases judicially and

administratively reviewed at specified intervals and in specified

manners; and the right to be served by a child welfare system

with policies and personnel adequate to enable it to fulfill all


                             106



state and federal mandates in accordance with reasonable

professional standards.

                        PRAYER FOR RELIEF

     354. The plaintiffs respectfully request that the court

grant the following relief:

          a.   Assume jurisdiction over this action;

          b.   Certify this action as a class action pursuant to

     Rule 23(a) a (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

          c.   Enter declaratory and injunctive relief necessary

     and appropriate to remedy the defendants' violations of the

     plaintiffs' rights under the First, Ninth and Fourteenth

     Amendments to the United States Constitution; the Adoption

     Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980, 42 United States

     Code §§ 620-27, 670-79a; the Child Abuse Prevention and

     Treatment Act, 42 United States Code §§ 5101-06a; the Early

     and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT)

     program of the Medicaid Act, 42 United States Code §§ 1396a,

     1396d(a) & (r); the Multiethnic Placement Act of 1994, 42

     United States Code § 622(b)(9); the Americans with

     Disabilities Act, 42 United States Code §§ 12101 et seq.;

     the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 United States Code § 794,

     794a; Article XVII of the New York State Constitution; the

     New York State Social Services Law, Articles 2, 3, 6 & 7;

     the New York State Family Court Act, Articles 6 & 10; and

     applicable state regulations, 18 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 400-484;


                             107



          d.   Award to the plaintiffs the reasonable costs and

     expenses incurred in the prosecution of this action,

     including but not limited to reasonable fees and costs

     pursuant to 42 United States Code § 1988;

          e.   Appoint a receiver with full authority to oversee

     and direct the implementation of all the injunctive relief

     granted by the court, to restructure the New York City child

     welfare system, and to take all steps necessary to ensure

     that the child welfare system operates in full compliance

     with all applicable law;

          f.   Retain jurisdiction of this matter to ensure full,

     adequate and effective implementation of the relief ordered

     by the court; and

          g.   Enter such additional relief as the court may deem

     necessary and appropriate.











                             108