When K.W.’s son, K.A. was just six days old, New York City’s Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) separated him from his parents without court order. After his extrajudicial removal, K.A. spent the next two years and eight months of his life living with strangers in foster care. During the entirety of the family court case, K.W. remained a non-respondent, meaning he was never accused, let alone found guilty, of putting his son in any danger or of neglecting or abusing K.A.

ACS forcibly removed K.A. pursuant to its emergency removal powers, which allow ACS to enter a home and remove children from their families without a court order or warrant. The statute, New York Family Court Act §1024, allows ACS to remove a child when there is reasonable cause to believe there is imminent danger to the life or health of the child, and when there is not enough time to seek a court order. While ACS’s emergency removal powers are intended to be used sparingly, nearly 50 percent of all removals in New York City conducted by ACS occur without judicial approval.

K.W. and K.A are both Black, and their experience is not an anomaly in New York City. Black children, who comprise just 14 percent of the cit's population, make up a staggering 54 percent of emergency removals – the purportedly exceptional extrajudicial process used in this case. Meanwhile, white children, who make up 37 percent of the New York population, are the subjects of only 4 percent of emergency removals. Studies have shown that these disparities cannot be explained by higher Black poverty rates or any higher rates of child maltreatment. Family separation can be a source of lifelong trauma and does not keep children safer; ACS’s own data from COVID-19 show that during that period, when ACS conducted half the number of typical removals, severe child abuse in New York city actually decreased.

On August 9, 2025, the Center for Constitutional Rights authored an amicus brief, submitted to the Second Circuit, detailing the racialized history of the child welfare system—which advocates have aptly termed the family policing system or family regulation system. The brief explains that the forced separation of Black families is a through-line in American history, beginning with the Transatlantic slave trade, continuing through Reconstruction, and reinventing itself through the modern family policig system developed in the 20th century. K.W.’s experience, and the broader trends it reflects, make plain that New York’s family policing system stems from this historical legacy. Civil Rights Corps, Movement for Family Power, Rise, Neighborhood Defender Services, and Center for Family Representation signed on to the brief.

K.W. is represented on appeal by the Family Justice Law Center, Brunstein Law, Risman & Risman, and Wilmer Hale, and he brings this suit on his own behalf and on behalf of his son. Plaintiffs argue that K.W.’s procedural due process rights were violated when K.A. was removed from him absent a court order and absent any legal proceedings against him. In addition, plaintiffs argue that K.A.’s removal violated his Fourth Amendment rights when he was seized absent a court order, and when the caseworker made misrepresentations and omissions to the family court such that his right to judicial review was violated.