IN RE: Xio N. (2026)

Procedural History and Factual Background

On or about January 20, 2017, ACS filed a petition against the Respondent mother, Xiomara N., alleging neglect of the subject child, Xio N. ("Xio"). The Petition alleges that Ms. Xiomara N. failed to provide her daughter with proper supervision or guardianship in that she inflicted excessive corporal punishment on the child. On January 20, 2017, when Xio was only 10, she was remanded and placed in foster care and Xio remains in foster care to this date at the age of 19.5.

On October 5, 2017, a finding of neglect was entered against the Respondent mother upon her submission to the Court's jurisdiction pursuant to FCA § 1051(a). On February 13, 2018, the Court entered a Dispositional Order finding that it was in best interest of Xio to be placed with ACS until next Permanency Hearing. The Order also directed that Ms. Xiomara N. complete the PAC program, continue to test negative for all illegal substances, and continue to engage in family therapy and visit regularly as permitted by residence. See Order of Disposition, dated February 13, 2018.

Throughout the years, Xio remained in foster care in a variety of placements including a long period in a Residential Treatment Center. On multiple occasions during this placement, Xio went absent without consent ("AWOC") for varying periods of time. During 2021, the Respondent mother ceased having contact with the agency and Xio's permanency goal was initially changed to adoption on October 18, 2022, and then later to Another Planned Permanent Living Arrangement ("APPLA") in April of 2023.

On or about August 22, 2023, when Xio was pregnant, she was first transferred to a mother-child program but shortly afterwards began residing informally in the home of a foster resource, Ms. Rodriguez. On XX/XX/2023, Xio gave birth to her son, Hussan M., and began living with a family friend, Ms. Alvarez, as she did not wish to return to the mother- child program.

On or about January 16, 2024, ACS filed a neglect petition against Mr. Jayshawn M., Hussan's father, alleging that he committed acts of domestic violence against Xio. At that time, Xio agreed to her infant Hussan being remanded to ACS's care as she did not have a place she considered to be adequate for the two of them to life and she wanted to be more independent to be able to care for him. The case against Mr. M. resulted in Hussan being placed in foster care on November 26, 2024 and remains pending before this Court for permanency hearings under docket number NN-XXXX-24.

During 2024, Xio was placed in various residential programs including Mercy First Diagnostic Center, as of July 16th, and Good Shepherd's Services' ("GSS") Marian Hall, as of August 12th, until she was able to move into independent housing. From the time Hussan entered foster care, Xio endeavored to visit with him as regularly as possible including a period of regular hotel over-nights arranged by the foster care agency. At this point, ACS was legally obligated to both assist Xio in preparing for adulthood and becoming independent, given her APPLA goal, and also with supporting her to be able to adequately parent Hussan so he could be returned to her care, given Hussan's permanency goal. Specifically, the law required ACS and each assigned foster care agency to make "reasonable efforts" towards these goals. FCA 1089(c)(4). As part of these legally mandated efforts, this Court, on May 10, 2024, ordered the agency "to provide the Xio with a basic phone with enough service to maintain phone and text contact to arrange visits with her infant son and to safely have unsupervised visits. See Order dated May 10, 2024.

In order to plan towards Hussan's return, Xio is required to maintain contact with the foster care agency, comply with any reasonable referrals for services and visit with Hussan. Around January 31, 2025, Xio obtained a shared apartment in Harlem through New York Foundling's supportive housing program. Xio was then placed on trial discharge to herself around February 13, 2025. At the trial discharge conference, the agency acknowledged the need for an "updated credit check including education around credit scores and filing of income taxes." Trial Discharge FTC Summary Report dated 2/12/25, attached as Ex. C to the AFC's Affirmation in Opposition to Motion dated 7/7/25. There was no discussion in the report about providing general financial literacy skills to Xio or whether Xio had a working phone and how she could obtain and pay for one. Since her trial discharge, Xio has been pursuing her education, employment and independent housing through NYCHA as well as continuing to work towards her son's return to her care. Xio needed to have a working phone to receive calls about scheduling an interview for her NYCHA application.

Xio's case was scheduled for a Permanency Hearing on June 2, 2025. Counsel for ACS acknowledged that the agency was not ready to proceed as the assigned case planner had just left the agency and there appeared to be a plan to final discharge Xio later that summer. However, there was no "significant adult connection" in place which is mandated by the Family Court Act for the goal of APPLA. At this appearance, Xio's attorney requested that the Court enter a "no reasonable efforts" finding on the basis that Xio had an outstanding phone bill for over $1,000 which was preventing her from re-activating her cellphone service with T-Mobile and that the agency knew about the outstanding phone bill which Xio could not afford to pay. Xio's attorney also requested an Order directing ACS and the foster care agency to pay the outstanding balance which this Court granted as follows:

ORDERED that ACS/the agency is to pay Xio's ENTIRE past due T- Mobile phone bill (which is reported to be over $1000) to allow her phone service to be restored given that Xio is a youth in care and also a parent of a young child in care and needs her phone to arrange visits/services/and for emergencies. The agency is also to provide Xio with gift cards or purchase food items that she needs/requests given that the prior Case Planner was doing this on a regular basis even though she [Xio] is receiving food stamps. Once food is provided and the phone service is restored, the agency is to work with Xio on budgeting to keep up her phone payments as well as food and other basic necessities. The agency is also Ordered to assist Xio is re-starting her NYCHA application for permanent housing and in obtaining a passport and learner's permit.

Order dated June 2, 2025.

On June 18, 2025, ACS filed an Order To Show Cause ("OTSC") requesting that the Court vacate the portion of the June 2, 2025 order that directed ACS/the agency to pay Xio's entire past due T-Mobile phone bill. To support their application ACS alleged that on June 18, 2025, the agency received a phone bill that showed an outstanding balance of $2,507.59. However, the bill did not show usage charges for either text or voice calling but instead there is a $1,525.32 outstanding for payment for: one (1) iPhone 14, one (1) iPhone 16, and one (1) iPad 10th generation. Further, the agency stated that there was a "past due balance" of $1,001.82, however there was no indication what this amount was for. See ACS's Affirmation in Support ¶5. ACS's OTSC was signed and calendared for a hearing on the motion on July 16, 2025.

In response to ACS's motion, Xio's attorney filed an Affirmation in Opposition on July 7, 2025. According to Xio, she opened a T-Mobile mobile account in or around January 2025 and provided another youth in care at Marion Hall with a phone on Xio's account. Additionally, Xio's attorney explained in her affirmation that Xio "signed up for the account and additional lines with promotional incentives that provided 'credits' towards monthly payments of devices, if the account was kept current and paid. This meant that the devices were free of charge but if the account was cancelled or line terminated prior to the end of the contract term, the payment for the phone was required." See Affirmation in Opposition, ¶ 12. Further, [Xio] states that aside from the phone that was provided to the other youth in care, the "phone and iPad on the account [were] for her personal use and to keep in touch with service providers and case planning teams, work on applications, and job readiness." Id. Xio's attorney also asserted in their papers that "T-Mobile plans to send the account to collections by the end of July 2025 and that [Xio's] credit score already decreased approximately 100 because of the past due balance." Id.

On July 16, 2025, the joint permanency hearing and hearing on the motion commenced and ACS called Social Worker Kaufman as their first witness. Ms. Kaufman began her direct testimony, and the matter was adjourned to September 5, 2025. On September 5, 2025, the matter was adjourned at the request of Xio's attorney and scheduled for October 29, 2025. On October 29, 2025, the hearing continued briefly and, because the Court's time was limited by an emergency hearing, the attorneys met alone with the Court Attorney for a conference. Xio's attorney indicated that she was still asking for the agency to pay for the phone bill as the debt had been sent to collections and it is affecting Xio's credit and that Xio would testify at the continued about all of this. Xio's attorney further indicated that Xio is getting a job and was willing to contribute towards the bill with a payment plan, but that the agency would still need to pay the bill upfront in full in order to help Xio rehabilitate her credit. In response, the attorney for ACS stated that there was no movement in terms of the agency's willingness to pay. The agency's position was that since the bill was primarily for devices and not phone usage, they are still objecting to paying that large amount. The agency's attorney further stated that there is no proof that Xio needed the multiple devices as one was purchased for a friend. The matter was adjourned to December 16, 2025 and the hearing continued with Xio's testimony. On that date, ACS also recalled Ms. Kaufman to briefly testify. After all the parties rested, the Court reserved decision.

EVIDENCE AT HEARING

Testimony of GSS Social Worker Kaufman

On July 16, 2025, Ms. Kaufman testified that she is not sure of the current status of whether Xio has a phone as "since the last hearing she lost another phone" and she is not sure if Xio got another phone or whether she still has the iPad that was purchased on the phone bill. When asked whether the agency had been able to speak directly to phone provider, Ms. Kaufman testified that she had not and that Xio had not provided her phone bill to the agency and she only received the phone bill from the agency's attorney. Ms. Kaufman testified that upon receipt of the phone bill, she did not speak to Xio about the bill directly although "in a group setting," they discussed generally what had happened with the phone bill and the difference between a usage bill versus a product bill.

When asked about her understanding of the next steps for resolving Xio's phone bills with the provider, Ms. Kaufman testified that her supervisor has informed her that "we don't pay for their phone bills at our program, that's not something we give them stipends for." Case Planner Kaufman testified that Ms. N. receives approximately $500 in food stamps, $100 in cash assistance and the agency provided her with $100 in gift cards.

On December 16, 2025, after Xio's testimony, counsel for ACS re-called Ms. Kaufman to the stand. Ms. Kaufman testified again that Good Shepherd Services had not discussed with Xio how to pay back the $2500 bill because it is the agency's policy to not get involved with their phone bills and that the agency only learned of the outstanding phone bill after Xio moved out of the Good Shepherd group home in January 2025. The only steps Ms. Kaufman took upon learning about the outstanding bill were to ask Xio to get a copy of the phone bill and to speak to her supervisor who informed her that the agency does not pay for phone bills.

Ms. Kaufman testified that she personally had not done a credit check for Xio, nor assisted Xio in doing one for herself, and that she was unaware if the Fair Futures Coach assigned to Xio had done one. Ms. Kaufman further testified that GSS currently provides Xio only with a stipend for clothing and toiletries and groceries and gift cards for necessities on emergency bases. In response to the Court's question as to whether money management skills were provided to Xio by GSS, Ms. Kaufman stated that workshop were offered on that topic but she was unsure if Xio participated in any of them when she was living at GSS.

Testimony of Subject Teen Xio N.

Xio testified that her T-Mobile account was in collections with a balance of $2500. This debt resulted from her getting three phones, two for herself, and one for a friend who was also in foster care and needed a phone. Xio testified that she got three phones because there was a promotion for free phones going on at the time and that she was not paying the bill for her two phones because she "didn't think that she needed to" given the promotion. Xio stated she was unaware about how this would "mess up her credit." The friend also never gave her any money for the phone. As a result, the phone company put the phone bill into collections.

Xio testified that she currently has a phone with Boost Mobile and that she pays for it herself from the money she earns from her current job. Xio testified that she uses the phone to keep in touch with her son, check email and for her to get paid from work. Xio currently receives $546 a month in food stamps and $145 in cash assistance. Xio testified that last summer, she worked at the Summer Youth Employment Program but she has now used all her savings from that job. In October of 2025, Xio started work at Amazon on an overnight shift and recently changed to working 7 days a week at UPS as a seasonal employee though she is unsure how long this job will continue.

Xio testified that her "credit score is approximately 516" and she knew this because she "had the Experian app," which she learned about working at her GSS internship. Xio testified that she was now "in collections" and that she gets notifications from Experian notifying her that she "has to pay money back." Xio said no one from GSS has spoken to her about her personal credit since 2024.

On cross examination by the ACS attorney, Xio was asked whether she had been able to make any payments on the T-Mobile bill and Xio replied that she had not because she did not know how to pay the money back. She stated that "no one at Good Shepherd has spoken with her about how to do it." When asked if she could make some payments if someone were to sit down with her and explain how, Xio felt she could. However, Xio clarified that she did not make enough money to pay her current phone bill as well as to make payments on the overdue T-Mobile bill. Xio explained that she "only makes $300-400 per week and it mostly goes to her utility bill or housing needs like food and cleaning stuff."

The Court inquired of Xio as to her original understanding of the monthly payments when she got the phones and Xio responded that all three phones were supposed to be $60.00. However, because she then bought the second phone less than a month after the first one, that made the phone bill higher. When asked by the Court why she bought a second phone, Xio testified that it was because the first one was broken. The Court inquired whether she told the agency about the phone breaking and Xio said no, because the case workers never helped her with her phone. Xio testified that when she was under 18 and felt she needed a phone and asked case workers for one, the agency would not allow it and so she did not ask for help later.

FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

Petitioner argues that there is good cause to vacate the Court's order due to the fact that "it appears that the outstanding charges on the T-Mobile bill are not for usage of Xio N.'s phone, but for the purchase of two iphones and an iPad .While the Agency does believe Xio should have a phone in order to facilitate virtual visitation with her child, Hussan, it is an inappropriate use of the Court's discretion to order the Agency to pay for multiple devices for the youth as well as such an exorbitant past due balance." See Affirmation in Support of Motion at P 7.

Family Court Act § 1015(a) grants the Court with authority to

"order a social services official to provide or arrange for the provision of services or assistance to the child and his or her family to facilitate the protection of the child, the rehabilitation of the family and, as appropriate, the discharge of the child from foster care. Such order shall not include the provision of any service or assistance to the child and his or her family which is not authorized or required to be made available pursuant to the comprehensive annual services program plan then in effect." Fam. Ct. Act § 1015(a).

Thus, Courts have required ACS to pay for, or reimburse, various items that are consistent with the goals of the comprehensive annual services plan ("the Plan"). In In re L.P., 957 N.Y.S.2d 636 [Fam. Ct. Kings County 2010] the Family Court (O'Shea, J.F.C.) ordered ACS to reimburse the foster mother for past and future costs of day-care services on the basis that child-care services were identified as needed, and that the Plan authorized child-care services if deemed necessary. The Court further reasoned that the service did not have to be specifically mentioned in the Plan, but merely needed to be consistent with the goals for children in foster care emphasized in the Plan. See also In re Nicole JJ., 265 AD2d 29 [3d Dept. 2000] (a Family Court order directing the Commissioner of Social Services to pay the foster parent for past and future day-care expenses was compatible with § 255 of the Family Court Act); Matter of Daniel M., 16 631 N.Y.S.2d 470 [Fam. Ct. New York County 1995] (a Family Court order directing ACS to pay for nursing care was authorized under § 1015-a even though such a payment was not specifically mentioned in ACS's Plan); In re Andrea D., 25 Misc 3d 503 [Fam. Ct. Monroe County 2009] (an order directing the Department of Social Services to provide the subject child with a certified copy of her birth certificate and pay for her driver's education class was authorized under §§ 1015-a and 255 even though the Plan did not specifically authorize such action, as the Plan emphasized self-sufficiency as one of the major goals).

An updated ACS Plan is not readily accessible. However, the Court notes that ACS issued a press release regarding its five-year foster care "blueprint" for 2019-2023. The blueprint states that "ACS is working to improve permanency outcomes and reduce the numbers of youth that age out of care. Nationally, we know that youth aging out of foster care have poorer educational outcomes and college attendance, persistence and graduation rates than their peers, and face high rates of unemployment as adults .The five-year plan builds on these initiatives to help youth transition successfully to adulthood." Foster Care Strategic Blueprint FY 2019- FY 2023, NYC Administration for Children's Services, last accessed January 6, 2026, https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/acs/pdf/about/2018/StandAloneReportFosterCareStrategicBlueprint FinalMay152018.pdf.

Furthermore, pursuant to 18 NYCRR 427.3(c)(2)(v), the agency is required to pay "extraordinary communication expenses which include "extraordinary telephone costs for communication with birth parents and siblings." While the regulations refer to contact with parents and siblings, clearly regular contact with one's own small child is equally if not more important along with all the service providers and employment and housing opportunities that Xio needed to be in contact with.

The Court is denying ACS's motion to vacate its order dated June 2, 2025 and is requiring ACS to pay the debt for Xio's T-Mobile phone bill in full as soon as possible in a way that best serves to restore her credit. As part of the APPLA goal, ACS is required by statute to provide a permanency hearing report that shows "the steps being taken to ensure that the child care facility is following the reasonable and prudent parent standard" and includes "a description of the services and assistance that are being provided to enable the child to learn independent living skills." FCA 1089(c)(1)(v)(B) and 1089(c)(2)(v). ACS has stood in role of parent for Xio since 2017 when she was only 10. Xio's mother has not been involved in her daughter's life for more than 4 years and Xio currently has no contact with any family members. Unfortunately, Xio was never placed in a foster home where she was able to form a stable lasting parent-like relationship. To date, ACS has not found an adult who can play the role of a "significant connection to an adult who is willing to be a permanency resource for the child" as required for an APPLA goal. FCA 1089(c)(1)(v). Given the failure of ACS to play the role of a reasonable and prudent parent or to locate an adult for Xio to have a significant connection to, this Court is finding that the agency has failed to make the legally required reasonable efforts.

It is clear that having a cell phone with active service has become a necessity not only for adults but for older teenagers who travel independently around the city to attend school or work, not to mention for someone like Xio who has a toddler who she needs to maintain contact with, visit regularly and be available for in case of emergency.¹ Paying for a working phone and a minimum amount of service is a necessary component of ACS's obligation to achieve both the goal of APPLA for Xio and return to parent for Hussan. In fact, as previously noted, this Court had, back on May 10, 2024, ordered the agency "to provide the Xio with a basic phone with enough service to maintain phone and text contact to arrange visits with her infant son and to safely have unsupervised visits." Had this order been complied with, this situation might never have occurred.

Thus, ACS should not have sat back and simply refused Xio's requests and stated need for a phone and then essentially turned a blind eye to the fact that she had one, which the agency must have been aware of since Xio gave her number to multiple agency personnel to reach her. The agency was obligated to affirmatively ASK Xio if she had a plan to obtain a phone and how she would pay for it, and then to proactively review with Xio any contract she took out BEFORE she signed it. The agency then could have insured that Xio was not being taken advantage of by the phone company or committing to costs that the agency was not willing to pay and that Xio would not be capable of paying herself. Even after discovering Xio had a phone, the agency should have affirmatively requested to see the contract and go over its requirements with Xio to alert her to how to avoid accumulating debt and discuss how she and the agency would work together to insure bills were paid timely. Given that Xio remains in ACS's care with the requirement that ACS achieve the goal of preparing and facilitating Xio's ability to live independently, ACS had an obligation to insure that she learned the necessary money management and budgeting skills necessary to pay her bills on her own in the future and only incur costs she could afford. As New York City's child welfare agency, ACS is most certainly aware of the brain science that establishes that teenagers are not fully capable of making decisions about future risks and benefits until their frontal lobes are fully formed which does not occur until the early to mid 20s.² As such, the agency has an obligation to act proactively and protectively around decision-making by teens and young adults who are still in foster care that can have lasting consequences such as on their credit score.

Dated: January 8, 2026

Brooklyn, New York

ENTER:

The Hon. Jacqueline B. Deane, J.F.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   According to a study by the National Institute of Health, "On average, respondents obtained their first phone at 12.2 years of age. Most participants stated they received their first phone out of necessity rather than for entertainment or social reasons." (71%). Selkie, Adkins and Ritcher, 2022. Later in adolescence, mobile phone use is extremely high, with over 95% of teens ages 13 to 17 years having access to a cell phone. (Jiang and Anderson, 2018) (Pew Research Center).

2.   "It has been noted that 'adolescents are overrepresented statistically in virtually every category of reckless behavior.' " Roper v Simmons, 543 US 551, 569, 125 S Ct 1183, 1195, 161 L Ed 2d 1 [2005] (quoting Arnett, "Reckless Behavior in Adolescence: A Developmental Perspective," 12 Developmental Rev. 339 (1992)); see also Brief of the Amer. Med. Ass., Amer. Psychiatric Assoc., et. al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent, Roper v Simmons, 2004 WL 1633549 (U.S.), 2-3 (U.S. 2004) ("Cutting-edge brain imaging technology reveals that regions of the adolescent brain do not reach a fully mature state until after the age of 18. These regions are precisely those associated with impulse control, regulation of emotions, risk assessment, and moral reasoning. Critical developmental changes in these regions occur only after late adolescence.").

Jacqueline B. Deane, J.