By Henry J. Stern
February 1, 2006

Quachaun Brown, a four-year old boy who had been returned to his home by the Administration for Children's Services, was beaten to death Friday and Saturday by his mother's 18-year-old paramour, allegedly because the tot had accidentally toppled a television set which the teenager favored while he was not being entertained by the baby's mother.  Late Sunday the four-year old died of a fractured skull and multiple additional trauma.
 
The city's child protection agency had received eight complaints from doctors, school officials, friends and neighbors alleging abuse and neglect in the child's home.  Now ACS knows what it failed to find after eight complaints.  The agency’s epiphany came days too late for little Quachaun Brown.
 
The Times, the News, the Post, the Sun and Newsday have horrific stories about the child's murder, with time lines.  We were overwhelmed at the first four murders: Sierra Roberts, Dahquay Gillians, Joziah Bunch and, in what appeared to be the gruesome climax of a series of brutal crimes, Nixzmary Brown.  Just a few days later, the name of Quachaun Brown must be added to the roster of children beaten to death in their homes in families supposedly under the supervision of the Administration for Children's Services.  We thought that Nixzmary's death by prolonged torture had exhausted our capacity for outrage.
 
Something is wrong here that goes beyond the negligence or incompetence of particular agency personnel.  Charles Millard, a former city economic development commissioner, gives his views in a column in today's Post, entitled "ACS' WRONG-HEADED REFORMS".  Rather than recapitulating his words, we suggest you link to them here, and see for yourself what Millard has to say.  We cite just one paragraph with the words of Commissioner John Mattingly, as quoted by Millard:
 
"Today the New York City child welfare system faces another historic opportunity.  Children's Services ... are now positioned to reshape the system by shifting the center of gravity (our italics),,, from out-of-home care to neighborhood-centered family support." 
 
With that attitude coming from the top, is it any wonder that social workers are reluctant to remove children from the homes of their single mothers and their brutal sex-mates.  We should know that the policies of the honest and well-intentioned can do as much harm as the acts of vicious predators, particularly when they lead to the murder of small and innocent children whose care is entrusted to those chosen for that responsibility by the City of New York.

When we write about ACS, we concentrate on five children beaten to death.  What about the children who are beaten, sometimes regularly or frequently, but do not die of their injuries?  How many of them are whipped, punched, flogged or otherwise tormented for each child who is killed?  If one out of ten dies, there are fifty innocent victims of savage abuse. Counting more common or lesser acts of violence, the number of children beaten may be five hundred.  We do not know.

Imagine an incident tracking system that records only fatalities, because assaults are unreported to the agency.  Is it not reasonable to believe that, for every death, there are injuries, many which leave no permanent marks on their bodies.  Their minds, however, are seared by brutality and violence.  How much misery has been caused by the 'pro-family' attitude of ACS.  What can be done now to protect children from non-fatal violence?
 
We agree that the Commissioner is decent, hard working, and deeply distressed at what has happened in New York City.  We think he should consider returning to the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, whence he came.  He will be able to continue to opine on the subject of child protection, without being held responsible for the deaths of any children who may be killed while agencies provide "neighborhood-centered family support’ for children whose very lives are at risk.
 
There appears, however, little likelihood that this will happen.  No commissioner has been publicly fired in the last four years, no matter how many innocent people are killed as a result of employee failures on his or her watch.  There is more accountability in the lower ranks of public service than there is when you get closer to the top.  Isn't that what happened at Abu Ghraib, with hillbilly Lynndie England in jail, superior offices relatively unharmed, and the author of torture barely mentioned, although he was said to have offered his resignation twice.

Here are some reasons why it is highly unlikely that the commissioner will be told to step down:

1) You might not want to fire the man because you have come to know him, and may have induced him to come to New York and undertake a difficult job.  It is easier to fire strangers than people with whom you have worked.  2) One could hesitate to dismiss a subordinate because firing an aide would suggest that someone had made a mistake in the first place in hiring him or her.  No one likes to admit error.
 
3) It is in part because transferring or dismissing one individual is not likely to solve the underlying problem. 4) It may be that firing someone can be taken as a sign of surrender to critics, which would lead to similar attacks on other public officials.
With all the sharks around, no administration wants to see blood in the water.
 
 5)  Firing a commissioner would result in an unfavorable news story, at least for one day.  The commissioner, if sufficiently provoked, could tell his side, and say that he did not receive necessary resources he requested until the tragedy occurred.  6) The mayor may really agree with what commissioner is doing, and thinks it would be intellectually dishonest to let the underling take the blame for following his policies.
 
 7) This commissioner has close ties with the social work contractors, they took out an ad professing their admiration for him, and he is one of their number.  Why antagonize the academics who, after all, know so much better than we do what is good for children?  They are also good at whispering into the ears of editorial writers, who, like them, see themselves as quite bright.  8) Who will be left to fire when the next child is beaten to death?  And the one after that?
 
 9) Dismissal would be recognition that the commissioner acted unwisely or made mistakes.  Who was responsible for supervising him, and what is the accountability of that person?  Who brought him into the administration?  Who protected him in the past?  Who has a stake in his continuance in office?  10) If the five children had not, in separate and individual circumstances, been beaten to death, there would not have been a problem.  Why blame one man for acts or omissions by other people which he may not have had the authority or ability to control?  After all, he didn't hire those investigators and under civil service rules, he probably can't even fire them unless he finds blood on their hands.
 
11) Where would you find a commissioner with the paper qualities and reputation in the field that Commissioner Mattingly enjoyed?  12) What responsible person would take the job, if he knew he could be fired the next time a tragedy occurred?
 
The above twelve arguments have persuaded us that Commissioner Mattingly should not be dismissed.  We believe the Mayor will come to the same conclusion, if he has not already done so.  This is not a leak, we have had no communication with His Honor or his staff on this matter.
 
Mattingly should, however, consider whether he should resign, and spare the mayor the pain of appearing to countenance the multiple tragedies that have taken place during the Commissioner’s tenure. He may not have done anything wrong; the problems of the agency may be intractable. Each year, New York has 537 murders  in 2005, down sharply (from 2245 1990).  One hundred fifty-two pedestrian deaths and eighty-nine civilian fire deaths were recorded last year. We do not know how many people died as the result of medical errors.   Should we regard the beating death of children as an unavoidable occasional outcome when irresponsible or psychotic parents raise their children with little, if any, supervision?

This article is not intended as a reflection on the commissioner's  competence or his devotion, although the extent to which 'family unity' should trump child safety is subject to serious dispute. The intelligence and diligence of ACS employees does not appear to be of the highest order, but they were not recruited by the commissioner.   A generous view New Yorkers can take is that things haven't worked out the way we had hoped.  Not for the city, not for the agency, and certainly not for Sierra, Dahquay, Joziah, Nixzmary and, now, Quachaun.

The brutal killer, the hapless mother, the family members who knew what was going on, the city employees involved and their supervisors share the blame.  There is enough to go around for all of them.  But certainly there is some level of accountability with regard to the commissioner, and he ought to think about how he can serve the public and the mission of child welfare and protection most effectively.  The deaths of five children in four months have not enhanced his ability to lead the agency out of its morass.  The question we ask is whether there is anyone capable of doing the difficult and thankless job.  What we have may be better than what we would get.  At least, the man cares.  But don't we all.

The five children should rest in peace.  All those whose duty was to protect them should not.


#280 2.1.06 1602wds