Cindy vs. Florida DCF and NYAP: When a mother asks for help and the system punishes her for it

Cindy became a mom by choice and by grit. Years before DCF ever entered her life, she decided to have a child through artificial insemination and named her daughter Grayce, a spelling that carries family history and pride. She poured herself into parenting. She coached, volunteered, and chased every service she could find to help a bright kid who struggled with boundaries and explosive behavior tied to ADHD, ODD, and a mild place on the autism spectrum. That is Cindy’s own framing of her journey, set out in sworn statements and court filings.

By elementary school, the private battles at home started to show in public. Cindy describes a child who could be loving and kind until a limit was set and everything blew up. She documented Grayce refusing to get out of the car in car line, throwing herself on wet concrete, and playing statue outside a classroom until a teacher coaxed her in. Cindy did what families are told to do. She found therapists, sought evaluations, signed up for parent programs, and pursued residential care when outpatient support failed.

In spring 2025, when the situation escalated, Cindy placed Grayce at Newport Academy, a residential program. After 53 days, insurance pushed her out with a written plan that called for a partial hospitalization program or an intensive outpatient program. Cindy lined up Discovery Behavioral Health to start quickly and offered her insurance.

Then came May 19. Cindy was getting ready for a call with the treatment provider when Grayce entered her bathroom and refused to leave. Cindy tried to move her to the hallway. The confrontation grew. Cindy tossed a few of Grayce’s items into the toilet to break the standoff and create space to exit. Grayce punched Cindy in the eye, pulled her hair, and hit her with a belt. Cindy bit her daughter’s shoulder to get free, ran to her car, and called 911. When officers arrived, they dismissed Cindy’s account and arrested her. She was locked in a hot patrol car without air conditioning for about 15 minutes, taken to a hospital, then jailed. Weeks later, prosecutors dropped the charges, but the dependency case and removal did not reverse themselves. Cindy could not simply hug her child and go home. She now faced a private contractor and a state system that seemed determined to make reunification harder, not easier.

Case management had been handed to the National Youth Advocate Program. That is when the machinery failed Cindy and her daughter.

Cindy says NYAP canceled medical appointments and refused to implement the therapy plan that was recommended at discharge. During our interview, she put it plainly. “They will not let her do the IOP. They said we do not think she needs it. Then when they did have an evaluation done, they did not allow me to participate to give a history.” She added that the intake materials sent to her looked generic, arrived two hours before the appointment, and were processed in a way that left no confidence in the quality of the assessment. “The evaluation that was filed with the court was dated and time-stamped like 35 minutes into her appointment. How can you make this evaluation of my child in 35 minutes?”

What DCF called safety and services, Cindy experienced as delay and denial. She had already completed multiple parent programs on her own initiative. “I have done like three different parenting programs. One through the NEABPD called Family Connections. Another one was Positive Parenting Solutions. And then a strategic ADHD summit,” she told us. “They said those are not court approved.” When ordered to complete a parenting fitness evaluation, she insisted on using one of the court-approved doctors with a real reputation. “I got them to give me the list of their court-appointed providers. My attorney recommended one, and I did that this past Monday.”

Meanwhile, Cindy says NYAP blocked the treatment plan that might have stabilized Grayce and the relationship. In her filed statement, she recounts urging neuropsych testing, an ADOS, and a functional behavior analysis, plus immediate in-home supports like Kinspire, which could begin within 24 hours if her daughter were with her, all of which were recommended by the doctor from Newport Academy. “The case manager has not pursued any of these at my urging. They have repeatedly lied to me, withheld information regarding my child, and done everything in their power to work against me reunifying with my daughter.”

Education eroded at the same time. Cindy had paid for online coursework and asked for Florida Virtual School to keep Grayce on track to complete her 7th-grade coursework. Those requests languished. Cindy also requested follow-up on the IEP evaluation process she had initiated in March and again, no assistance from NYAP case management. We're approaching the end of the first quarter, and her daughter still has no formal IEP setup, definitely not for Cindy's lack of effort.

Regardless of Cindy’s long list of concerns opposing placement, DCF placed Grayce with Vicki, a longtime acquaintance Cindy had once leaned on during Teen Court sanctions. According to Cindy’s filings, that decision undermined structure, therapy, and reunification. “She is the good-time, fun aunt, not a disciplinarian, definitely not a parent. Grayce needs a home with structure, rules, boundaries, and consistency, not just a fun house to do whatever she wants.” Cindy reported that Vicki allowed medication to lapse, coached or completed Teen Court work for the child, permitted late-night phone use, and even allowed driving at age 11 or 12. During her time with Vicki in December 2024, Vicki did not press for overdue assignments when it mattered. “As Grayce was failing English in the fall and in danger of academic probation, I repeatedly begged over Christmas break to complete a few overdue assignments, especially the final Major Assessment. These assignments were never completed. Grayce was placed on academic probation and not permitted to re-enroll at the school she loved.”

The household rules in placement clashed with the behavior plans Grayce needed. Cindy documented screen time all night, sleeping in a camper, and no consistent bed. “When Grayce first stayed with Vicki, Vicki did not have a bed for Grayce. I thought she was sleeping on the couch. Instead, Vicki allowed her to sleep in her camper and permitted the cell phone overnight, again something most therapists advise against.” In our interview, Cindy said Vicki told Grayce that her mother did not love her and belittled the sports that once kept Grayce engaged. “She is telling her I do not love her. She told her she is not good at volleyball. Now my child does not want to play.” This was all confirmed to Cindy by a mutual acquaintance who was living at Vicki's while Grayce was staying there on and off from December 2024 through early March 2025. This person relocated back to PA in early May, and when she heard what had happened with my daughter, only then did she fill me in on some of these things. I asked if she would contact the case manager, which she did, but Cindy found no mention of this person's concerns about Vicki's behavior, drinking, or emotional trauma she had been causing to herself or Grayce in any Discovery documentation.

Cindy also raised safety and reliability concerns about the caregiver herself. “Over the past few years, Vicki has been drinking more frequently. My daughter is always telling me while shopping, I think Aunt Vicki should try this with her vodka. She drinks even more when Grayce is with her for long periods of time.” She added that Vicki liked to watch crime and murder shows with the child, which fueled nightmares when she was very young. There were several years that Cindy didn't permit her daughter to stay at Vicki's for many of the reasons she was so opposed to this placement.

If the system’s job is to triage risk, stabilize families, and line up treatment, the record in this case shows the opposite. After the May 19 incident, officers refused to take a full statement, minimized visible injuries, and removed the parent who had called for help. Cindy’s account in her timeline notes bruising and a black eye that were obvious to others, including inmates at the jail. In our interview, she recalled asking a DCF worker who visited her in the hospital and jail why those injuries were ignored. “When my attorney asked if she saw any bruises on me, no. Are you blind? When I got to jail, all the inmates were like, what happened to you? My daughter hit me, and I defended myself. Then why is she not here? Exactly.” She pointed out that the jail took a mug shot that showed the bruise.

If the system relies on expertise, Cindy found too little of it. “We sit in court, and they call these people experts,” she said. “You know how long she has been at the agency? Since December. She is probationary. So she is a rookie.” She recalled her attorney asking a DCF witness a basic question from the statute. “Do you know what disfigurement means? And she said no.” Cindy contrasted that with her own grind. “I do all the parent support groups. I finished the parenting programs. I complied with the evaluation. I am lining up real services. They still will not move.”

If the system values parent voice, Cindy did not experience it. “I had a statement that I had typed up that I wanted to read,” she told us. “He said this is not the time for that. I asked, when is the time for that?”

If the system aims to improve child functioning, the placement and case management appear to be doing the opposite. Inside her home, before removal, Cindy documented a pattern of property damage and frightening outbursts. There were broken doors and holes in walls. There were Baker Act screens that did not meet criteria for admission. There were police visits that ended with shrugs. After removal, the state chose convenience over treatment. The contractor blocked intensive outpatient care that was already teed up. The contractor controlled an evaluation that excluded the parent’s history and then presented its conclusions within 35 minutes. The contractor downplayed family therapy and ignored Cindy’s requests for evidence-based supports that could start within a day of reunification.

Even the promise of school stability slipped away. Cindy’s filings describe missed days, late enrollment, and adults who could not or would not push routine and accountability. The result was probation at a school where Grayce had once thrived, then removal from activities that gave her identity and structure. Grayce has lost her private school education, was forced to go to a dropout prevention school where she was miserable, has been sleeping in class, and refused to do assignments. So, Cindy decided she just needs to repeat 7th grade at a different school and not worry about catching up since she wasn't doing the work anyhow. Cindy had her daughter accepted and enrolled in a charter school, but they had to wait for NYAP to schedule a meeting. After waiting over a week for the team meeting, no one from NYAP could find time to contact the charter school after the meeting, even after Cindy left messages and sent emails pleading that someone contact the school. Grayce was kept home from her old school training the caregiver's dog while waiting for NYAP to complete the withdrawal and enrollment process. Even after Cindy requested Grayce attend her old school, the case supervisor refused to transport her to school. Cindy received calls from the school district regarding the absences because her daughter had not yet been withdrawn and should have been in school.

When asked where this goes now, Cindy did not hesitate. “The plan is for her to come home, but I do fully intend to send her to the boarding school I wanted next year. They have all the programs she loves, small classes, and teachers who follow up at the end of the day. If she does not do the homework, the teacher says, what is going on, let’s get this done together.”

What should have happened is simple. Police should have taken a full statement and documented injuries. Case management should have followed the discharge plan, not canceled care. Evaluations should have included the parent’s history. Placement should have reinforced structure, not eroded it. School should have been stabilized with a workable plan on day one. None of those are luxuries. They are the basics.

Cindy’s words cut through the jargon. “I called you for support,” she told authorities. “She has been in residential. She has been Baker Acted. She has been through the Youth Crisis Center programs. I was investigated twice by DCF. Both times I was cleared.”

The state took her daughter anyway, then starved the case of the very services that could make reunification safe and durable. That is the failure here. It is not a single bad call on a single bad day. It is a sequence of choices that traded therapy for optics, expertise for convenience, and parent partnership for control.

Cindy is still doing the work. The agencies need to catch up.