PART II. FORCED CHILD LABOR: THE CHILDREN BUILT THE BUSINESS, MAINTAINED THE PROPERTY, AND PROVIDED THE WORKFORCE — WHILE THEIR PARENTS PAID FOR EDUCATION AND TREATMENT
The thirty federal lawsuits describe an alleged business model of extraordinary cruelty and profitability.
Parents paid tens of thousands of dollars annually to send their children to the Family Foundation School in Hancock, New York, believing they were purchasing education, psychiatric treatment, addiction rehabilitation, and residential care.
Instead, according to the verified complaints, the children were compelled to work.
They constructed and maintained buildings. They dug drainage ditches, built bridges and decks, tended livestock, slaughtered animals, cleaned kitchens, washed laundry, shoveled snow, and maintained the Argiros family's private property.
Some worked in an employee daycare. Others were required to supervise children confined in isolation rooms. Still others were compelled to train tracking dogs allegedly used to recapture children who escaped.
The children received no wages.
They allegedly could not refuse assignments without risking starvation, isolation, physical restraint, humiliation, or prolonged confinement.
The plaintiffs describe an enterprise that collected tuition for services it allegedly failed to provide while extracting unpaid labor to operate and improve the business.
The alleged financial advantages were substantial: tuition revenue, reduced payroll expenses, capital improvements to real estate, and additional revenue from punitive confinement.
Several complaints assert claims under the federal forced-labor statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1589, and its civil remedy, § 1595.
I. Children performed the work of construction crews, agricultural workers, and maintenance employees
In Candito v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-01817, filed September 23, 2026, Jennifer Candito describes the agricultural operations maintained through student labor during her enrollment from 1988 through 1990.
She alleges that she personally milked cows twice daily, processed milk, fed pigs, cleaned livestock pens, shoveled manure, sheared sheep, baled hay, and assisted with slaughtering cattle.
She also alleges that she cleaned the Argiros family residence and provided personal care to an elderly member of the family.
This was not simply work performed for the school. The complaint describes uncompensated labor benefiting the owners' private household.
In Dellinger v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-01767, filed September 17, 2026, Alex Dellinger describes four years of compulsory work, including digging a drainage ditch along the campus access road.
The ditch allegedly protected the property against flooding, creating a permanent improvement to real estate later used as collateral for bank financing.
In Tell v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-02087, filed October 8, 2026, John Tell alleges that he built a bridge and decks outside the trailers used as student dormitories.
He also performed livestock care, mowing, snow removal, dishwashing, and laundry.
Tell's complaint expressly connects the construction work to the institution's expanding enrollment capacity: children allegedly built and maintained facilities that permitted the operators to accommodate additional paying students.
In Baldwin v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-02076, filed October 7, 2026, Emily Baldwin describes cleaning chapel pews, scrubbing floors with toothbrushes, maintaining grounds, preparing food, and unloading Sysco deliveries.
She also alleges that she was required to care for employees' children in an on-campus daycare instead of attending academic classes.
In Cowan-Johnson v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 6:26-cv-01560, filed August 13, 2026, Logan Cowan-Johnson describes kitchen preparation, dishwashing, institutional cleaning, laundry, and other compulsory labor.
His complaint identifies an additional mechanism: the school allegedly awarded academic credit for labor assignments, including courses titled Kitchen Prep 1, Home Economics, and Living Skills.
Thus, labor performed for the institution was allegedly incorporated into its purported educational program.
The complaints describe an enterprise in which students were not incidental helpers.
They were allegedly the construction workers, agricultural laborers, maintenance crews, kitchen employees, laundry workers, and domestic servants upon whom the institution depended.
II. The isolation-room business: $150 per night, with children supervising children
In J.K. v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-01780, filed September 18, 2026, the plaintiff describes an especially revealing arrangement.
According to paragraph 48 of her verified complaint, FFS required her to remain awake overnight supervising children confined in isolation rooms.
She performed these duties on consecutive nights and was then expected to attend school and perform additional work during the day.
She received no compensation.
The complaint further alleges, on information and belief, that FFS charged the confined children's parents approximately $150 per night for isolation and supervision.
The alleged financial arrangement was remarkable.
One child was punished through confinement.
Another child was compelled to supervise that punishment without wages.
The institution allegedly charged the first child's family for the confinement.
The operation thus allegedly generated additional revenue while avoiding the cost of employing adult supervisors.
Other complaints describe prolonged isolation, sometimes involving deprivation of ordinary sanitary facilities, restrictions on food, and supervision by other students.
The punishment system allegedly served two functions: enforcing obedience and generating income.
The allegation deserves particular scrutiny because it connects the institution's coercive practices directly to its revenue model.
III. Forced labor was substituted for the education parents purchased
The complaints repeatedly describe children being removed from academic instruction and assigned work instead.
In Baldwin, the plaintiff alleges that her parents spent approximately $80,000 from money saved for her college education.
She remained at FFS for approximately two years but attended academic classes for only about six months.
She alleges that she was expelled shortly before her eighteenth birthday without a diploma or transferable academic credits.
In Tell, the plaintiff alleges that compulsory labor displaced so much schooling that he eventually had to obtain a GED.
In Cowan-Johnson, the plaintiff alleges that only 3.75 academic credits were awarded during nearly a year of enrollment, with approximately one-fifth attributable to graded kitchen and domestic labor.
In Haham v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-01735, filed September 14, 2026, Daniella Haham alleges that she was removed from academic classes during a month-long punishment period and compelled to shovel snow for approximately eight hours daily, seven days per week.
In Barley v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-01493, filed August 3, 2026, Adam Barley alleges that FFS prolonged his enrollment after he had completed academic graduation requirements, assigning him to additional unpaid maintenance work while continuing to collect tuition.
Barley remained at the institution until he was nearly twenty years old.
The alleged fraud was twofold: the institution collected money for education while withholding education, and it obtained uncompensated labor from the very children for whom that money was paid.
IV. The money: tuition, public funds, unpaid labor, and private enrichment
The financial allegations become especially consequential when the tuition figures are examined alongside the labor assignments.
| Federal case | Tuition or other payment alleged | Labor or economic benefit described |
|---|---|---|
| Baldwin, 3:26-cv-02076 | Approximately $80,000 | Grounds, kitchens, laundry, daycare, Sysco unloading |
| Barley, 3:26-cv-01493 | Approximately $99,000 | Maintenance work and allegedly prolonged enrollment |
| S.H., 3:26-cv-01412 | Approximately $160,000 | Grounds maintenance, cemetery work, cleaning |
| Dellinger, 3:26-cv-01767 | Approximately $280,000 | Construction, drainage improvements, livestock, kitchens |
| J.K., 3:26-cv-01780 | Approximately $40,000 annually | Kitchen, laundry, livestock, overnight isolation supervision |
| Capsouras, 3:26-cv-01841 | Approximately $81,000 over thirty months | Dishwashing, floor maintenance, livestock, institutional work |
| Cowan-Johnson, 6:26-cv-01560 | Tuition not quantified here | Kitchen and domestic labor recorded as coursework |
| Tell, 3:26-cv-02087 | Tuition and public educational funding | Bridge and dormitory decks, livestock, grounds, kitchens |
| Candito, 3:26-cv-01817 | Tuition not quantified here | Agricultural operations and private household services |
These amounts represent alleged payments associated with individual students, not an accounting of the institution's total revenue.
Nevertheless, they illustrate the economic structure alleged across the complaints.
Families and public agencies paid substantial sums for residential education and treatment.
The institution allegedly avoided ordinary labor expenses by compelling students to perform essential work.
And the resulting improvements allegedly increased the usefulness and value of property controlled by the institution's operators.
V. The private estate, commercial property, and subsequent financial beneficiaries
Several complaints allege that student labor improved property associated with the Argiros family and Education Plus Corporation.
The work included construction, drainage, grounds maintenance, agricultural improvements, and institutional facilities.
The complaints connect those improvements to the property's subsequent use as collateral for financing provided by NBT Bank.
In Dellinger, paragraph 165 specifically links the plaintiff's drainage work to the value of the bank's collateral.
In Candito, the plaintiff describes agricultural labor and services benefiting the Argiros family personally.
In Sullivan and Candito, the plaintiffs allege that the former FFS campus was later acquired by Chapel Hill Land Holdings LLC and continued to generate commercial revenue through a residential summer-camp operation.
The plaintiffs' theory is that improvements produced through unpaid child labor continued providing economic benefits long after the children left and even after FFS closed.
The complaints also allege that financial institutions and commercial suppliers benefited from the enterprise through banking transactions, lending, supply contracts, and other business relationships.
Whether those entities possessed the knowledge required for statutory liability remains a disputed question.
But the underlying financial allegation is unmistakable:
The children allegedly generated economic value not only through their labor during confinement, but also through improvements and business assets that continued producing benefits afterward.
VI. The children could not simply stop working
This is the feature that distinguishes the allegations from ordinary institutional chores or vocational education.
The plaintiffs describe work enforced through physical and psychological coercion.
They allege that refusal could result in isolation, deprivation of food, public humiliation, physical restraint, or prolonged confinement.
Some describe being wrapped in rugs and bound with duct tape.
Others describe being compelled to consume vomit or remain on severely restricted diets.
John Tell and Jane Doe describe being forced to dig their own supposed graves.
C.R. and Dellinger describe being used in tracking-dog exercises.
Several plaintiffs describe attempts to escape, followed by pursuit and recapture.
The alleged labor system was enforced through the institution's control over children's food, movement, communications, punishment, and eventual release.
The complaints also describe children remaining under institutional control after reaching eighteen.
In Barley, the plaintiff alleges that FFS retained him until nearly age twenty.
In Dellinger, the plaintiff describes confinement continuing into adulthood, followed by transfer to another residential institution.
In Capsouras, the plaintiff alleges that he continued performing compulsory work for approximately six months after turning eighteen.
These allegations are particularly important because they describe the continuation of compulsory labor beyond minority.
VII. Delaware County's alleged participation: returning children to the source of forced labor
The most serious County-specific allegations concern the recovery of escaping children.
Several verified complaints assert that the Delaware County Sheriff's Office and other local law-enforcement agencies helped locate and return children to FFS.
The significance is direct.
If an institution depended upon compulsory labor, and law enforcement knowingly returned escaping children to that institution, those returns could help sustain the alleged labor system.
In C.R. v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 6:26-cv-01409, Count V, paragraph 134, the plaintiff alleges that the Sheriff's Office advanced the forced-labor scheme by returning escaping children without investigating the conditions they were attempting to escape.
In S.H. v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-01412, Count V, paragraphs 105–107, the plaintiff expressly names the Sheriff's Office as a direct participant in the alleged forced-labor system.
In Cowan-Johnson v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 6:26-cv-01560, the plaintiff alleges that County law enforcement possessed records concerning abusive restraints and nevertheless continued participating in the recovery of escaping students.
In Baldwin v. Education Plus Corporation, No. 3:26-cv-02076, paragraph 63, the plaintiff alleges that she personally observed police vehicles returning children to FFS.
Baldwin also recounts supervisor Robin Ducey's statement:
"people are paid to help us"
The statement does not identify who was allegedly paid.
But it presents an obvious investigative question when considered alongside the alleged police-assisted recovery system.
Were law-enforcement agencies or personnel compensated for returning children?
Were any private contractors paid?
What arrangements existed between FFS and local governmental institutions?
And did County officials know that the children they returned were allegedly being subjected to compulsory labor?
VIII. The July 1998 Deputy Sheriff's letter — evidence of alleged institutional notice
In Cowan-Johnson, paragraph 129 identifies a July 1998 letter from a Delaware County Deputy Sheriff reporting that FFS students were restrained with duct tape.
The complaint does not identify the deputy or reproduce the letter.
But the alleged existence of that communication is important because it suggests that County law enforcement may have possessed information concerning coercive confinement long before the institution closed in 2014.
If the letter exists as described, its contents, recipients, distribution, and resulting investigation should be examined.
Did the Sheriff's Office continue returning children to FFS after receiving official notice of abusive restraint practices?
That is a concrete question about governmental knowledge and affirmative conduct.
IX. The allegation of financial and political protection
The forced-labor allegations become still more serious when considered alongside the claims of reciprocal governmental benefits.
In S.H., paragraph 103, Van Arsdale, paragraph 112, Cowan-Johnson, paragraph 112, and C.R., paragraph 131, the plaintiffs allege that Delaware County governmental institutions received financial and political benefits from the Argiros family's economic influence in exchange for institutional protection.
The allegations do not establish that individual officials accepted unlawful payments.
They do, however, expressly accuse governmental institutions of protecting the enterprise because of economic and political benefits.
If substantiated, this would connect the alleged forced-labor system to an institutional incentive not to intervene.
The allegation is not merely that Delaware County failed to stop child exploitation. It is that County institutions helped protect an enterprise that allegedly profited from it.
X. What Delaware County voters should demand before November 3, 2026
The forced-labor allegations raise questions that County officials should answer publicly.
How many FFS students were apprehended and returned by County law enforcement?
How many reported compulsory labor, physical restraint, starvation, or abuse before being returned?
What records document the Sheriff's Office's involvement in locating and transporting escaping children?
Were any payments, reimbursements, services, or other benefits exchanged in connection with those returns?
What did County officials know about the use of children to construct and maintain the Argiros family's property and operate FFS?
What happened after the July 1998 Deputy Sheriff's letter concerning duct-tape restraints?
Did the Sheriff's Office investigate whether children were being held and compelled to work against their will?
And did financial or political relationships with the institution's owners influence the County's response?
These questions arise from specific allegations in federal pleadings, not from a generalized criticism of local government.
The thirty lawsuits do not establish the County's liability. But they identify an alleged economic system in which children supplied unpaid labor, institutional punishment enforced compliance, and public law enforcement allegedly helped prevent escape.
If those allegations are substantiated, the scandal will not be confined to what the Argiros family allegedly did to children. It will extend to what Delaware County governmental institutions knew, what they did, and whether they helped preserve the profits of an enterprise built upon forced child labor.
AND - knowing as we know it that nobody in Delaware County government sneezes without permission of the two ladies at the top, Tina Mole and Amy Merklen - the question now arises: DID THEY KNOW? DID THEY PARTICIPATE? WHAT WAS THEIR ROLE?
OH NO - actually, Amy Merklen at the time the school closed was only an ASSistant County Attorney. And who was THE County Attorney - PORTER KIRKWOOD, of course - the current District Executive for the 6th Judicial District.
A little bunch of untouchables, aren't they?
Don't you think you the voters need to ask these questions BEFORE you put back into government come November the same people who now stand accused of - THAT!!!!!
That is a matter of public accountability before the November 3, 2026 election.
No comments:
Post a Comment