Angel Care

Pros

• The home care agency is described as 10/10, with staff treating clients with love and respect and accommodating their needs.
• The staff are friendly, and reviewers highly recommend working with them.
• The agency is described as very good and highly recommended, with the assistant doing her job very well and no complaints about the agency.
• NJ Golden Agency staff are wonderful people, and a reviewer is happy working with them, praising their good human relations.
• The manager is described as nice and understanding.

Cons

• The agency is described as illegal and not complying with New Jersey standards and laws.
• Caregivers are described as not trained properly.
• The staff nurse is alleged to be unlicensed and not visit the elderly or disabled.
• The owner is reportedly missing in action and unaware of incidents, offering no accountability.
• The agency allegedly lied in responses, misrepresenting the circumstances of a fall.
• A mother fell and bled while in the agency's care, indicating neglect.
• The agency is accused of fraud and taking money from patients or not paying workers.
• They are accused of hiring unprofessional or unlicensed aides, some with language barriers.
• They allegedly do not test aides for COVID and may endanger residents by sending sick workers.
• They are accused of prioritizing money over patient care and should be shut down.

Review

There is a troubling pattern of experiences shared by many people about a New Jersey home care agency. Across numerous reviews, families describe a caregiving operation that is repeatedly marked by neglect, unlicensed staff, inconsistent communication, and a surprising lack of accountability. Some accounts portray a system that feels more about money than patient welfare, with several reviewers insisting that the agency's practices put vulnerable elders at risk. The tone across these messages ranges from deeply disappointed to outraged, with a clear sense that the agency's worst failures have had real and lasting consequences for loved ones.

One of the most disturbing sets of allegations centers on a moment of alleged harm to a 101-year-old mother. Reviewers recount that she fell, sustained a severe head injury, bled, and required urgent trauma care while under the agency's care. The claim that a caregiver was in the bathroom cleaning and not supervising her at the time is described as a shocking and unacceptable lapse. Compounding the distress is the claim that the owner of the agency went missing (or "MIA"), with no calls to check on the elder or to take responsibility for the incident. Several reviewers insist that there was no accountability afterward and that the agency's version of events contradicted what happened, including a claim that blood on the pavement and the sequence of a fall were misrepresented. For families, these details illuminate a broader concern: that safety and basic supervision were not being prioritized.

The core criticisms frequently returned to the competence and licensure of staff. Several reviews allege that aides are untrained, unlicensed, or not properly supervised. There are worries about language barriers - caregivers who cannot communicate effectively with clients and families - and about aides who reportedly clock in for long breaks or perform tasks with little to no meaningful supervision. The shared fear is that an elderly or disabled person, particularly someone who requires supervision and specialized care, is left vulnerable when staff are not adequately prepared or supervised. In some cases, reviewers point to alleged "fraudulent" practices, misrepresentations, and a lack of proper monitoring as systemic problems rather than isolated incidents.

Another thread running through many reviews is the perception of financial and administrative mismanagement. Complaints include workers not getting paid despite long hours worked, late or missing wages, and general financial misalignment that leaves aides and clients in precarious positions. There are also references to lost or mishandled payroll documentation, such as W-2 forms not being provided promptly. Several reviewers describe a revolving door of coordinators or managers, with changes that appear to correspond to ongoing dissatisfaction, and some note that staff who leave one company (or switch to a different agency) end up continuing to work within the same network of providers, raising questions about oversight and accountability.

The reviews also reflect a broader sense of distrust communicated by families who have experienced or observed inconsistent care. Some accounts are positive, with reviewers praising the agency as "10/10" and commending caregivers for genuine kindness and respect. Yet these favorable voices are often overshadowed by the louder chorus of negative experiences. Complaints about late arrivals, lack of follow-through, and disrespect from staff are common, and several reviewers explicitly advise others not to entrust their loved ones to the agency. The unease is amplified by stories of coordinators who were once perceived as helpful but later described as ineffective or disinterested in addressing ongoing problems. Names like Sulma and Ysmelys are mentioned as former staff whose departures were seen as a turning point in the quality of service.

In some reviews, the negative experiences culminate in calls for regulatory action. Several reviewers urge authorities to investigate for potential illegal or fraudulent behavior, and there are explicit mentions of taking the matter to state regulators or Medicaid officials. The sentiment is that, if the agency's practices prove to be fraudulent or unsafe, there should be consequences, including possible loss of licensure or removal from Medicaid provider lists. The strongest undercurrent is a plea for accountability and a safer standard of care for the elderly and disabled who rely on home caregivers to live with dignity and safety in their own homes.

Against this backdrop of caution and alarm, a small number of voices offer a contrasting perspective. Some reviewers report positive personal experiences, praising the human warmth of staff and the agency's willingness to accommodate individual needs. Even within those redeeming notes, however, there is an overarching awareness of the mixed landscape: compliments about kindness and attentiveness coexist with explicit warnings about inconsistencies, reliability issues, and concerns about supervision and safety. The contrast between the two ends of the spectrum underscores a central tension: for families navigating care for elderly or disabled loved ones, choosing a home care provider becomes a risk-benefit decision in a system that many feel is not consistently reliable.

Taken together, the collection of reviews paints a troubling portrait of a home care agency in New Jersey that many families firmly believe should not be trusted with the care of vulnerable relatives. Allegations of unlicensed staff, insufficient supervision, and harmful incidents, coupled with claims of fraud, nonpayment of workers, and a lack of owner accountability, create a narrative of systemic weakness rather than isolated missteps. For now, these reviews indicate a strong push from affected families for greater oversight, transparency, and safeguards to ensure that the elder care system protects those who are most in need. Whether reform comes through regulatory action, changes in management, or a shift to alternative providers, the voices here converge on one central message: safety, integrity, and reliable care must come first.

This part of Jersey City, New Jersey, offers a convenient and vibrant urban environment with easy access to transportation options such as the PATH stations and Hoboken Terminal. There are several pharmacies within close proximity for any medical needs, as well as numerous parks along the Hudson River for leisurely strolls or enjoying the waterfront views. The area is also home to a variety of restaurants and cafes, providing plenty of dining options for residents. In terms of entertainment, there are theaters nearby for catching a movie or live show. For healthcare needs, both the VA Medical Center and Bellevue Hospital Center are easily accessible. Overall, this part of Jersey City offers a bustling yet convenient atmosphere for senior living.

Transportation

• Journal Square PATH Station (0.2 miles)
• Grove Street PATH Station (1.4 miles)
• Hoboken Terminal (2 miles)
• NJT - Frank R. Lautenberg Secaucus Junction Station (2.3 miles)
• MTA Subway - Wall St (3.2 miles)
• MTA Subway - Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall/Chambers St (3.4 miles)
• MTA - 14 St Subway Station - Union Square (3.5 miles)

Pharmacies

• Walgreens (1 miles)
• Duane Reade (1.4 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.7 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.8 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (1.9 miles)
• CVS Pharmacy (2.1 miles)
• Duane Reade (3.3 miles)

Parks

• Van Vorst Park (1.2 miles)
• Nelson A. Rockefeller Park (2.7 miles)
• Battery Park City Esplanade (2.8 miles)
• Pier 26 - Hudson River Park (2.8 miles)
• Hudson River Park Trus (2.9 miles)
• Pier 45 (2.9 miles)
• Hudson River Park (2.9 miles)

Restaurants

• Surf City Bar (1.7 miles)
• Dominique Ansel Bakery (3.3 miles)
• Cookshop (3.3 miles)
• The Frying Pan (3.3 miles)
• Pier 17 (3.7 miles)
• Subway - 334 Grand St (4 miles)
• Daily Provisions (4.1 miles)

Cafes

• Black Stone Roasters (3.1 miles)
• Starbucks (3.2 miles)
• Matchaful (3.8 miles)
• Starbucks (4.4 miles)
• East One Coffee Roasters (4.9 miles)

Theaters

• Alamo Drafthouse Cinema Lower Manhattan (3.3 miles)
• AMC 34th Street 14 (4 miles)
• AMC Kips Bay 15 (4.7 miles)

Hospitals

• VA Medical Center (4.6 miles)
• Bellevue Hospital Center (4.7 miles)