Herkimer County CPS Michelle Coddington and Ashley DiFlillippo Violated my Civil Rights 14th Amendment Due Process Herkimer New York
Initial Seizure
Date and Action:
On June 18, 2022, DiFlillippo and Coddington seized I.M. and G.J. from the Mulqueen residence. The seizure was executed without obtaining a court order or warrant. This procedural step was crucial for legal justification but was skipped. There was no imminent or immediate danger present at the time of seizer. There was no post removal hearing. The actions of the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of their freedom of liberty interest in maintaining the parent-child relationship without due process of law.
Wendy and Brian Mulqueen were given only 15 minutes to make decisions about I.M.’s placement, which was done under coercive pressure.
On June 18, 2022, Ashley DiFilippo, without obtaining a court order or warrant, seized I.M. from her parents, Wendy and Brian Mulqueen, after consulting with Coddington via phone following allegations of alleged abuse (altercation between I.M. and Wendy Mulqueen). The alleged abuse occurred on June 16, 2022, and the seizure took place two days later. At the time of the seizure, there was no immediate or imminent danger present.
DiFilippo, along with Michelle Coddington, used coercive tactics to pressure Wendy Mulqueen into making decisions under duress. They did not fully inform the Mulqueen’s of their rights and options, contributing to an environment of undue pressure and fear. (see plaintiffs exhibit)
Investigation Details
June 17, 2022: An initial visit was conducted following the alleged abuse (altercation between Wendy Mulqueen and I.M.)
March 2023: A follow-up visit was made to close the case, which was more than 9 + months later and did not involve a continuous review process. Coddington only visited the home on two occasions.
There was no authentic comprehensive safety assessment, and less restrictive alternatives to seizure were not explored before taking I.M. and G.J. into custody.
Procedural and Ethical Failures
The Mulqueen’s were not given written notice detailing their rights or the reasons for the seizure of I.M. and G.J.
There was no opportunity provided for the Mulqueen’s to contest the seizure before a neutral decision-maker, undermining their ability to challenge the action therefore avoiding due process.
Additionally, Coddington did not conduct regular follow-up visits with the Mulqueen’s or I.M
Support Services:
The Mulqueen’s were not offered any post-removal support services like counseling or parenting classes, which could have addressed potential issues without resorting to seizure. There was no Post Removal Hearing. The actions of the defendants deprived the plaintiffs of their liberty interest in maintaining the parent=child relationship without due process of law.
No efforts were made to facilitate visitation between the Mulqueen’s and I.M. and G.J. after their removal. If fact Coddington intentionally prevented them from contact with one another.
Coddington did not offer the Mulqueen’s a chance to present evidence or witnesses before the seizure of I.M. and G.J. Coddington did not interview relevant witnesses who could have provided exculpatory evidence and failed to maintain accurate and complete records of the investigation. The actions and inactions of DiFilippo and Coddington did not comply with the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The seizure of I.M. caused significant emotional distress to Wendy and Brian Mulqueen and their other children, exacerbating the impact of the alleged abuse and the altercation between I.M. and Wendy Mulqueen. (William Stewart witness to altercation/individual who interceded the altercation as well as video evidence of I.M. behavior) (see plaintiffs exhibit)
Obstruction of Legal Rights/Misrepresentation:
Police Reports:
On August 24, 2022, Coddington deliberately misrepresented facts and obstructed the Mulqueen’s from filing police reports about sexual misconduct and runaway incidents involving I.M., thus hindering their ability to seek legal protection and recourse.
On August 5th, 2022, Coddington deliberately misrepresenting facts about the abuse allegations (altercation between Wendy Mulqueen and I.M.) and refused to assist the Mulqueen’s with the return of I.M. and G.J. which impacted the Mulqueen’s ability to protect I.M. and pursue the return of I.M. and G.J. thus hindering their ability to seek legal protection and recourse.
On August 9th, 2022, Coddington deliberately misrepresenting facts about the abuse allegations (altercation between Wendy Mulqueen and I.M.) which impacted the Mulqueen’s ability to protect I.M. and pursue the return of I.M. and G.J. thus hindering their ability to seek legal protection and recourse.
On August 24, 2022, Coddington deliberately misrepresenting facts about the alleged abuse allegations (altercation between Wendy Mulqueen and I.M.) which impacted the Mulqueen’s ability to protect I.M. and pursue the return of I.M. and G.J. thus hindering their ability to seek legal protection and recourse.
On August 24, 2022, Coddington deliberately misrepresented facts about the alleged abuse allegations (altercation between Wendy Mulqueen and I.M.), which impacted Mulqueen’s ability to protect I.M. and pursue the sexual misconduct report regarding I.M. and M.J. thus, hindering their ability to seek legal protection and recourse. (see plaintiffs exhibit police report)
Family Court Proceedings:
Court Appearance:
(October 2022 I.M. and G.J. moved into an apartment at 1014 Helderberg Ave Schenectady NY 12306 with Mason Johnson I.M.’s adult boyfriend)
On September 29, 2022, during the Family Court appearance related to custody of I.M. and G.J. (file number 2022-974), (Mulqueen v. Heermance) issues related to sexual misconduct and runaway status were not addressed as Coddington stated to the Dolgeville police officer on August 29th, 2022. Coddington's actions led to these issues being overlooked or ignored. The last custody hearing was December 5th, 2022, the Mulqueen’s denied Deanna Heermance custody and made the difficult decision to agree for I.M. to be emancipated. (see plaintiffs exhibits)
Assessment of Brian Mulqueen:
Brian Mulqueen, as the father of I.M. and grandfather of G.J., was not assessed by Coddington and DiFlillippo. His established liberty interest in the care and custody of the I.M. was not considered, despite his non-involvement in the alleged abuse (altercation between Wendy Mulqueen and I.M.)