Turnbridge / Turning Point Due-Diligence Archive

Status: Survivor-led due-diligence record.
Scope: Firsthand accounts, direct disclosures, and reported / relayed incidents preserved from the broader Turnbridge institutional memo.
Client names: Abbreviated.
Staff names: Used where the staff member’s institutional role is relevant.
Purpose: To preserve incidents, identify corroboration paths, and frame records requests that Turnbridge / Turning Point should be able to answer.

This page does not ask readers to accept every account as proven. Some incidents were personally witnessed or experienced. Some were directly disclosed to staff. Some were relayed by other clients or staff and require corroboration. The purpose is to preserve the record and ask what documentation exists.

​

Firsthand Observations / Events Personally Witnessed or Experienced

1. Drew Behr allegedly replayed CCTV footage of M.J. chasing and spraying C.S. with a fire extinguisher

Approx. date: February 2022
Program/location: Phase 1 / Turnbridge
Staff involved: Drew Behr, Phase 1 case manager
Clients involved: M.J.; C.S.
Type: Client-on-client violence; staff conduct; misuse of surveillance footage; humiliation / mockery

In or around February 2022, I personally witnessed Phase 1 case manager Drew Behr replay CCTV footage of a serious client-on-client incident involving M.J. and C.S.

The incident, as I remember it, involved M.J. chasing C.S., spraying C.S. with a fire extinguisher, and attempting to beat C.S. with the extinguisher.

Drew showed the footage to me and numerous other clients while laughing and calling C.S. a “dumbass.”

This is included because the underlying incident involved serious client-on-client violence or threat, including use of a fire extinguisher as an object in the assault or attempted assault, and because the alleged staff response raises separate questions about surveillance-footage access, evidence handling, client dignity, staff cruelty, and institutional oversight.

Potential corroboration:

CCTV footage from the M.J. / C.S. fire-extinguisher incident
Staff access logs / camera review logs
Other clients who were shown the footage
Incident reports, shift notes, or clinical notes
House rosters or client records confirming M.J. and C.S. were present at the relevant time

Archive classification: Firsthand observation.

2. L.M. sexual-boundary disclosure at 1212 Quinnipiac; Mark Grasso allegedly overheard and no meaningful protective action followed

Approx. date: Late 2022
Location: 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue
Staff involved: Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso
Clients involved: E.O.; L.M.; myself
Type: Sexual-boundary complaint; staff response; client safety

In late 2022, I told E.O. that L.M. had gotten on top of me, grabbed my penis, and refused to get off during an incident at the Turnbridge property at 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue.

Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso overheard me relay this to E.O. He said words to the effect that it sounded crazy and that I should “feel free” to report it to higher-ups if I felt like it.

To my knowledge, no meaningful protective action was taken. I do not recall being formally interviewed, separated from L.M., or given a clear protective plan. L.M. continued to harass me afterward.

The staff identity is based on my memory of the staff member known as Mark, the screenshot display name “Mark David Grasso,” and the public Instagram handle @markdgrassoct22. Official employment records, staff rosters, or shift logs should confirm identity before stronger public claims are made.

Potential corroboration:

Employment records confirming Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso’s role / assignment at the time
House logs / shift notes from 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue
E.O. as witness to my disclosure
Other clients aware of L.M.’s later harassment
Any incident reports, if they exist
Records showing Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso was present or assigned to the house
Clinical notes, staff notes, or communications following the disclosure

Archive classification: Firsthand disclosure + staff overhearing + alleged failure to respond.

3. Late-2021 chair assault by C. at 90 Ford Street; footage later allegedly replayed mockingly

Approx. date: Late 2021
Location: 90 Ford Street
Staff involved: Drew Behr
Client involved: C.
Type: Client-on-client violence; surveillance footage; staff cruelty / humiliation

In late 2021, at 90 Ford Street, I was violently assaulted by an older client, C., with a heavy wooden chair.

The incident was on camera. Drew Behr later replayed the footage for me and mocked me for “flinching.”

This is included both as a client-safety incident and as a staff-conduct incident. The core institutional questions are whether the assault was properly documented, whether CCTV footage was preserved and reviewed appropriately, whether staff were permitted to replay it casually, and whether any meaningful protective action followed.

Potential corroboration:

CCTV footage from 90 Ford Street
Incident report / shift notes
Other clients present at the house
Medical records or injury documentation, if any
Staff camera-access records
House roster for the period
Staff schedules for Drew Behr and others present
Records identifying C. and his placement at 90 Ford Street

Archive classification: Firsthand victimization + firsthand staff conduct.

4. John Stewart allegedly took / mishandled $150 in late 2021; money was never returned

Approx. date: Late 2021
Program/location: Phase 1
Staff involved: John Stewart, Phase 1 director
Type: Client money; alleged taking / mishandling; staff authority

In late 2021, I personally experienced John Stewart taking $150 from my hands in three $50 bills.

The money was never returned.

This is included as an allegation involving client money and staff authority. It should be corroborated through date reconstruction, witness accounts, contemporaneous texts, family disclosures, or records showing staff contact around the time.

Potential corroboration:

Late-2021 date/time reconstruction
Contemporaneous texts to family, therapist, sponsor, or clients
House/staff logs showing staff contact around the time
Witnesses, if any
Internal complaint, note, reimbursement record, or return-of-funds record, if any exists

Archive classification: Firsthand allegation against staff.

5. PS4 allegedly stolen after being left at 1212 Quinnipiac; no meaningful response by Eric Regensburg

Approx. date property left: January 2023
Approx. date discovered missing: May 2023
Location: 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue
Staff involved: Eric Regensburg, case manager
Property involved: PlayStation 4, estimated value approximately $400
Type: Client property; alleged theft / missing property; failure to document; failure to investigate; staff-response concern

In approximately January 2023, I left a PlayStation 4 at the Turnbridge property at 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue.

When I returned in May 2023, the PS4 was missing and appeared to have been stolen.

I raised the missing PS4 with case manager Eric Regensburg. My recollection is that no meaningful effort was made to retrieve it, locate it, document its disappearance, or create a report. Every conversation I remember having with Eric Regensburg about the missing PS4 ended up turning into him talking about taking a new job in Florida.

The PS4 was never returned. To my knowledge, no report was ever made.

This is included as a client-property and staff-response concern. In a residential-treatment setting, client belongings should be documented, protected, and investigated when missing. The institutional question is whether Turnbridge had a property-inventory process, missing-property reporting process, staff accountability process, or reimbursement procedure when client property disappeared from a Turnbridge residence.

Potential corroboration:

Texts, emails, or messages about leaving the PS4 at 1212 Quinnipiac
Texts, emails, or messages about the PS4 being missing in May 2023
Eric Regensburg’s case-management notes
1212 Quinnipiac house logs
Property inventory records, if any
Client property policies
Staff schedules for 1212 Quinnipiac during the relevant period
Other clients who saw the PS4 at 1212 Quinnipiac
Other clients who knew it was missing
Communications with family about the missing PS4
Records of Eric Regensburg leaving or planning to leave for a Florida job
Missing-property report, if one exists
Reimbursement / restitution policy

Archive classification: Firsthand client-property loss allegation + staff-response concern.

6. A.S. threats of bodily assault; concern about lack of meaningful discipline / protection

Approx. date: To be narrowed
Clients involved: A.S.; myself; C.
Type: Threats; client safety; failure to discipline / failure to protect

I recall Turnbridge failing to meaningfully discipline or protect after A.S. threatened bodily assault against me and also against C.

This is included because threats between clients in residential treatment are not merely interpersonal conflict. Clients often cannot easily choose where they sleep, who they live with, or whether they can avoid threatening peers. Threats in that setting raise housing, supervision, documentation, and safety-plan questions.

Potential corroboration:

Witnesses to the threats
Incident reports / shift notes
Messages or contemporaneous disclosures
C.’s account, if available
House rosters and staff schedules
Safety plans or clinical notes

Archive classification: Firsthand observation / firsthand safety concern.

7. Chris Meyer car / transportation story involving reckless driving, payment disclosure, drug-world stories, and “Fast Eddie” murder discussion

Approx. date: Late 2022
Staff involved: Chris Meyer / Chris Myer
Type: Staff conduct; transportation; judgment / supervision concern; professional-boundary concern; confidentiality concern; local-crime-story boundary concern

Separate from the public police-log material concerning Chris Meyer, I personally remember Chris Meyer being hired to drive me into New York City for a film-related obligation.

During that car ride, I remember Meyer:

running red lights;
speaking on the phone with multiple women about ways he was lying to them;
telling me how much my parents were paying him;
recounting a story from Fairhaven involving buying drugs with his girlfriend, a large Black man in the car, and a dog;
telling me about the Fair Haven / “Fast Eddie” murder story;
saying, as I remember it, that he was the person who was supposed to be killed by the person later charged in the “Fast Eddie” killing.

This is included as a personal recollection relevant to judgment, transportation safety, staff boundaries, confidentiality around family payment arrangements, and the appropriateness of placing staff in transportation or authority roles around young clients.

This should not be treated as a criminal allegation against Meyer. The concern is not that Meyer was involved in the “Fast Eddie” killing. The concern is that a staff member transporting a vulnerable client allegedly drove recklessly, disclosed family payment information, discussed chaotic relationship dynamics, and brought up local drug-world / murder material during a paid client transport.

Public reporting separately anchors the existence of the Fair Haven / “Fast Eddie” murder case. Public reporting identified Edward Andrew “Fast Eddie” Thompson as having been killed in Fair Haven in 2011, reported that Larry Johnson was arrested on a warrant for murder in the case, and reported that police said Thompson was not the intended target. Later public reporting stated that Johnson was found not guilty. This public reporting is included only to anchor the apparent real-world event Meyer was discussing and to show why Meyer’s alleged statement — that he had been the intended target — may be a relevant staff-boundary / judgment detail. It does not verify Meyer’s statement, and no claim is made here that Meyer was involved in the killing.

Potential corroboration:

Family records or memory of who hired Chris Meyer for transportation
Texts, calendars, emails, or payment records around the ride
My parents’ recollection of the arrangement
Employment or transportation records involving Chris Meyer
Turnbridge transportation policies
Communications showing Meyer’s client-transport duties
Contemporaneous therapist, family, or client disclosures about the ride
Public reporting on the Fair Haven / “Fast Eddie” case
Witness, text, or prior disclosure confirming Meyer discussed being the alleged intended target

Archive classification: Firsthand recollection / staff-conduct concern, not a criminal-record item.

8. Peter McConnell ideological / political boundary concerns with queer-presenting and left-wing clients

Approx. date: Early-to-mid 2022
Program/location: Phase II, 520 Whitney Avenue / Whitney-Canner Turnbridge property, New Haven
Staff involved: Peter McConnell
Clients involved: Myself and other queer-presenting / left-wing clients
Type: Staff boundary issue; ideological / political pressure; inappropriate use of authority

In early-to-mid 2022, while I was in Phase II at the 520 Whitney Avenue / Whitney-Canner Turnbridge property, Peter McConnell repeatedly brought up conservatism and told clients that leftist politics were irresponsible.

This often occurred in the context of waking us up at around 8 a.m., with the implication that we were leftist and lazy. In private meetings with queer-presenting clients, McConnell would also redirect conversation toward politics, leftists being personally irresponsible, and conservatism being the answer.

This is included as a staff-boundary concern because he was speaking from a position of authority in a treatment setting, and because the political framing appeared to pathologize or moralize clients’ identities, values, and perceived laziness rather than focusing on treatment, safety, or care.

The property context is relevant because public reporting identifies 520 Whitney Avenue as a Whitney/Canner-area sober-house property bought by CT Clinical Services, Inc., also known as Turning Point. This helps anchor the location of the Phase II experience described above.

Potential corroboration:

Other Phase II clients present during early-to-mid 2022
Queer-presenting clients who had private meetings with McConnell
Phase II house schedules / wake-up routines
Staff assignments for the 520 Whitney Avenue / Whitney-Canner property
Contemporaneous texts, journal entries, or client accounts
Public property / article records identifying 520 Whitney Avenue as a Turning Point / CT Clinical Services sober-house property

Archive classification: Firsthand staff-boundary / ideological-pressure concern + publicly anchored property context.

9. Dave Murphy Phase 3 East Haven lecture about clients being lazy / burdens on parents

Approx. date: March or April 2022
Program/location: Phase 3 transitional house in East Haven, a few blocks from Hobby Lobby [exact address unknown; public records not yet located]
Staff involved: Dave Murphy
Clients involved: Myself and other Phase 3 clients
Type: Staff conduct; humiliation / shaming; inappropriate use of authority; family-pressure rhetoric

Sometime in March or April 2022, while I was at a Phase 3 transitional house in East Haven a few blocks from Hobby Lobby, Dave Murphy woke us up and lectured us about how we were lazy, how our parents could not take care of us, how our parents had dropped us off at Turnbridge, and how we needed to grow up and stop being a burden on our parents.

I remember the tone as harsh and screaming. The content of the lecture framed clients as burdens whose parents could not handle them, rather than as vulnerable people in treatment. I am including this because it is relevant to staff conduct, emotional safety, family-pressure rhetoric, and the way authority was used in transitional housing.

I do not currently remember the exact East Haven address, and public records have not yet surfaced a confirmed property match. My memory is that the house was a few blocks from Hobby Lobby.

Potential corroboration:

Other Phase 3 clients present during the lecture
Phase 3 East Haven house rosters from March / April 2022
Staff schedules showing Dave Murphy assigned to the East Haven transitional house
Contemporaneous texts, journal entries, or family disclosures after the lecture
Client accounts of similar “lazy / burden on parents” lectures
Property records, staff schedules, mail records, or house lists identifying the East Haven transitional house near Hobby Lobby

Archive classification: Firsthand staff-conduct / humiliation concern; exact property address to confirm.

10. Phase II movie-trip sexual-boundary incident; M.S. alleged outing threat / coerced Venmo payment; dismissive response by Douglas Roberto

Approx. date: Around November 2022
Program/location: Phase II; weekly Tuesday movie trip; later 520 Whitney Avenue / Whitney-Canner Turnbridge property
Staff involved: Douglas Roberto; another case manager present [name to confirm]
Clients involved: E.; M.S.; myself
Type: Sexual-boundary incident; alleged coercion / extortion; outing threat; harassment; failure to respond; client safety

Around November 2022, while I was in Phase II, Turnbridge had weekly Tuesday movie trips. On one of these trips, we went to see Nope, the Jordan Peele movie.

During the movie, E. and I grabbed each other’s penises.

When we returned to 520 Whitney Avenue and were back in our rooms, exhausted, I told M.S. what had happened. M.S. flew into a rage and told me to Venmo him $50 or he would tell everyone I was gay. I felt physically imposed on and threatened, and I Venmoed him $50.

I later explained this to Douglas Roberto. Another case manager was also in the room. Douglas responded, “Why would you send him $50?” The other case manager looked at me like I was an idiot.

To my knowledge, no meaningful action was taken. M.S. continued harassing me afterward and texting me threats through social media.

Potential corroboration:

Venmo record showing $50 payment to M.S.
Movie-trip schedule / Phase II Tuesday outing records
Records showing Phase II clients attended Nope around November 2022
Other clients present on the movie trip
520 Whitney Avenue house roster from that period
Douglas Roberto’s case-management records / notes
Identity of the second case manager present
Social-media messages / threat texts from M.S.
Contemporaneous texts, journal entries, therapist disclosures, family disclosures, or client conversations
Other clients aware of M.S.’s later harassment

Archive classification: Firsthand sexual-boundary / coercion allegation + firsthand disclosure to case manager + alleged failure to respond.

11. Staff refusal to provide inhaler during asthma attack; staff-boundary / judgment concerns involving Will

Approx. date: Summer 2022
Program/location: Turnbridge house a few blocks from Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby [exact address to confirm]
Staff involved: Will [last name to confirm]
Clients involved: Myself; other clients present [names to confirm]
Type: Medical safety; medication access; staff judgment; alleged failure to respond to asthma symptoms; staff-boundary concern

In summer 2022, while I was at a Turnbridge house a few blocks from Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby, I was having an asthma attack. I asked a staff member named Will to provide me with my inhaler.

Will refused to provide the inhaler. My memory is that he said I was “faking it” and that other clients had said I was “getting high” off the albuterol.

I am including this as a medical-safety and medication-access concern because asthma symptoms can require urgent access to prescribed medication, and because a staff member in a residential treatment setting should not dismiss a client’s request for an inhaler based on peer commentary or an assumption that the client is faking symptoms.

This same staff member also raised broader staff-boundary and judgment concerns. My memory is that Will had black hair, a mustache and beard, and an overweight build. I remember him having a habit of restraining and tickling clients, and telling clients stories about robbing gas stations in ski masks with toy guns and not getting caught.

These details are included not as separate proven criminal allegations, but because they may be relevant to identifying the staff member and evaluating his judgment, boundaries, and appropriateness for direct-care work with vulnerable clients.

Potential corroboration:

Will’s full name and employment records
Staff schedules for the Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby-area house in summer 2022
Medication logs showing inhaler access / denial / request timing
House logs or shift notes from the day of the asthma attack
Other clients present when I asked for the inhaler
Other clients who heard Will say I was “faking it” or “getting high” off albuterol
Other clients who witnessed Will restraining or tickling clients
Other clients who heard Will tell stories about gas-station robberies with ski masks and toy guns
Contemporaneous texts, journal entries, therapist disclosures, family disclosures, or medical records
Records showing the exact house address near Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby

Archive classification: Firsthand medical-safety / medication-access allegation + firsthand staff-boundary / staff-judgment concern.

12. Joseph Moura / Holy Family Hospital pickup / 28-day understanding / contract-signing disclosure issue

Approx. date: September 28, 2021
Pickup location: Holy Family Hospital, Haverhill, Massachusetts
Destination / intake location: Turnbridge / Turning Point, 189 Orange Street, New Haven, Connecticut
Staff involved: Joseph Moura / Joe Moura
Type: Admissions / transportation / informed consent / contract-signing / program-length representation / client autonomy / family reliance / potential consumer-protection concern

On September 28, 2021, Joseph Moura picked me up from Holy Family Hospital in Haverhill, Massachusetts, and transported me to Turnbridge / Turning Point in New Haven, Connecticut. The drive was approximately three and a half hours.

During that car ride, I spoke with friends on the phone and repeatedly communicated that I believed I would be gone for “28 days” and would return shortly. Joseph Moura was present for the drive and heard me discussing that understanding while I was in transit to Turnbridge.

That same day, after arriving at Turnbridge, I was directed to sign contracts at 189 Orange Street. After I signed the contracts, Joseph Moura informed me that Turnbridge was actually a year-long program. My recollection is that he said he did not want to “ruin” my last day of freedom.

This is included as a serious admissions, informed-consent, transportation, contract-signing, and consumer-protection concern. If a client is transported for hours while openly stating that he believes he is entering a 28-day program, and staff know the program is actually expected to last approximately a year, the timing of that disclosure matters.

The institutional question is whether Turnbridge allowed me to sign contracts before I was clearly informed of the true expected program length. This raises questions about whether I and my family were accurately informed before admission, whether program-length representations were made clearly and in writing, whether the contract-signing process was meaningful, and whether a vulnerable client was asked to sign paperwork under materially incomplete or misleading assumptions.

This item also matters because family payment and program-length expectations are central to residential-treatment consumer protection. If a family pays substantial money based on one understanding of duration, while the client is not told until after contract signing that the program is effectively year-long, that discrepancy should be tested through admissions records, family communications, billing records, transportation records, and signed intake documents.

Potential corroboration:

Holy Family Hospital discharge / transfer records from September 28, 2021
Transportation records identifying Joseph Moura as the staff member who picked me up
Turnbridge intake records from September 28, 2021
Contracts signed at 189 Orange Street on September 28, 2021
Any admissions materials or communications describing program length
Any family communications before admission describing “28 days,” “30 days,” “long-term,” “one year,” or expected duration
Call logs showing phone calls made during the transport
Friends who spoke with me during the drive and heard me say I would be gone for “28 days”
Joseph Moura staff schedule / assignment records for September 28, 2021
Any internal Turnbridge notes concerning my intake, transportation, consent, contract signing, or understanding of program length
Billing / financial records showing expected duration, monthly costs, deposits, family payment expectations, or length-of-stay assumptions
Any recordings, texts, emails, admissions notes, or family communications from Turnbridge staff describing the expected length of stay

Archive classification: Firsthand recollection involving transportation, contract signing, program-length representation, and staff disclosure after paperwork. Records may corroborate date, location, staff identity, hospital pickup, transport duration, contract timing, phone calls, admissions communications, and family payment expectations.

Recommended consumer-protection framing: If a client was transported from a hospital while openly telling friends he would be gone for “28 days,” then directed to sign contracts at 189 Orange Street before being told by staff that the program was actually year-long, that raises serious questions about informed consent, admissions representations, family reliance, contract formation, and whether Turnbridge’s business model depended on materially delayed disclosure of program length.

13. J.E. / D.A. nonconsensual sexual recording and distribution; Douglas Roberto case-management / staff-response concern

Approx. date: Early 2022
Program/location: Turnbridge house near Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby [exact address to confirm]
Staff involved: Douglas Roberto, case manager connected to the house
Clients involved: J.E. [protective pseudonymous initials used at former client’s request]; D.A. [client alleged to have recorded and distributed the video]
Type: Sexual privacy; alleged nonconsensual intimate recording / distribution; client safety; staff knowledge; internal response; documentation / reporting concern

In July 2026, former Turnbridge client J.E. disclosed to me through direct messages that another client, D.A., allegedly filmed him naked / masturbating and texted the video to multiple people. J.E. stated that Turnbridge staff knew the details, that staff were complicit, and that D.A. was downgraded to Phase 1 when police probably should have been involved. J.E. also indicated that he was not meaningfully asked or involved in the response, and that there should be internal documentation somewhere.

I personally remember seeing the video circulating at the time. My memory is that this occurred in early 2022 at the Turnbridge house near Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby. I also remember Douglas Roberto as the case manager connected to that house. J.E. requested anonymization, so this memo uses protective pseudonymous initials for him and for D.A. unless and until legal counsel, regulators, or the individuals involved determine a different disclosure posture.

This item is included under firsthand accounts because I personally remember seeing the video circulating, while J.E.’s account supplies direct victim/witness context about the alleged filming, distribution, staff knowledge, internal handling, and lack of meaningful victim-centered involvement. The account raises serious questions about sexual privacy, nonconsensual intimate-image distribution, staff response, incident documentation, reporting obligations, police involvement, client protection, device / phone handling, and whether Turnbridge treated the harmed client as the center of the response.

Potential corroboration:

J.E.’s direct account and direct-message screenshots
Any clients who received, saw, or discussed the video
Records identifying D.A. and confirming his placement / phase status in early 2022
House rosters and staff schedules for the Foxon Boulevard / Hobby Lobby-area house in early 2022
Douglas Roberto’s case-management notes, staff notes, or communications connected to the house and incident
Incident reports, clinical notes, house logs, disciplinary records, or phase-down records involving J.E., D.A., Douglas Roberto, or the video
Internal communications showing staff knowledge, staff response, or discussion of whether police, parents, guardians, or outside authorities should be contacted
Records showing whether J.E. was interviewed, supported, safety-planned, asked what he wanted, or included in the response
Records showing whether devices were searched, recipients identified, copies deleted, or phone / message evidence preserved
Any police report, mandated-reporting record, legal consultation, or documentation showing why police were or were not contacted

Archive classification: Direct former-client disclosure from J.E. + firsthand corroborating memory that the video circulated. Sexual privacy / alleged nonconsensual intimate recording and distribution concern; staff knowledge / internal-response concern; records-preservation issue. Names and public use should remain anonymized pending legal / regulatory review and additional corroboration.

14. Drew Behr “curbstomping” allegation at 90 Ford Street

Approx. date: Late September / early October 2021
Location: 90 Ford Street
Program context: Phase 1
Staff involved: Drew Behr
People involved: Drew Behr; myself; my parents as relevant family-contact context
Type: Staff intimidation; violent threat-adjacent statement; family-contact interference; misuse of authority; client safety; staff-boundary concern; records-preservation issue

In late September or early October 2021, while I was in Phase 1 at 90 Ford Street, Drew Behr instructed my parents not to take my phone calls. After an altercation between Drew and me that began in that context, Drew took me into his office at 90 Ford Street.

In that office, Drew told me that he had told his wife he thought of “curbstomping” me. He explicitly referenced the film American History X to describe what he wanted to do to me.

This is included as a serious staff-conduct and client-safety allegation. A staff member in a treatment setting allegedly restricting a client’s family contact and then privately describing a desire to “curbstomp” that client raises questions about intimidation, retaliation, violent language, staff judgment, clinical oversight, supervision, family-contact practices, and whether violent staff statements were documented or addressed.

This allegation is especially important because Drew Behr is already discussed in connection with my allegation that he replayed CCTV footage of client-on-client violence while mocking clients. The new allegation strengthens the same institutional question: whether Turnbridge documented, tolerated, ignored, normalized, or promoted staff behavior that treated violence and humiliation as part of the treatment environment.

It also matters because Drew Behr was not merely a random person in my experience. He was my Phase 1 case manager during this period, and to my understanding he later became a major institutional figure at Turnbridge. That raises additional questions about staff supervision, promotion, internal accountability, and whether prior client-safety or staff-conduct concerns were preserved or considered.

Potential corroboration:

My parents’ recollection of Drew Behr instructing them not to take my calls
Family call logs, texts, or emails from late September / early October 2021
90 Ford Street house logs and staff schedules from late September / early October 2021
Phase 1 family-contact / phone policies
Any incident report, clinical note, or staff note related to the altercation
Any staff note or clinical documentation concerning a private office meeting between Drew Behr and me
Contemporaneous disclosures to family, therapist, sponsor, staff, or other clients
Turnbridge employment and promotion records showing Drew Behr’s role progression
Turnbridge policies governing staff threats, violent language, retaliation, intimidation, and private staff-client meetings after conflict
HR, supervision, or internal records concerning complaints about Drew Behr’s conduct

Archive classification: Firsthand allegation involving staff conduct, family-contact interference, violent threat-adjacent language, and client-safety concern. Corroboration may exist through family recollection, phone/contact records, staff schedules, house logs, clinical notes, and any contemporaneous disclosure.

15. W.S. reported suicide attempt, five-day removal, return, and phase-down to 520 Whitney

Approx. date: Mid-2022
Initial program/location: Phase 3 house
Return / later placement: Phased down to 520 Whitney / Phase 2 after return
Client involved: W.S.
Type: Suicidality / self-harm concern; removal from facility; phase-down after crisis; client autonomy; alleged refusal to permit departure; retention concern; records-preservation issue

In mid-2022, W.S. was living in a Phase 3 Turnbridge house. W.S. reported to me that he had tried to kill himself and had been removed from the facility for approximately five days. I can personally confirm that W.S. was absent from the program environment for approximately five days.

After he returned, W.S. was not returned to the same level of freedom. He was “phased down” from Phase 3 to 520 Whitney / Phase 2.

According to what W.S. reported to me, Turnbridge refused to let him leave or remain out of the program and instead took him back into the program, where he remained for approximately another year despite his stated wishes and complaints.

I did not personally witness the suicide attempt or the internal decision-making around W.S.’s removal, return, or phase-down. The suicide-attempt account and alleged refusal to let him leave come from W.S.’s report to me. However, I can confirm his approximate five-day absence and later presence at 520 Whitney after being phased down.

This allegation raises serious questions about self-harm response, discharge rights, client autonomy, clinical decision-making, family communication, safety planning, level-of-care decisions, and whether Turnbridge retained a vulnerable client after a serious safety crisis despite that client’s stated opposition.

If W.S.’s account is accurate, Turnbridge should have extensive records explaining how a Phase 3 client’s reported suicide attempt, five-day removal, return to program care, phase-down to 520 Whitney / Phase 2, and roughly year-long continued placement were assessed, documented, justified, and communicated.

Potential corroboration:

W.S.’s direct account
Phase 3 house logs / rosters from mid-2022
Records confirming W.S.’s approximate five-day absence
520 Whitney / Phase 2 rosters showing his return and phase-down
Incident reports or clinical notes concerning suicidality / self-harm risk
Hospital, ER, crisis center, or outside-provider records, if applicable and legally obtainable
Discharge / return-to-program documentation
Level-of-care / phase-down decision records
Family communications about W.S.’s removal, return, and phase-down
Clinical risk assessment and safety-plan records
Records of whether W.S. requested to leave or objected to returning
Policies on suicide attempts, self-harm monitoring, phase-downs, discharge, refusal of care, and client autonomy
Billing / retention records, if relevant to how long W.S. remained after the incident

Archive classification: Mixed firsthand / reported allegation. I can personally confirm W.S.’s approximate five-day absence and later presence at 520 Whitney after being phased down. The suicide-attempt account, alleged refusal to let him leave, and alleged continued placement against his wishes come from W.S.’s report to me and require corroboration through W.S., program records, family communications, medical records, and house logs.

16. Maura / Moira / Mara 189 Orange group-removal incident after D. criticized Turnbridge care team’s influence over parents

Approx. date: Summer 2022
Location/program: 189 Orange Street / Turnbridge clinical or group therapy setting
Staff involved: Maura / Moira / Mara [last name unknown], therapist or clinical staff member
Clients involved: Myself; D.
Type: Clinical suppression of criticism; family-manipulation concern; staff retaliation / group removal; client speech / complaint-response concern; family-communication concern; records-preservation issue

In approximately summer 2022, during a therapy or group setting at 189 Orange Street, client D. said words to the effect of: “Nobody can be as manipulative as the Turnbridge care team toward my parents.” I laughed and said, “Facts.”

Maura / Moira / Mara, a therapist or clinical staff member whose last name I have not yet confirmed, responded by kicking me out of the therapy / group setting.

This is included because D.’s statement criticized Turnbridge’s care team and its alleged influence over parents. Rather than treating that statement as clinically relevant feedback about how clients experienced family communication, staff power, and parental messaging, Maura / Moira / Mara allegedly removed me after I verbally agreed.

If clients believed the care team was manipulating their parents, that should have been treated as meaningful clinical information, not simply defiance, disrespect, or disruption. Removing a client for agreeing with that criticism raises questions about whether Turnbridge therapists used group authority to suppress criticism of the program, especially criticism involving family communication and parental influence.

This concern matters because family communication was central to Turnbridge’s power over clients. Families paid substantial money, received program updates, and were often instructed how to interpret clients’ complaints, distress, resistance, or requests to leave. If clients were explicitly saying that the care team was manipulating their parents, that statement should have been documented and explored, not shut down.

The fact that this allegedly occurred at 189 Orange Street matters because 189 Orange was a central clinical / program location rather than a casual offsite conversation. If a therapy or group setting inside the clinical building treated criticism of the care team as grounds for removal, that is directly relevant to Turnbridge’s clinical culture, complaint response, and family-systems practices.

Potential corroboration:

Identity and full name of Maura / Moira / Mara
Summer 2022 group / therapy schedules for 189 Orange
Records identifying the 189 Orange group location and participants
Clinical notes, group notes, or incident notes from the relevant session
Any record of my removal from group
D.’s account of saying the care team manipulated his parents
Other clients present in the group
Turnbridge policies on group removal, client complaints, family-communication concerns, and criticism of the program
Any family communications around that period reflecting Turnbridge guidance to parents about client calls, complaints, resistance, or requests to leave
Records showing how Turnbridge documented client concerns about staff influence over parents

Archive classification: Firsthand account of group removal at 189 Orange after agreeing with D.’s criticism of Turnbridge’s care team and parental influence. Staff identity requires confirmation as Maura / Moira / Mara [last name unknown]. Corroboration may exist through 189 Orange group schedules, D.’s account, other client accounts, clinical notes, group notes, incident notes, and records of group removal.
17. L.M. pants-pulling / forced-exposure incident at Turnbridge house near 189 Orange / Fair Haven

Approx. date: Early 2023

Location/program: Turnbridge house nearest to 189 Orange Street, across the bridge and situated next to / near Fair Haven [exact house address to confirm]

Clients involved: Myself; L.M.; B.H.; A.; one other client present [name to confirm]

Related prior incident: Late-2022 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue sexual-boundary disclosure involving L.M.; Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso allegedly overheard the disclosure; no meaningful protective action followed, according to my recollection.

Type: Client-on-client sexual-boundary violation; forced exposure; sexual humiliation; post-disclosure harassment / escalation; failure-to-protect concern; client safety; staff-response concern

In early 2023, at the Turnbridge house nearest to 189 Orange Street, across the bridge and near Fair Haven, L.M. pulled down my pants and underwear, exposing my bare penis to B.H., A., and one other client who was present.

This occurred after the prior late-2022 incident at 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue in which I allege L.M. had gotten on top of me, grabbed my penis, and refused to get off. I had disclosed that prior incident to E.O., and Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso allegedly overheard the disclosure. To my knowledge, no meaningful protective action followed. I do not recall being formally interviewed, separated from L.M., given a protective plan, or otherwise protected from further harassment.

The pants-pulling / forced-exposure incident is therefore not an isolated concern. It should be considered in the context of the earlier 1212 Quinnipiac disclosure and alleged failure to act. If Turnbridge staff knew or should have known about L.M.’s prior sexual-boundary conduct and did not separate or protect me, then the later forced-exposure incident raises serious questions about client safety, supervision, documentation, and failure to protect after a sexual-boundary disclosure.

This incident also provides important context for later rumors involving me and L.M. The untrue sexual rumors should be understood against the background of alleged sexual-boundary violations and humiliation involving L.M., not as consensual sexual conduct.

Potential corroboration:
B.H.’s account
A.’s account
The third client present, if identified
L.M.’s account
House roster for the Turnbridge house near 189 Orange / Fair Haven in early 2023
Staff schedules for that house during the relevant period
Any house logs, incident reports, clinical notes, or staff notes concerning the pants-pulling / exposure incident
Any records concerning prior or ongoing conflict, harassment, or sexual-boundary concerns involving L.M.
Records concerning the earlier 1212 Quinnipiac Avenue disclosure involving L.M., E.O., and Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso
E.O.’s account of the 1212 Quinnipiac disclosure
Mark David Grasso / Mark Grasso’s account of what he overheard and what action, if any, he took
Records showing whether I was separated from L.M. or safety-planned after the prior disclosure
Contemporaneous disclosures to therapist, family, sponsor, peers, or other clients
Therapist recollection that this incident or the broader L.M. pattern was previously disclosed and later resurfaced in therapy discussion

Archive classification: Firsthand recollection resurfaced through later therapy discussion. Client-on-client sexual-boundary violation / forced-exposure allegation involving L.M., with direct relevance to a prior sexual-boundary disclosure at 1212 Quinnipiac and alleged failure to protect afterward.

18. Dave Murphy sexual-rumor / pronoun-interrogation concern after untrue L.M. rumors

Approx. date: Early 2023

Location/program: Turnbridge house nearest to 189 Orange Street, across the bridge and situated next to / near Fair Haven [exact house address to confirm]

Staff involved: Dave Murphy

Clients involved: Myself; L.M.; R.P.; A.K. as contextual examples of male-female client relationships reportedly tolerated or treated differently

Type: Staff conduct; sexual-rumor response; sexual-boundary framing; gender-identity / pronoun concern; possible differential treatment of same-sex / queer-coded rumor; client humiliation / discomfort; staff-boundary concern

In early 2023, while I was at the Turnbridge house nearest to 189 Orange Street, across the bridge and near Fair Haven, Dave Murphy heard sexual rumors about me and L.M. The rumors were untrue.

Dave Murphy called me into his office to discuss them. During that meeting, he described his discomfort with the rumors and said that sexuality between clients was not allowed. I remember this as uncomfortable and potentially selective, because male clients dated female clients during the same broader period, including R.P. and A.K., without the same kind of response that I experienced.

During the same conversation, Dave Murphy then asked me pointedly about my use of they/them pronouns. I was uncomfortable and tried to redirect the conversation, but he kept returning to the topic. He then explicitly asked whether my use of they/them pronouns was a “plea for attention.”

This incident raises several related institutional concerns. First, if staff responded to untrue sexual rumors involving two male or queer-coded clients by calling one client into an office and describing discomfort with the rumors, while male-female client dating was tolerated or treated differently, that raises questions about whether sexuality rules were enforced consistently or whether same-sex / queer-coded rumors were treated as uniquely alarming, shameful, or unacceptable.

Second, the pronoun questioning raises a separate gender-identity and staff-boundary concern. A staff member in a treatment setting asking whether a client’s use of they/them pronouns was a “plea for attention” is not a neutral clinical question. If accurately remembered, it framed gender expression or pronoun use as attention-seeking, which could increase shame, discourage identity exploration, and make the client feel pathologized or mocked.

Potential corroboration:
Dave Murphy’s account of the meeting
Staff schedules confirming Dave Murphy’s role and presence at the relevant house in early 2023
House address / placement records identifying the Turnbridge house nearest to 189 Orange Street across the bridge near Fair Haven
Clinical notes, case-management notes, or staff notes from the meeting
Any documentation of sexual-rumor concerns involving me and L.M.
Client accounts confirming the existence or spread of the untrue rumors involving me and L.M.
Client accounts confirming male-female client relationships during the same period, including R.P. and A.K.
Records or witness accounts showing how Turnbridge enforced “sexuality between clients is not allowed” across same-sex, queer-coded, and male-female contexts
Any policies on client sexuality, client dating, gender identity, pronoun use, LGBTQ client support, sexual rumors, and sexual-boundary complaint handling
Contemporaneous disclosures to therapist, family, sponsor, or peers about the meeting
Therapist recollection that this incident had previously been disclosed and later resurfaced in therapy discussion

Archive classification: Firsthand recollection resurfaced through later therapy discussion. Staff-conduct / sexual-rumor response / pronoun-interrogation concern.

19. Staff member allegedly laughed at and dismissed traumatic Harlem / Central Park North disclosure at 90 Ford Street

Approx. date: Late 2021

Program/location: 90 Ford Street

People involved: Unidentified staff member; myself; J.B. present

Type: Staff dismissal of trauma disclosure; humiliation; disbelief; staff contempt; clinical-safety concern

In late 2021, at 90 Ford Street, I recounted a traumatic story involving selling crack as a teenager in Harlem’s Central Park North area. After I recounted the story, a staff member laughed dismissively, said words to the effect that this never happened and that I was making it up, and then exited the conversation. This was said in front of J.B.

This is included because clients in treatment are often disclosing humiliating, frightening, legally risky, traumatic, or shame-laden material. When a staff member laughs at a trauma disclosure and says the client is making it up, the harm is not only interpersonal. It teaches clients that disclosure is unsafe, that their histories will be mocked, and that staff can humiliate them without consequence.

This also belongs in the broader client-culture record because staff behavior models what counts as acceptable. If staff dismiss trauma disclosures as fake or ridiculous, clients may learn to do the same to each other.

Potential corroboration:
J.B.’s account
Identity of the staff member
Other clients or staff present at 90 Ford Street
Contemporaneous disclosures to therapist, family, or peers
Any clinical notes or staff notes from the relevant period
90 Ford Street house schedule or staff assignments from late 2021
Pattern accounts from other clients whose disclosures were mocked or dismissed

Archive classification: Firsthand staff-dismissal / trauma-disclosure humiliation concern at 90 Ford Street; witness J.B. present.

 

1. Sexual shaming involving false claim about L.M.; witnessed by clinical staff and clients

Approx. date: Early 2023

Location/program: Turnbridge / Turning Point clinical or program setting; exact location to confirm

People involved: D.; L.M.; myself; Chris Rush; other clinical staff and clients present

Type: Sexual shaming; false sexual claim; same-sex sexual stigma; staff-witnessed peer humiliation

In early 2023, client D. told me in a condemnatory and mocking manner that it was shameful that I had “sucked L.M.’s dick.” I had never engaged in sexual relations with L.M.

My recollection is that the allegation of same-sex sexual contact was the central point of the ridicule. D. laughed while making the statement. I remember clinical staff, including Chris Rush, and other clients being present.

This incident belongs in the firsthand record because it involved a false sexual allegation, sexual humiliation, and apparent anti-gay stigma in a treatment setting. It is also a staff-response concern. If clinical staff witnessed the incident, the institutional question is whether they interrupted it, documented it, clinically addressed it, or allowed the humiliation to stand.

The incident should also be read in the context of the broader L.M. pattern. I allege that L.M. had previously committed sexual-boundary violations against me, including getting on top of me, grabbing my penis, refusing to get off, and later pulling down my pants and underwear in front of other clients. The false rumors involving me and L.M. should therefore not be presented as evidence of consensual sexual conduct. They arose in the context of alleged sexual-boundary violations, forced exposure, harassment, and humiliation.

Potential corroboration:

Chris Rush’s account

Other clinical staff present

Other clients present

Group schedule or clinical schedule from early 2023

Any clinical notes, staff notes, group notes, or incident reports concerning the statement

Any documentation of rumors or conflict involving me and L.M.

Contemporaneous disclosures to my therapist, family, sponsor, or peers

Records showing whether staff interrupted, documented, or clinically processed the incident

Archive classification: Firsthand experience of sexual shaming and a false sexual allegation; staff-witnessed response concern. The allegation should be tested through witness accounts, clinical records, schedules, and contemporaneous disclosures.

1. Ian Parker restraint-related staff-boundary concern

Approx. date: During Ian Parker’s first day working at Turnbridge; exact date to confirm

Program/location: Turnbridge / Turning Point; exact house or program location to confirm

Staff involved: Ian Parker

Clients involved: Myself; other clients and staff present during the violent incident

Type: Staff physical-boundary concern; restraint concern; judgment; supervision; direct-care suitability

During a violent incident on what I remember as Ian Parker’s first day working at Turnbridge, I personally observed Parker appearing unusually eager to restrain me.

The existing record does not yet contain enough detail to establish exactly what Parker said, what physical actions he took, whether a restraint occurred, who initiated contact, or what staff direction was given. This entry is therefore preserved as a limited firsthand observation rather than a complete allegation of unlawful or improper restraint.

The institutional question is whether a newly assigned case manager or direct-care staff member was appropriately trained, supervised, and authorized to participate in physical restraint, and whether his conduct during the incident was documented or reviewed.

This account should be developed only through additional memory reconstruction and records. It should not be overstated beyond the firsthand observation that Parker appeared eager to restrain me during a violent incident on his first day.

Potential corroboration:

Exact date and location of Ian Parker’s first shift

Turnbridge employment and orientation records

Ian Parker’s staff schedule

House rosters and shift logs

Incident reports concerning the violent event

Restraint or physical-intervention documentation

Names and accounts of staff and clients present

Training records concerning restraint, de-escalation, crisis intervention, and physical contact with clients

Any clinical notes or staff notes concerning my behavior and Parker’s response

Contemporaneous disclosures to family, therapists, sponsors, staff, or other clients

Archive classification: Limited firsthand observation concerning staff restraint posture and judgment. More detail and corroboration are required before making a stronger public claim.

1. Timing-sensitive Google review-integrity observation involving “Samuel Clemens” and “Mickey Dice”

Approx. date: June 2026

Platform: Google Reviews / Google Maps listing for Turnbridge

Reviews involved: Detailed negative former-client review posted under “Samuel Clemens”; later five-star review posted by “Mickey Dice”

Type: Firsthand platform observation; review-integrity concern; reputation-management question; consumer-information concern

After I posted a detailed negative former-client Google review of Turnbridge under the name “Samuel Clemens,” I personally observed a timing pattern that raised a review-integrity concern.

At the time I posted my review, the previous visible review appeared to have been posted approximately six days earlier. Within hours of my detailed negative review, a new five-star review appeared from an account named “Mickey Dice.”

The “Mickey Dice” profile appeared to have only one visible review, and the review itself appeared to contain generic praise rather than a detailed firsthand description of treatment.

This observation does not prove that Turnbridge created, ordered, solicited, coordinated, or knew about the positive review. It also does not prove that the “Mickey Dice” review was false. A one-review profile is not automatically fraudulent.

The appropriate characterization is that the timing, account history, five-star rating, and generic content create a review-integrity lead worth preserving. Families often rely on Google ratings when choosing expensive residential-treatment programs, so rapid positive-review activity after detailed negative testimony can affect how visible and useful critical information remains.

The institutional question is whether Turnbridge, its employees, alumni, consultants, families, marketing personnel, or reputation-management vendors ever solicited or coordinated positive reviews after negative reviews appeared, or sought to report, suppress, bury, dilute, or remove critical reviews.

Evidence to preserve:

Dated screenshot of the “Samuel Clemens” review

Screenshot showing the approximate six-day gap before the review

Screenshot of the “Mickey Dice” five-star review

Screenshot of the “Mickey Dice” profile showing its visible review history

Google review list sorted by newest

Approximate timestamps showing how soon the five-star review appeared

Review count and star rating before and after both reviews

Logged-in, logged-out, incognito, and third-party visibility checks

Any Google moderation, removal, restriction, or policy notifications

Any response or nonresponse from Turnbridge

Any later cluster of positive reviews following the negative review

Potential records or institutional questions:

Internal communications concerning the “Samuel Clemens” review

Internal communications concerning the “Mickey Dice” review

Communications with staff, alumni, families, consultants, or reputation-management vendors after the negative review appeared

Review-solicitation policies

Communications asking anyone to leave a favorable review

Communications with Google concerning reporting or removing negative reviews

Contracts or communications with reputation-management companies

Policies governing public reviews, review responses, review requests, or review removal

Archive classification: Firsthand platform observation and timing-sensitive review-integrity lead. It is not proof of coordinated manipulation without additional evidence.

Anonymous Witness Accounts / Medical-Safety Disclosures

The following account is not my own firsthand experience. It was provided by a former Turnbridge client who personally witnessed the events and expressly requested anonymity. The witness’s identity, username, account details, contact information, and communications must remain confidential.

1. Anonymous witness account concerning N.B.’s reported severe medication reaction and delayed medical evaluation

Approx. date: To be narrowed

Approx. time of key breakfast observation: Approximately 7:30 a.m.

Program/location: Turnbridge adolescent program; exact campus and house to confirm

Client involved: N.B.

Source: Anonymous former Turnbridge client

Type: Medical safety; possible adverse medication reaction; delayed hospital evaluation; neurological symptoms; family-notification concern; medication oversight; source confidentiality

Source-protection requirement:

The witness requested anonymity. The source must not be identified by name, username, account age, message date, contact information, writing style, relationship description, or any other traceable detail.

The source’s complete identifying information should be maintained separately and should not be published, circulated, or disclosed outside a confidential legal or regulatory process without the source’s express permission.

Account:

The anonymous witness reported personally observing adolescent client N.B. experience what the witness understood to be a severe reaction after receiving medication at Turnbridge.

The witness personally observed N.B. continuously shaking, drooling, and losing substantial motor control.

During breakfast at approximately 7:30 a.m., the witness opened a granola bar for N.B. because N.B. could not open it himself. When N.B. appeared unable to chew the granola bar, the witness opened a yogurt for him instead.

The witness recalled that only the overnight staff member was present at that time. The staff member reportedly said that someone arriving with the regular shift would take N.B. to the hospital.

According to the witness, no one took N.B. to the hospital that day.

The witness recalled that Turnbridge did not meaningfully respond until the following day or possibly the day after. N.B. was then brought to the clinical building. The witness described seeing N.B. passed out and drooling on a couch there but did not know which clinician, nurse, prescriber, or medical professional evaluated him.

Approximately one week after the episode began, N.B.’s parents reportedly visited and removed him from the program.

The witness did not personally observe communications between Turnbridge and N.B.’s parents. The witness heard that the parents had not been informed of the severity of N.B.’s condition until they saw him in person and were extremely upset. That portion is hearsay and must not be stated as a confirmed fact unless corroborated by the parents, records, or contemporaneous communications.

Why this matters:

The reported symptoms—continuous shaking, drooling, impaired motor control, inability to open food, inability to chew, profound sedation, and appearing passed out—were serious observable signs that warranted prompt medical assessment.

The institutional questions include whether Turnbridge:

recognized a possible adverse medication reaction;

contacted the prescribing clinician;

contacted an on-call nurse or medical director;

called EMS, 911, poison control, a hospital, or an emergency department;

monitored vital signs, neurological symptoms, swallowing, hydration, airway, consciousness, or aspiration risk;

documented the symptoms and their progression;

notified N.B.’s parents promptly and fully;

created a medication-error, adverse-event, significant-event, incident, or quality-assurance report;

explained why a promised hospital transport allegedly did not occur;

and implemented corrective action afterward.

Potential corroboration and records:

Complete medication-administration record

Prescriber orders

Medication-reconciliation documentation

Pharmacy communications

Medication changes and dose history

Nursing notes

Overnight and morning shift logs

House logs

Clinical notes

Observation sheets

Vital-sign records

Neurological assessments

Incident reports

Medication-error reports

Adverse-drug-reaction reports

Significant-event reports

Root-cause analyses

Corrective-action plans

Quality-assurance reviews

Hospital, emergency-department, urgent-care, EMS, poison-control, and transport records

Company-vehicle logs

Family call logs, emails, texts, and notification records

Staff schedules identifying the overnight worker and incoming shift

Nursing, clinician, prescriber, medical-director, and supervisory schedules

Records identifying who evaluated N.B. at the clinical building

Discharge, transfer, removal, AMA, and subsequent-placement records

Policies governing adverse medication reactions, neurological symptoms, emergency transport, aspiration risk, and family notification

Archive classification: Direct anonymous witness account from a former Turnbridge client. The witness personally observed N.B.’s condition and assisted him with food. The reported parental-notification issue is hearsay unless independently corroborated. The source’s identity must remain confidential.

Current-Client and Other Direct Witness Accounts

The following account was supplied by another witness. It is not my own firsthand observation. The source’s consent limitations, the involved client’s privacy, and the distinction between personally witnessed conduct and reported information must be preserved.

1. Current-client witness account concerning R.’s attempted departure from 90 Ford Street and alleged interference by Drew Behr

Approx. date: Early March 2026

Program/location: Phase 1 / 90 Ford Street

Staff involved: Drew Behr

Client involved: R.

Source: Current Turnbridge client; identifying details should remain protected unless the source authorizes broader disclosure

Other people involved: R.’s family members; R.’s girlfriend; clients present during morning meeting

Type: Client autonomy; attempted departure; family-contact interference; phone-access interference; staff power; staff disparagement; transfer obstruction; records-preservation concern

Account:

A current Turnbridge client reported personally witnessing parts of a March 2026 incident involving Drew Behr and a client identified as R.

According to the witness, R. was a Phase 1 client at 90 Ford Street. R. wanted to leave Turnbridge after approximately 28 days and move to a sober house closer to his own area.

The witness reported that Drew Behr did everything within his power to try to stop R. from leaving.

The reported conduct included attempts to turn R.’s family against him, interrupting calls while R. and family members were discussing plans for another sober house, and blocking relevant phone numbers.

Some of those actions were reported or overheard rather than directly observed by the source and therefore require separate corroboration.

The witness personally reported allowing R. to use the witness’s Bark Phone to call his girlfriend so that they could arrange and purchase a bus ticket.

The witness overheard R.’s girlfriend reacting angrily to Drew’s alleged interference. According to the witness, the girlfriend said, “Drew is a power tripping bitch.”

The witness reported that tickets were purchased and R. was eventually able to leave.

The following morning, the witness personally reported hearing Drew refer to R. as “toxic” during morning meeting and then go on what the witness described as a tirade about hating having to “police” people.

Why this matters:

The account raises questions about whether an adult client had the right to leave, seek another sober house, and communicate freely with family and outside support.

It also raises questions about what authority Drew Behr had to interrupt calls, block numbers, influence family members, discourage transfer, or disparage a client after departure.

The account independently overlaps with other allegations involving Drew Behr, including alleged family-contact interference, violent language, and mockery of client violence.

Consent and privacy status:

The witness consented to preservation and forwarding of the witness’s own account but indicated that R. should be consulted before R.’s personal story is used in a way that could identify or materially involve him.

R.’s identity should remain abbreviated. Details that could expose the witness’s current placement, device access, account identity, or communication history should also be handled cautiously.

Potential corroboration:

R.’s direct account, if he consents

R.’s girlfriend’s account

R.’s family members’ accounts

The witness’s message screenshots

Bark Phone records, if available

Call logs

Records showing whether numbers were blocked

Bus-ticket and travel records

90 Ford Street house logs

Drew Behr’s staff schedule

Case-management notes concerning R.’s attempted departure

Clinical notes concerning R.’s desire to leave

Discharge, AMA, transfer, and referral records

Family-contact and phone-use policies

Records documenting restrictions on R.’s communications

Clients present at morning meeting when Drew allegedly called R. “toxic”

Staff or clients who heard Drew’s alleged comments about “policing” people

Internal communications about R.’s transfer, family contact, girlfriend contact, or departure

Policies concerning staff interruption of calls, number blocking, and adult-client discharge planning

Archive classification: Current-client witness account containing a mixture of direct observation, overheard statements, and reported allegations. The source personally witnessed R. using the phone, the girlfriend’s response, the bus-ticket planning, and Drew’s later alleged comments in morning meeting. Claims involving family manipulation, call interruption, and number blocking require additional corroboration. R.’s identity and story should not be disclosed in a way that identifies him without his consent or independent confirmation.