Turnbridge publicly identified Tom Marzilli as Executive Director of Residential Services and as a senior leader connected to its men’s and adolescent residential programs. A., a former client of Turnbridge’s women’s program, identifies him as a program director in the women’s-program environment during 2017.

A. alleges that Marzilli used graphic and sexualized language while questioning a seventeen-year-old client about a sexual encounter with a man she met at a recovery meeting. According to A., Marzilli screamed at the minor and asked whether the man had “came inside her.” A. has said she will ask the former client whether she is willing to provide her own account.

This allegation raises serious questions about the sexualized interrogation of a minor, the use of staff authority, trauma-informed interviewing, confidentiality, medical and pregnancy-related safety, mandated reporting, and whether the interaction was documented or supervised.

A. separately alleges that Marzilli became sexually involved with a woman who had recently graduated from Turnbridge and then became support staff. According to A., Marzilli was subsequently barred from the women’s house because of that relationship.

The archive author independently recalls hearing while enrolled at Turnbridge that Marzilli had been banned from the women’s house. That recollection supports the narrower point that a restriction involving the women’s residence was discussed within Turnbridge. It does not independently prove why the restriction was imposed. A. is presently the direct source connecting the alleged restriction to sexual involvement with a recently graduated former client who became staff.

Colorado licensing materials identify Thomas Paul Marzilli as an “Unlicensed Psychotherapist” and record a voluntary surrender or relinquishment of his credential effective May 23, 2016, under case number 2015-1632. The final agency order states that the Colorado Board formally alleged violations of former Colorado Revised Statutes § 12-43-222(1)(f)(I), (g)(I), (i), (p), and (r).

The supplied statutory materials establish that the alleged violations included:

• § 12-43-222(1)(g)(I): failing to meet generally accepted professional standards;

• § 12-43-222(1)(p): failing to provide legally required disclosures to clients under § 12-43-214; and

• § 12-43-222(1)(r): engaging in sexual contact, sexual intrusion, or sexual penetration with a client during the therapeutic relationship or within two years after the relationship ended.

The mandatory client-disclosure requirements referenced in subsection (p) concerned matters including the professional’s treatment methods, anticipated duration of treatment, fees, the client’s right to terminate treatment, confidentiality, and the rule that sexual intimacy within a professional relationship is never appropriate.

The final order also listed subsections § 12-43-222(1)(f)(I) and § 12-43-222(1)(i). The materials currently preserved in the archive identify those subsections as part of the Board’s formal allegations, but the archive has not yet obtained or independently verified the complete historical statutory language necessary to summarize those two provisions accurately. They should remain listed by subsection rather than assigned a guessed description.

This is not merely a record showing an unexplained voluntary surrender. It is an official agency order showing that Colorado regulators formally accused Marzilli of several categories of professional misconduct, including substandard professional practice, failure to give required disclosures to clients, and conduct falling within a statutory provision addressing sexual contact with a client during therapy or within two years afterward. Marzilli denied the allegations and surrendered the credential instead of proceeding through a contested hearing.

That distinction is legally important. The archive should not claim that every allegation was proven after a hearing. It can accurately state that the Board formally brought these allegations, that one allegation category specifically concerned sexual contact or intrusion involving a client, that Marzilli denied the allegations, and that the proceeding ended in the voluntary surrender or relinquishment of his credential.

A. also alleges that Marzilli had a compulsive gambling problem and named a Turnbridge softball team “Minus 160,” a reference to betting odds. She supplied a photograph appearing to show Marzilli wearing a red Turnbridge jersey bearing that name. The photograph supports the narrower fact that the “Minus 160” name was used; it does not independently establish compulsive gambling.

A separate public Foxwoods Poker post dated February 13, 2016, identified Thomas Marzilli as the chip leader in Event No. 12, Flight A, with 265,100 chips. That record confirms his public participation in poker and provides context for A.’s account, but does not by itself prove a gambling disorder.

The combined record presents a serious leadership-vetting issue. Turnbridge placed Marzilli in senior authority over vulnerable adolescents and young adults after Colorado regulators had formally alleged multiple categories of professional misconduct—including a statutory sexual-contact category—and after he surrendered the credential. A former women’s-program client now separately alleges sexualized treatment of a seventeen-year-old and an improper sexual relationship with a recent graduate who became staff.

Turnbridge should be required to explain whether it knew about the Colorado case, whether it obtained the complete complaint and disciplinary file, how it evaluated the sexual-contact and mandatory-disclosure allegations, what Marzilli disclosed during hiring and promotion, whether he was restricted from women’s facilities, why any restriction was imposed, what internal complaints or investigations existed, and why he remained or advanced in senior residential leadership.

The archive is seeking the complete Colorado DORA credential and disciplinary file, including the complaint, stipulation, final order, investigative materials, and historical statutory provisions, along with Turnbridge’s background checks, employment applications, credential verifications, promotion reviews, complaints, supervision files, access restrictions, house assignments, internal communications, and testimony from additional former clients and staff.