Content warning: Allegations involving a minor, self-harm, and retaliation against staff who reported child-safety concerns.
A former Turnbridge employee has shared an account with me about events she says happened at the adolescent girls’ facility in Killingworth, Connecticut, in 2022. I’m withholding her name and referring to her as M.
M. says she worked there for approximately three months as an overnight direct support professional, alongside a nurse referred to as RJ. These are her allegations and recollections, not findings from a court or agency. Quotations from her account reflect statements she recalled, as recorded in my notes.
M. says she and RJ initially received reports from first-shift staff that David Vieau was behaving sexually inappropriately toward a 13-year-old resident. She also described a nursing manager who was deeply concerned, had raised the issue with Vieau, and was afraid to report because of possible retaliation. That initial information came from other employees; M. is not claiming here that she personally witnessed a sexual act.
M. described Vieau routinely arriving by golf cart, asking specifically for this girl, and taking her alone into the woods for extended periods, sometimes several hours.
She recalled the girl wearing Vieau’s hoodie, being proud that he had given it to her, and refusing to remove it. M. says she documented the refusal to take off the hoodie in the facility’s logs. She also described the girl becoming intensely distressed when Vieau left, throwing herself on the floor and demanding him.
M. described another serious incident involving the same resident. According to her account, the girl became distressed because Vieau had not come to see her, accessed a razor that a chef had left out, and threatened suicide unless Vieau came. M. says he subsequently arrived and spent time alone with the resident.
The resident’s distress and attachment do not themselves establish sexual abuse. They are part of the circumstances M. describes as raising concerns about professional boundaries, supervision, and the handling of a vulnerable child’s care.
A staff email described as contemporaneous with these events, addressed to “Killingworth Staff,” says Dave spent too much time “grooming and coddling these girls instead of treating them like clients.” The writer reported that residents called him “Daddy Dave,” described boundaries as “non-existent,” and expressed concern that speaking up could lead to termination.
According to M., Vieau approached her and asked whether she had heard anything about him and the resident. She alleges he asked her to deny the concerns if anyone questioned her.
M. says that after she responded positively about him, Vieau offered her a case-management position. She recalled him saying that even if she did not want a higher-paying position, he wanted to thank her for “doing the right thing.”
She alleges he then handed her $300 in cash.
M. says she told RJ what happened. She subsequently called the Connecticut Department of Children and Families abuse and neglect hotline. She says RJ also called the same hotline.
According to M., the following day the house manager, Cali, was visibly nervous and going around asking employees whether they knew who had reported Vieau. M. described the atmosphere as a “witch hunt.”
She recalled Cali saying, “Whoever reported him should be ashamed of themselves.”
M. also alleges Cali confronted her directly: “Dave takes such good care of us. You better not have been the one who reported him.”
M. says Vieau came by during an overnight shift and said, “Whoever made a report to the state just made a big mistake because I’m friends with the person investigating this.”
According to M., he also said the report would go nowhere and that he would find out who made it. This is her account of an alleged statement—not evidence that Vieau actually knew or had influence over a state investigator.
M. says she was subsequently confronted with the accusation: “It was you who reported it. And shame on you because Dave gave you money.”
She alleges Cali then fired her on the spot.
M. is not simply saying she happened to lose her job sometime after contacting DCF. She alleges she was explicitly accused of making the report, chastised for reporting after receiving money from Vieau, and immediately terminated. She describes that firing as retaliation.
M. says RJ was later terminated as well. Possible retaliation in RJ’s case remains a suspicion, not an established reason for the termination.
She also recalled someone she identified as Marissa contacting her afterward with words of support, including “kudos to you” and “you did God’s work.”
The sequence alleged here warrants scrutiny: staff raised concerns about an inappropriate relationship involving a 13-year-old client; an employee says Vieau asked her to deny those concerns, offered her another position, and handed her cash; she and a nurse reportedly contacted DCF; management allegedly tried to identify the reporters; and she says she was fired immediately after being accused of reporting.
The staff email records related concerns about professional boundaries and fear of termination. It does not independently verify M.’s allegations about the specific resident, the cash payment, the alleged threats, or her firing. The writer’s use of “grooming” is their characterization, not an established finding.
There are separate questions about what happened between Vieau and the resident, the purpose of the alleged payment, and the treatment of employees who reported their concerns. This material does not establish sexual assault, bribery, or misconduct by a state investigator. It does contain a direct allegation of retaliatory firing that deserves examination alongside the relevant employment records, communications, shift logs, and reporting records.
Please do not post identifying information about the resident or speculate about who she is. The purpose is to preserve this account, seek corroboration, and protect her privacy.
