A former resident of New Hampshire’s youth detention center testified in Rockingham Superior Court that he was sexually assaulted by two workers while being restrained by his house leader and another staffer. The witness, Michael Gilpatrick, recounted the traumatic experience of being assaulted by what he and other teens referred to as “the hit squad” during his time at the Sununu Youth Services Center, formerly known as the Youth Development Center.
Gilpatrick's testimony is part of the first civil trial seeking to hold the state accountable for alleged abuse at the facility. The plaintiff, David Meehan, also alleges negligence on the part of the state in hiring, staffing, and training, which led to the reported near-daily rapes, beatings, and solitary confinement endured by residents.
More than 1,100 former residents have sued the state, with eleven former state workers facing criminal charges related to the alleged abuse. Testimonies from former workers have shed light on the disturbing environment at the center, with Gilpatrick describing how the “hit squad” would physically assault residents, including children, in various cottages.
Gilpatrick's account detailed the power dynamics within the facility, with the house leader, Bradley Asbury, being referred to as “Hitler” due to his abusive behavior. Asbury has pleaded not guilty to charges related to Gilpatrick's assault, and testimonies have highlighted his resistance to investigations into complaints.
Rochelle Edmark, a former ombudsman, testified about challenges in investigating complaints at the center, noting staff resistance and lack of administrative action on recommendations. The state's lawyers, however, disputed Edmark's claims, suggesting a different perspective based on her statements in the criminal case.
The trial has brought attention to the need for accountability and reform within the youth detention system. Lawmakers have taken steps to address the issues, including approving the closure of the facility and creating a fund to settle abuse claims. The case underscores the importance of ensuring the safety and well-being of vulnerable youth in state care.
