My Ex-Wife Handed Me the Story

Since the day I was nearly killed, I’ve learned something that still shocks me: when tragedy strikes, people rush to fill in the blanks. And when the story involves something as rare as parricide—a child attacking a parent – the public wants answers that fit a pattern.

But here’s the truth: parricide is extremely rare, accounting for only 2 to 3 percent of homicides in the U.S., or about 300 cases per year. That rarity leaves space for speculation, and speculation quickly turns into blame. People assume, “Well, he must have done something.” And because of juvenile privacy laws, I couldn’t correct the record.

Not at first.

Silenced by the System, Until They Gave Me a Mic

Early on, I knew the optics were against me and I wasn’t afraid to talk about it as I knew I had done nothing wrong however, I couldn’t talk publicly about what had happened – not without risking legal blowback. But then, the people trying to control the story made a critical mistake.

On April 22, 2025, my ex-wife filed for a Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) in New Hampshire family court. The goal appeared to be to create the perception that I was dangerous in the present, not just the past. The tactic is common and often abused in custody conflicts. But here’s what she may not have anticipated: filing that DVPO made everything public. The hearing. The testimony. The documents. The audio. All of it became fair game.

That’s when I knew I could finally tell the truth.

Surviving Made the Story Even Rarer

Parricide itself is rare. But what is even rarer is surviving an attempted parricide, particularly one involving a weapon.

Studies on parricide outcomes show that in most cases where a child attacks a parent with a deadly weapon, the parent does not survive. According to data from the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics and FBI Behavioral Unit reports, knife attacks in parricide cases result in fatal injuries in over 80 percent of reported incidents.

That puts me in an exceptionally small category. Not only did I survive the attack, I am one of the very few able to speak and write about it. This is one reason I feel such a strong obligation to tell this story. Very few parents in this situation live to do so.

What the Law Says About Real Danger

Under RSA 173-B:1, New Hampshire law requires a DVPO to demonstrate a current threat—not just past arguments or old grudges. But her court filing focused heavily on events from 2012 (the day I discovered her affair) and even as far back as 1997 (a family fight involving my late brother). Nothing recent. Nothing credible.

In fact, her claims about me being violent relied entirely on moments that happened over a decade ago. And yet the filing asked the court to believe that I posed a current danger.

The Timeline Doesn’t Add Up

In her sworn statement, she claimed that our son “began expressing fear” in the fall of 2024. But the attack happened on September 14, which is typically still considered summer. Her timeline doesn’t just feel wrong – it is wrong. When people attempt to fit a narrative to legal standards, these kinds of inconsistencies often surface.

I thought he and I were very solid. I saw zero indication that there was any issues between he and I.

The Real Ethical Crisis: Duty to Report vs. Silence

Above is actual courtroom audio and this is the part that still haunts me. So much deception. Remember this is a current mental health professional working for Community Improvement Associates. This person didn’t report suspicious of her own child and it lead to my attack. I hope she doesn’t destroy another family.

My ex-wife is a Certified Recovery Support Worker (CRSW) in New Hampshire. That means she is a mandated reporter under RSA 169-C:29. If she suspected abuse, even once, she was legally required to file a report with DCYF or law enforcement.

She did not. Not before the attack. Not after. Not ever.

In fact, in November 2024, she gave a note to my son’s doctor stating that she had been aware of “years of abuse.” That’s months after the stabbing took place. If she truly believed our son had been abused, she was obligated to report it immediately – not bury it in a medical file months later. And certainly not continue to send him to my home under a 50/50 custody agreement.

In her actual DVPO filing, here is some of what she wrote:

“Scott has reportedly been abusive to our son, who we share 50/50 custody of our son. Our son began increasing reporting that he was scared of Scott in the fall of 2024. He indicated a desire to stop visiting Scott, but I was afraid to seek modification of the parenting plan for fear of retaliation. On 9/14/24, there was a significant altercation between our son and Scott which lead to serious criminal charges being filed against our son. It was after this event that our son disclosed the full extent of the abuse to the appropriate authorities.”

Let’s break that down:

• Timeline inconsistency: The attack occurred on September 14, which is still summer—not fall. Claiming fear began in “fall of 2024” is an impossible timeline.
  
• Failure to report: If she truly believed our son was unsafe, why did she continue to honor the 50/50 custody agreement up until the attack?
  
• Ethical obligation: As a CRSW and mandated reporter, she had both the professional training and legal duty to act if she had any genuine concerns. No report was ever made.

Finally, notice the phrasing: calling an attempted murder a “significant altercation.” And claiming that only after the attack did the “full extent of abuse” come to light.

What makes more sense here: that she knowingly allowed a real danger to go unreported, violating her professional duty? Or that there was no danger to report, and a post-incident narrative was constructed?

No Therapy Until It Was Too Late

She later stated that our son hadn’t started therapy because his lawyer was concerned about what he might say being used in court. Let that sink in.

Our son didn’t receive any mental health support until March 2025 – six months after the stabbing. This, despite the fact that he was under the care of two adults trained in recovery support. The only conclusion that fits the facts is this: therapy was delayed because the truth might have unraveled their version of events.

Her Plan Backfired

I believe the DVPO filing was meant to strengthen a narrative against me.

But that’s not what happened.

Instead, her sworn statements were used to launch an ethics investigation into her professional license from the NH Office of Professional Licensure and Certification the only agency that would actually listen to my facts.

Her courtroom testimony gave me the legal clearance to tell the truth in my book. And when the case was finally heard, the court’s findings were clear:

“The Petitioner has not shown more than a generalized fear for personal safety based upon past physical violence and more recent non-violent harassment to support a finding that a credible threat to her safety exists.”
(Achille v. Achille, 167 N.H. 706, 716 (2015))
CASE DISMISSED.

While I respect the court’s decision not to impose sanctions, this outcome further validated what I have maintained all along: there was no present danger, and the filing served more as a narrative device than a genuine protective action.

A Message I Hope My Son Will One Day Read

There is one more reason this book had to be written – one that weighs more heavily on me than any legal victory ever could.

My son and I have not spoken since the attack. I have begged the court to remove the restraining order that prevents us from having any contact, but they continue to deny it. They claim it is for “my safety”. As it stands now, unless something changes, we will not be legally allowed to speak until he turns 18 years old. I fear by that time…he will be very distant.

In the meantime, he has been living with and exposed to the very people who shaped the narrative about me. He has not had the benefit of neutral mental health support during this critical period. And from where I sit, it feels like he isn’t even being allowed to think for himself.

That’s why this book matters. It may be the only way my son ever hears my side of the story, in my own words, without interference or filtering. I am writing this not just for the public, not just for other parents fighting similar battles, but for him. If one day he chooses to pick it up and read it – when he is free to decide for himself – he will finally be able to see the truth that was kept from him.

For now, this is the only way I can reach him.

What Makes This Case Different

• Parricide is rare, and only 7 percent of those cases show a history of documented abuse.
  
• Most DVPOs in New Hampshire are granted based on clear evidence of current danger. This filing had none.
  
• The failure to report, the timeline inconsistencies, and the decision to withhold therapy all point to the same conclusion: a post-incident narrative was shaped to justify an event that had no justification.

The Book: The Death of Parker Springfield

This isn’t just a memoir. It’s a real-time forensic breakdown of how public narratives can overshadow legal truth. It’s about how systems meant to protect can be used as weapons. And it’s about one father’s fight to make sure the truth is preserved.

If you’ve ever felt silenced by the legal system…
If you’ve ever been falsely accused…
If you’ve ever been a father trying to protect your child from a weaponized narrative…

This book is for you.

Pre-Order Now

The Death of Parker Springfield will be released later this year. Pre-order now and get access to early materials, audio excerpts from court hearings, and bonus chapters that dive into the legal, ethical, and psychological toll of surviving a false narrative.

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this article represent my own personal experience and perspective, based on publicly available court documents, official legal findings, and my personal involvement in this case. All claims regarding the conduct of any parties are based on facts presented in court filings, public records, and statements made under oath.

This article is not intended to harass or defame any individual. It is presented in the public interest to share my personal account of events that have had profound impacts on my life and on public court processes.