Rom

“If you were to ask me whether I believe David Brouillette is capable of this level of extreme violence, my answer is unequivocally yes,” Lucinda Brouillette wrote.

“That belief is not based on speculation, but on my own lived experiences over many years,” she said. “I have feared for a long time that his anger, aggression, and escalating behavior would eventually result in severe, life threatening violence, and I often believed I would be the one on the receiving end of it.”

Lucinda Brouillette sought a protection from abuse order in court this week and is asking a judge to temporarily award her sole custody of their 11-year-old daughter.

This is not the first time she has filed such an order against David Brouillette. Past court records show she has accused her ex-husband of kicking down her door and alleging that he routinely and falsely accused her of having substance-use issues to attack her credibility in court. She also claimed he sent videos of her in intimate settings to other people and was verbally and physically abusive to his daughters.

“Throughout the years, I brought my concerns to law enforcement, the courts, and the Department of Health and Human Services. I tried to explain what I believed was a long-standing pattern of abuse, intimidation, manipulation, and controlling behavior because I genuinely feared where those behaviors could lead,” Lucinda wrote.

Some of the protection requests between the pair were temporarily granted by a judge; all but one — which Lucinda filed in 2019, the year they got divorced — were ultimately dismissed within weeks of being filed.

On Thursday, a Kennebec County district judge declined to issue Lucinda Brouillette a temporary protection from abuse order after a hearing that David Brouillette attended, according to court records.

Lucinda Brouillette, who said that she was married to Brouillette throughout his military career, said her statement Saturday that she experienced consistent patterns of “abuse, intimidation, manipulation, fear, and control.” She said she fears retaliation from Brouillette, and is worried that he still could exercise violence against her.

David Brouillette, 37, served in the Maine National Guard from 2007 to 2010 and the U.S. Army from 2010 to 2015 as a human intelligence collector. He deployed to Afghanistan from May 2012 to February 2013, leaving the army as a sergeant. He has also held numerous law enforcement and public safety jobs in Maine.

“He frequently portrayed himself as someone who could manipulate people, deceive others, and stay in control of difficult situations,” Lucinda Brouillette wrote. “Whether those statements reflected reality or were intended to intimidate me, they contributed to an environment of fear that made it even harder for me to believe I could safely stand up to him.”

She said that it has been validating to see accounts of Brouillette’s disturbing behavior from others. Brouillette’s family members have reported similar experiences, and Ashley Brouillette, his first ex-wife whom he divorced in 2010, identified him to the Portland Press Herald/Maine Sunday Telegram on Thursday, alleging similar accusations.

“If there is one thing I hope comes from sharing my experience, it is that patterns of abuse, coercive control, intimidation, and manipulation are recognized and taken seriously before they escalate,” Lucinda Brouillette wrote.

In her statement, she asked that she and her family not be threatened or harassed because of her ex-husband’s actions.

“I hope the investigation uncovers the truth, justice is served through the legal process, and healing can begin for everyone affected,” she wrote.

Read Lucinda Brouillette‘s full statement below:

Good morning,

My name is Lucinda, This is my response to your questions regarding my experience or knowledge of my ex husband, David Brouillette.

Before anything else, I want to express my deepest condolences to the victims, their loved ones, and every person whose life has been forever changed by this tragedy. My heart is with all of those who are grieving.

For several days, I have watched these events unfold alongside the rest of the country. I have intentionally been careful not to speculate about the incident itself. I was not there, I do not know exactly what happened, and I believe the facts should be determined by investigators and the justice system — not by public opinion.

What I can speak to is my own experience.

If you were to ask me whether I believe David Brouillette is capable of this level of extreme violence, my answer is unequivocally yes. That belief is not based on speculation, but on my own lived experiences over many years. Throughout our marriage and in the years that followed, I have feared for a long time that his anger, aggression, and escalating behavior would eventually result in severe, life threatening violence, and I often believed I would be the one on the receiving end of it.

I was married to David Brouillette throughout his entire military career. During those years, and for many years after our marriage ended, I experienced a persistent pattern of abuse, intimidation, manipulation, fear, and control. On multiple occasions David’s physical abuse was witnessed by friends and family. The emotional, psychological, and physical scars of those experiences have remained with me long after the marriage ended.

One of the most difficult aspects of that relationship was the fear of retaliation. Throughout our marriage and long afterward, I believed that whenever I spoke up, challenged him, or sought help, there would be consequences. That fear influenced countless decisions I made, including when and how I reported what I was experiencing. Even now, I fear speaking the truth of my experiences will lead to retaliation.

David often spoke to me about his military intelligence background and the specialized skills he believed it gave him. He frequently portrayed himself as someone who could manipulate people, deceive others, and stay in control of difficult situations. Whether those statements reflected reality or were intended to intimidate me, they contributed to an environment of fear that made it even harder for me to believe I could safely stand up to him.

Throughout the years, I brought my concerns to law enforcement, the courts, and the Department of Health and Human Services. I tried to explain what I believed was a long-standing pattern of abuse, intimidation, manipulation, and controlling behavior because I genuinely feared where those behaviors could lead. From my perspective, those warnings did not receive the attention I believed they deserved. Feeling unheard while continuing to fear retaliation was one of the most isolating experiences of my life.

The concerns I describe here are not new. They were raised over many years through family court proceedings, reports to law enforcement, and communications with the Department of Health and Human Services. Those proceedings span years and are matters of public record. My purpose in making this statement is not to relitigate those proceedings, but to explain my own experience and why I carried these concerns for so long.

For many years, I questioned whether anyone would believe what I had experienced. Seeing others with firsthand knowledge now come forward publicly has been deeply validating. While I cannot speak for anyone else’s experiences, hearing similar accounts has reinforced that I was not alone in what I experienced.

This statement is not about speculating on the events currently under investigation or influencing the outcome of any criminal case. It is about sharing my own lived experience and explaining why I carried these concerns for so many years.

If there is one thing I hope comes from sharing my experience, it is that patterns of abuse, coercive control, intimidation, and manipulation are recognized and taken seriously before they escalate. I know firsthand how difficult it is to speak up when you fear retaliation or believe no one will listen. If my experience encourages even one person to seek help, or encourages one person, one agency, or one court to take those warning signs more seriously, then sharing my story has served a purpose.

I also ask that people remember something very important. David Brouillette is the individual involved in the criminal case that is currently under investigation. I am not. Our children are not. My family is not. We did not choose this situation, and we should not be judged, threatened, harassed, or defined by someone else’s alleged actions.

My children deserve the opportunity to grow up without carrying the weight of circumstances they did not create. My family deserves privacy, compassion, and the chance to move forward without fear.

My thoughts remain with the victims, their loved ones, and every family whose lives have been forever changed by these events. I hope the investigation uncovers the truth, justice is served through the legal process, and healing can begin for everyone affected.

He thinks getting a job at such a young age made him more responsible and confident.

"When I joined I was very shy," he says. "But now I can speak to people easily."

The laws governing when and where children under 16 can work were introduced in the 1930s to crack down on child labour and safeguard their wellbeing.

Children over 14 could be employed in 'light work' but many Scottish council areas require employers to also apply for a permit to take on a child.

Now, plans to change the law could make it easier for under-16s to work part-time.

The Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill is currently making its way through the House of Lords with Royal Assent expected in the coming months.

The Scottish Parliament has given legislative consent for the provisions on child employment.

If passed, it would allow teenagers under 16 more flexibility on when they can work.

Caelan is positive about the benefits he gets from being a young worker.

Within a year of getting his job serving fish suppers at the Ashvale in Aberdeen, he says he was able to treat his mum to a holiday in Dubai.

His co-workers Kenzie and Erin both joined the takeaway and restaurant aged 15 and say they have had a similar experience.

Working around school hours gave Kenzie, now 18, the opportunity to save up for a car.

Erin said that although she was "really nervous" when she joined, she now doesn't "get scared talking to new people" because of her experience dealing with customers.

The new bill looks at all aspects of child protection and safeguarding as well as rules on school attendance.

The section on employment will give young people more opportunity to take on work.

Plans include lifting the two-hour working limit on a Sunday, and allowing work for up to one hour before school and until 20:00 - extending the current limit from 19:00.

Although there is more flexibility on when children can work, the maximum number of hours will remain the same – up to 12 hours on a school week.

The new law will update the rules, which were further complicated by dated local bylaws.

These vary across the UK, with some older than others.

In Dundee, the bylaws from 1973 prohibit working in a 'coal yard' or 'collecting rags'.

In some areas such as Angus and Edinburgh, children as young as 10 can still be employed on an occasional basis in light agricultural or horticultural work under parental supervision.

Others, including Falkirk, had no requirement for permits.

BBC Scotland also found a variation in the number of child employment permits granted by councils.

Freedom of Information responses showed none were issued in 2025 by Clackmannanshire or Inverclyde Councils – while Aberdeen City Council had issued 98.

Most local authority bylaws allow 13-year-olds to be employed in specified types of light work, which could continue.

Dawn Robertson is an employment law specialist at BTO Solicitors in Glasgow. She stressed the importance of safeguarding.

"Children should not be employed in any work that could be harmful to them," she said.

"I think the most important thing from my perspective is just that the law is not changing on that.

"Children still need to be treated as children, and we have to be very thoughtful and careful about what we do allow them to do in the workplace."

Dawn said varying council bylaws have make it more difficult for employers to keep track of the law.

"Hopefully after the bill is passed, we'll be in a position where it'll actually be a lot easier to give advice across the country to employers about this type of thing," she said.

"I think that employers generally comply with the rules, as far as they're aware of them.

"It sounds to me like a very positive approach and a positive development to the employment of children."

Children under school leaving age are not entitled to the National Minimum Wage, paid holidays or to sick pay. This wouldn't change.

Stuart Devine is the owner of The Ashvale.

He has employed "hundreds, if not thousands" of children across a 40-year period – and started at the business aged just 15 himself.

He welcomes a potential tweak to the rules.

"It needs looking at because times have moved on," he said.

"I think it's important from a business point of view, because obviously there are jobs that young people can fill the gaps. They actually come in generations of families.

"They're now schoolteachers, nurses, doctors, engineers offshore. I think the employment part has played a vital part in getting them to the next stage."

A few miles along the road, 15-year-old Harry is starting his evening paper round.

He delivers a few papers before school, more after school – and also works part-time in a chip shop at the weekend.

He says he has no idea what the rules are around when children can and can't work.

For him, it's about impressing future universities and employers.

"I think it looks good on CVs and stuff like that and when you're older and you need to get a proper job," he told BBC Scotland News.

"In the future, I want to be either a lawyer or work in the stock market."

Harry would encourage other young people to find work if they can.

"I think if you put yourself out there and you go and constantly speak to any employer at 14, if they're hiring other 14-year-olds, I think you've got a pretty good shot at getting a job there if you're confident."

Nicola Killean, Children and Young People's Commissioner Scotland, was mostly positive about the changes.

She said older children could gain valuable experience, develop their skills, knowledge and sense of independence through employment.

She added: "While we support a change to the law that offers children greater flexibility in employment, we are clear that they must continue to have their rights protected.

"The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), which is incorporated into Scots law, emphasises that children must be protected from being exploited and from doing work that is dangerous or could harm their development.

"The UNCRC is also clear that work must not interfere with children's learning while they are still in education."