Veneer of Safety: Tragedy at Nashua Children's Home

About this three-part series:

On August 20, 1999, Mark Rowland, a therapist for Nashua Children’s Home, was shot to death by a client family member while conducting a home visit. This article presents the chronology of events through the lens of David Villiotti, who continues to serve as Director of the Children's Home.

Villiotti takes us through the initial chaos in the agency and community, the bizarre court proceedings that followed spanning five years, and the efforts of the agency to honor their fallen comrade, and to continue the pursuit of its century-long mission in the face of fear and self-doubt.

Editor's Note: This was written in 2008. We're grateful to Dave Villiotti for sharing it with us here at Nashua Patch, and with our readers.

____________

Chapter 1

New Hampshire has been accorded the No. 1 designation as the “Safest State to Live In” in these United States. Contributing to this designation was New Hampshire’s ranking of 47th in the rate of Motor Vehicle Theft, 49th in both the rate of Assault and Burglary, and 50th, in the Murder rate.

On August 20, 1999, all of these positive attributes of the Granite State failed to preserve the safety of Mark Rowland. Thirty-six years old at the time, loving husband of Lynette, proud father of two-year old Emily, devoted son of mother Grace, father Richard, and stepmother Kathy, loyal brother of Pat and Rick, and faithful follower of Jesus Christ, Mark Rowland had been employed as a Family Counselor at Nashua Children’s Home for nearly three years. He was a native of Syracuse, NY, an avid basketball fan, and had earned his masters degree at Abilene (TX) Christian University. There he had met Lynette, a Colorado native, who had served as a missionary in South America, and was working with developmentally delayed children in Texas. 

At 11 a.m. on that warm summer Friday, Mark Rowland was preparing for a scheduled meeting at the home of a family in need of “preservation services” when I greeted him in the main office of Nashua Children’s Home on Amherst Street. Dressed in a red golf jersey and reviewing logs from the previous evening, 36-year old Mark was his usual, affable self.

Founded in 1903 as the Nashua Protestant Orphanage Association, Nashua Children’s Home provides residential care to New Hampshire’s at-risk children and youth, special education services to identified local students, and family preservation services to families at risk of fragmenting – like the family of Daniel Ayer, who Mark was on his way to visit.

The focus of Mark’s involvement in the Ayer family was their 6-year old son who demonstrated volatile behavior, thus making programming difficult for him within local public schools, and in fact endangering his ability to remain with his family.

At approximately 11:30 a.m., I received a phone call from the dispatcher of the Nashua Police Department. She asked me to confirm that Mark Rowland was indeed employed by Nashua Children’s Home, and then she asked me to send someone to the intersection of Kinsley and Hanover Streets, offering no further information. Assuming that Mark was perhaps in a bit of a jam, perhaps with a youngster, I quickly dispatched his supervisor, Clinical Director Martha Read, along with Acting Residential Director Shalini Joshi. Within 30 minutes came the call from Martha that continues to haunt me nearly a decade later.

“Mark’s been shot,” said Martha, “in the head. You’ve got to let Lynette, know.”

I hung up the phone and was consumed by helplessness.

“What am I going to do?” I asked over and over again, pacing, thinking, unable to make any sense of the circumstance. Finally, I called Mark’s wife, Lynette, whom I had never before met or even talked to, and gave her the news. Her sobs filled my ear. I told her that I would drive to meet her at her home in Manchester, where she operated a day care. Little did I know the courage, the strength, the dignity, the inspiration that Lynette Rowland would provide for all of us over the years to come. A friend, Scot Poirier – like Mark, very active with the Manchester Church of Christ – accompanied Lynette, following me to Southern New Hampshire Medical Center in Nashua. Hospital personnel immediately ushered Lynette into a room, and her sobs turned to unrestrained crying, filled with grief. Mark was dying.

Mark had been shot in the head on a Nashua street by Daniel Ayer, 34, father of a five-year old boy, whose place in his family Mark was attempting to preserve. When Mark arrived for the scheduled appointment, Ayer’s wife informed him that the family was sick and unable to meet. Mark had brought a book for the boy. He sat on the porch of the family’s residence on Kinsley Street in Nashua, scribbled a note encouraging the boy to read, then got back into his car. Still hopeful of having the meeting, Mark waited. He saw Ayer’s black truck drive up, go past him without stopping, then come back again and park. Leaving his vehicle, Mark walked up to the driver’s side window to talk with Ayer. 

Mark could not have known that Daniel Ayer had been planning a “demonstration” for months, a way to express his dissatisfaction with the child welfare system. Nor did he know that Ayer, the previous day, had been ordered to pay $70 a week in child support for his 13-year-old son living in Kansas. He could not have known that inside of Ayer’s pickup truck were five firearms and over 1,000 rounds of ammunition. Sitting in his cab, Daniel Ayer shot Mark in the head with a Russian .9 millimeter pistol and drove off, leaving Mark to die on the street.

News of the shooting spread quickly, broadcast on the noonday news edition of WMUR Channel 9, New Hampshire’s only network TV affiliate. Calls were coming into Nashua Children’s Home from the media and also from New Hampshire’s child welfare community. My duties to the agency required me to leave Lynette with Scot at the hospital and return to Nashua Children’s Home. I gathered my staff and told them the tragic news, to their utter shock and disbelief. I then, along with some senior staff, informed all of the children that their counselor, their advocate, their friend, had been shot, and the prognosis was grim. By this time I was able to tell them that the assailant had been apprehended, thanks to the extraordinary efforts of Nashua patrolmen Scott Anderson and Matthew Eskridge.

Officers Anderson and Eskridge, hearing the news of the shooting on their radios, concluded that the assailant would attempt to leave Nashua. They stationed themselves on the Taylor’s Falls Bridge, leading to abutting Hudson. Within minutes, a vehicle matching the description of one that had been described and circulated, came toward them. With one hand on his steering wheel and the other on his service revolver, Officer Anderson followed the black pickup. Officer Eskridge followed as well. They pulled the vehicle over and Ayer surrendered without a struggle. Only then did Officers Anderson and Eskridge realize how overmatched they were in firepower.

Unbeknownst to anyone at the time, Daniel Ayer’s “demonstration” included a plan to enter the courthouse where he had felt slighted the previous day and take more victims. The sheer amount of time that he spent waiting at traffic lights while driving to the courthouse caused him to reconsider. At the time of his arrest, Ayer had inside his vehicle, in addition to the murder weapon, a .30-caliber rifle, a .38 caliber derringer a .22-caliber Berretta, and a 12-guage shotgun.

At approximately 3:30 p.m., with Lynette at his side, Mark Rowland was pronounced dead.

The weekend provided a glimpse into the psyche of Daniel Ayer, based on statements that he made to Nashua police officers. Ayer believed there to be a plot to remove his son from his home. He was described as a “belligerent caller” to the New Hampshire governor’s office because of two phone calls made two months earlier.

These calls centered on Ayer’s dissatisfaction with the response of state agencies as well as the Nashua school district to his son and his family, and his belief that a government plot was at work to destroy his family. Ironically, the services of our family preservation program, and thus Mark Rowland’s direct involvement, were for the express purpose of maintaining the unity of this family. Mark was their best hope of remaining intact. Ayer’s tragic actions left three children fatherless: little Emily as well as his own two sons.

The wake for Mark Rowland was held the following Tuesday. I spoke with Lynette and met Mark’s parents, siblings, nieces and nephews. The occasion drew significant representation from New Hampshire’s child-protective agency. New Hampshire Governor Jeanne Shaheen attended. She later visited Nashua Children’s Home. The funeral service, on Wednesday, was attended by so many that the church could not seat everyone. I was asked by Lynette to share in eulogizing Mark. What would I say? How would I honor his life, and leave his family, his church family, the New Hampshire child-protective community, Nashua Children’s Home staff, and the young people whom we serve, with a message of hope? I related a favorite passage, entitled, “He Showed Up,” and connected the diligence and compassion of a youth worker with the efforts and the life of Mark Rowland. Later that evening, child-protective workers from New Hampshire’s Division for Children, Youth & Families (DCYF) staffed Nashua Children’s Home so that my coworkers, along with many of the Nashua Children’s Home youth, could attend another memorial service at Grace Lutheran Church.

Then began the long, agonizing – and still ongoing – process of healing for Nashua Children’s Home. As with any tragedy of this magnitude, there were questions of responsibility, of blame. I heard from the attorney who had first contacted us to refer this case, which was the beginning of Mark’s connection with Daniel Ayer. She felt she was to blame. She was not. The role of DCYF was examined. Should they have made different decisions? Was the referral of this case to us appropriate? The Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS) once said, “We were only blamed for two things this year. One was removing children from their homes too quickly; the other was not removing children quickly enough.” DCYF was not to blame.

When retiring in 2003, the Honorable Philip Howorth, long-time judge of Nashua District Court, talked about being haunted by only one case over which he had presided. It was Judge Howorth who had ordered the intervention of our family preservation program, for the express purpose of maintaining the integrity of the Ayer family. Judge Howorth referred to Mark Rowland’s murder as the “low point in my career as a judge.” Judge Howorth blamed himself. Judge Howorth was not to blame.

Martha Read, our Clinical Director, had processed the referral of this case and assigned it to Mark Rowland. She blamed herself. Martha Read was not to blame. And then there were those who looked at the role of Nashua Children’s Home, and at the very concept of sending workers into the homes of at-risk families. Scores of families, nationwide, have remained intact due to the efforts of family preservation programs. We did examine our processes for sending workers into homes, did require completion of formal risk assessment tools, did require contact with a local law enforcement agency before visiting the home, and put in place a requirement for administrative approval as well. Had we had these processes in place in August 1999, they would have revealed that Daniel Ayer had had little police contact. We had gone knowingly into the homes of individuals with more extensive histories of which to be concerned. Nashua Children’s Home would have accepted the case, and Mark Rowland would have visited the Ayer family.

The assessment of Nashua Police Lieutenant Douglas Hayes, supervisor in the Youth Services Division, was simply, “There is nothing (Mark Rowland) could have done (differently).” Nashua Children’s Home was not to blame. And what about me, personally? Was I to blame? The only social worker ever murdered in New Hampshire, and it’s at my agency, on my watch. Did I oversee our processes well enough? Did I pay close enough attention to the particulars? This internal struggle of mine continues unabated today. Yet in my heart I know this: the only person responsible, the only person to blame for this act, was Daniel Ayer. Daniel Ayer had talked with his wife, months earlier, about his plans to make a “demonstration.” Daniel Ayer had assembled a cache of weapons. Daniel Ayer had these weapons in his vehicle when Mark Rowland approached his vehicle. Daniel Ayer fired one of these weapons at Mark Rowland. Daniel Ayer, and only Daniel Ayer, was to blame.

Coming Friday: Chapter 2 - The trial, the verdict and the twist.

_____________

About the author: David Villiotti has worked in residential treatment facilities for 36 years, the past 27 years as Executive Director of Nashua Children’s Home. Click on the video to hear in his own words his process of putting this story into words.

Download the movie