In a startling turn of events, Aaron Phypers, the ex-husband of actress Denise Richards, has officially responded to her domestic violence allegations, refuting the claims and asserting that Richards is actually the “abusive” party in their relationship.

On September 15, Phypers filed a response to Richards’ July 17 domestic violence restraining order, according to court documents obtained by PEOPLE. The restraining order originally stemmed from Richards’ accusations that Phypers “repeatedly abused” her during their six-year marriage.

Phypers denies all allegations and challenges the necessity of the restraining order, stating plainly, “There is no need for such orders, as I have not abused her and will not abuse her.” He also alleges that Richards has been the one harassing him, explaining, “She has been ‘frequently’ calling and messaging me and my father. As well as asking other family and friends to ask me to call her so often that it should be considered harassment, demonstrating that she is not afraid of me and that she is the aggressive one.”

Backing his claims, Phypers submitted screenshots of call logs showing Richards’ repeated attempts to reach him. Among the documented contacts are nine missed calls on August 21, multiple calls on September 2, and several more on September 12.

Phypers further accuses Richards of invasive and destructive behavior: “She barged aggressively and forcefully into other family members’ living spaces, including my brother’s room (which he recorded), violating his privacy rights and looking through his personal property.” He also alleges that Richards “violently smashed my cell phone, placed it in a trash can buried under bags of trash, and then lied about, claiming she had not taken my phone.”

Adding a new dimension to the case, Phypers claims that Richards admitted to placing a tracking device on his vehicle. “I found an AirTag tracker on my vehicle 7/6/2025 and she admitted putting it there,” he wrote in his court response.

On the financial front, Phypers contests Richards’ requests related to expenses and spousal support. He argues, “If anything, she should pay my expenses, as I did not abuse her and she is the abusive one.” He further asserts that Richards is blocking his ability to earn an income: “She has prevented me from earning income, so she is the only one with income. She should support me.”

Phypers also takes issue with the timing of Richards’ spousal support request, calling it “ridiculous” and accusing her of using the proceedings to harass him: “Denise did not initially request spousal support, but later modified her papers to request that later. That is ridiculous and she clearly intends it as way to harass me, because she knows that she is preventing me from earning money by refusing to allow me to pick up my expensive and sensitive equipment that would be my primary method of earning income.”

Concluding his response, Phypers contends, “In fact, I believe that this entire domestic violence proceeding is merely a ruse to try to cut me off from being able to obtain spousal support.”

As the legal battle unfolds, the details and allegations paint a complex picture, leaving many waiting to see how the courts will ultimately rule on this highly publicized dispute.