Trigger Warning and Note: This story includes references to mental health challenges, substance abuse, death of children, and suicide. If you or someone you know needs help, the national suicide and crisis lifeline in the U.S. is available by calling or texting 988.
The unthinkable happened. A mother admits that she took the lives of her three young children, asserting that she did so while suffering from an extremely rare, but real, condition called postpartum psychosis.
But first, a disclaimer: I am not rendering any opinion on any legal or medical issue. I am not a criminal attorney nor am I a mental health provider, let alone an expert on either topic. I have no inside knowledge or insight and I have not observed most of the trial nor have I ever met or spoken with anyone involved in any capacity. None of these things tend to stop people from forming opinions or speculating about every little detail. But this post is not about the underlying facts or speculation about what happened or why. This post is about an alternate world in which Lindsay Clancy did not kill her children and what a family law attorney (in New Jersey, specifically) might have heard from Patrick Clancy if he had expressed concern about the mother of his children before the unthinkable happened, and what he would have likely heard in response.
One further caveat: I am accepting the defense’s theory as accurate. Lindsay Clancy has acknowledged that she killed her children. There are many other theories, but for purposes of this particular discussion, I can only accept what Lindsay Clancy herself has presented as what happened. The other theories are a different post entirely.
Something I see regularly is a relationship ending and one parent expressing concern about the children’s safety with the other parent. This can stem from undiagnosed mental health concerns, untreated mental health illness, and/or substance abuse, among others, but these three areas are the focus. What this looks like is a parent in my office, saying the children may not be safe with the other parent and asking what they can do to protect the children. This can result in asking the Court to suspend or require supervision for parenting time and/or submit to any number of evaluations from a risk assessment to psychiatric and/or substance abuse evaluation.
The first question I always ask such a parent is: when is the last time you left your children alone with their other parent? If the answer is anything other than “never” (that is, “never since the underlying concern emerged”), then the worried parent has a potential problem.
The reason for this is simple because we are not living in the time of Minority Report style predictive models (IYKYK and if you don’t know, it’s Tom Cruise classic circa 2002, apparently with an 89% on Rotten Tomatoes). A Court can intervene when imminent and irreparable harm is likely to occur, but sometimes it can be extremely difficult to prove that such harm is, indeed, imminent. Past events can help establish a pattern, but with a new or not well-documented development or behavior, a Judge is often remiss to start limiting parental rights based on speculative fear.
In the alternate universe in which Patrick Clancy lived in New Jersey and tried to get a divorce before this tragedy unfolded, he may have been told that he was not going to get far with a safety concern argument, given that he clearly had no reservations about leaving Lindsay alone with their children. If he were sitting in my office, I don’t think he would have heard that IF he was privy to everything that is coming out at trial, but he may not have even had all of that information and most likely, even if he did, he likely would not have been able to present it all to a Judge in the type of proceeding that would lead to Lindsay getting the help she needed with guardrails in place to keep the children connected with their mother and also physically and emotionally safe.
But what about her well-documented mental health struggles and suicidal and homicidal thoughts, including specifically expressing wanting to hurt the children? That should be enough, but a good lawyer for Lindsay wanting to oppose an emergency limitation on her parenting time would rightly argue that Patrick continued to leave her alone with the children while she was making these terrifying statements and undergoing inadequate treatment for her myriad mental health diagnoses. This lawyer would argue that Patrick just wanted to gain an advantage in a litigation and is using her mental health challenges against her.
Tragically, we do not live in the reality in which those three innocent children are still alive and the Clancy family is grappling with divorce. If we can take any lesson from this unthinkable horror, we can honor the memory Cora, Dawson, and Callan Clancy. There is a lot of necessary discourse around the shortcomings of our healthcare system, women’s health, and specifically how we as a society treat and care for mothers and postpartum mental health and continuously fail women and moms, particularly women and moms of color. These are critical questions I am completely ill-equipped to answer.
The “did you leave the kids alone with her” discourse is one I am much more suited to engage in. It raises for me, personally, a question about what responsibility, if any, Patrick may have had in this tragedy. Why would he leave this woman alone with young children when she was so plainly struggling? For months, according to her mother-in-law’s testimony, Lindsay was “begging for help”. She did not get the help she needed and not for lack of trying, based on the testimony that has been presented at trial; she had physicians treating her, she had medication, she sought emergency interventions. Yet, Lindsay is now partially paralyzed from a failed suicide attempt and on trial for murdering her three children.
It is important here to take a moment for clarification on the idea of Patrick Clancy’s role or responsibility: this is not a suggestion that this tragedy was his fault. The outcome of the trial will determine whether Linsday Clancy will be held legally responsible, which is not the same as “fault”. A verdict is not the same as an inherent truth, but there will be an answer to a legal question. This answer will determine whether Linsday spends likely the rest of her life in jail or in a mental health facility. It appears that Patrick Clancy did attempt to help Lindsay get the help she needed. What happened was truly unthinkable and I don’t think anyone believes that Patrick would have chosen this fate if he knew what would happen when he left the house that day. What happened to the Clancy children is not his fault.
Still, I can’t stop thinking about the connection to the question in a divorce/breakup about leaving the kids alone with a parent while citing a safety concern. I can’t stop imagining what the conversation would sound like if Patrick were in my office, in this alternate reality, asking about a divorce and wanting to know how he could protect his children, an infant, a preschooler, and a 5-year-old. None old enough to meaningfully fight back or call for help if mom becomes dangerous and attempts the unthinkable. Do you leave the children alone with her? Because if you do, a Judge may be skeptical about your true motivation in raising this concern. Our legal system is largely reactive, rarely proactive, because taking action in a situation like this means a significant infringement on a person’s Constitutional right to be a parent. This is not inherently a bad thing, but it does present some limitations for a parent who has legitimate concerns about the safety of their children’s other parent and that parent’s ability to care for the children.
What does this mean for a parent who has genuine safety concerns about the other parent? This is where it gets tough. Anyone who truly fears that a parent poses a significant risk to their child should not leave the child alone with that parent. It’s simple enough as a concept, but logistically, infinitely complex. If a parent is saying they think about harming herself and her children, that parent should not be left alone with the children. If a parent is diagnosed but undergoing ineffective treatment, in the throes of a substance abuse disorder, or otherwise unable to meaningfully care for her children, that parent should not be left alone with the children.
That parent should not be left alone with the children. This is not a permanent solution and while there is potential for abuse and manipulation, the Court’s primary concern is the safety and wellbeing of children. That parent should not be left alone with the children until she has demonstrated that she is being treated appropriately and improving. Seeking help for mental health and/or substance abuse challenges does not forever disqualify a parent from seeing their children; often it does not even temporarily impact a parent’s rights.
A parent who is struggling should be able to seek help without fear of losing her children. She should not be punished or expected to answer for a dark time for the rest of her life. She should be supported and given both the space to heal and a path forward toward resuming a normative relationship with her children. This possibility exists in the New Jersey family Court system. Unfortunately, Linsday Clancy was not able to get the help she needed, and we know how her story ended. We will never know the answer to why Patrick Clancy left the children alone with their mother or what might have happened if he had not gone out that particular day or if he had sought a divorce or if she had received appropriate care and treatment. Too many systems failed Patrick and Linsday and their children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan.
By several accounts, Lindsay Clancy was an excellent mother. Why did he leave the kids with her? Why wouldn’t a father leave children alone with their loving mother?