Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Disputes Claim She Told Healthcare Providers of Homicidal Thoughts About Her Children

Lindsay Clancy's lawyer has disputed a claim that she told healthcare providers about homicidal thoughts concerning her children before their deaths. The disagreement emerged after a civil court hearing in Dedham, Massachusetts, on Wednesday.

Howard Cooper, representing her ex-husband Patrick Clancy, said he expected Lindsay to testify about allegedly disclosing those thoughts. Her lawyer, Kevin Reddington, denied that she had made the disclosures or indicated any intention to testify. The dispute arose as healthcare providers sought dismissal of Patrick's wrongful death lawsuit.

Patrick and Lindsay filed separate lawsuits earlier this year over the deaths of their three children, Cora, Dawson and Callan. Both allege that shortcomings in her mental healthcare contributed to the deaths.

The allegations against the providers remain contested, and no finding of medical negligence has been established.

Lindsay Clancy's Lawyer Rejects Claims About Alleged Disclosures

At Wednesday's hearing in Norfolk County Superior Court, Cooper said he expected Lindsay to testify that she had warned healthcare providers about homicidal thoughts. He argued that any testimony would follow the resolution of issues involving her Fifth Amendment rights, which protect against compelled self-incrimination.

Cooper maintained that Lindsay had disclosed fears that something terrible might happen to her children. His remarks concerned testimony he anticipated she might give, rather than evidence she had already provided in the civil case.

Hours later, Reddington directly challenged that account in a statement to WBZ-TV.

'Lindsay Clancy never told any of her healthcare providers that she harboured homicidal ideation towards her children,' he said.

Reddington also rejected the suggestion that his client had agreed to testify in Patrick's lawsuit. He said neither Lindsay nor anyone representing her had communicated such an intention.

'Mr Clancy's counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy,' he added.

The disagreement follows testimony from Lindsay's earlier criminal trial. Dr Jennifer Tufts and nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta both testified that she had never told them she intended to harm her children.

A lawyer for the healthcare providers, Tim Sweetland, also challenged Cooper's account during Wednesday's civil hearing. He argued that Patrick's original 86-paragraph complaint did not allege that Lindsay had communicated homicidal thoughts or an explicit threat towards the children.

Lindsay Clancy Lawsuits Face Questions Over Medical Negligence

Patrick's lawsuit names Tufts, Jollotta, South Shore Health System and Aster Mental Health Inc. It alleges that the defendants failed to provide appropriate treatment and that those alleged failures contributed to the children's deaths.

Lawyers representing the healthcare providers urged Judge Michael Doolin to dismiss the case. They relied partly on Massachusetts law governing when mental health professionals have a duty to warn or protect potential victims.

Under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 123, Section 36B, that duty arises only under specified conditions. The law addresses particular circumstances involving explicit threats or known histories of violence. It does not automatically resolve every allegation of negligent medical treatment.

The defendants' lawyers maintained that Lindsay had not communicated an explicit threat to her children. An attorney representing Tufts and Aster Mental Health argued that the outcome could not reasonably have been anticipated.

'There was no foreseeability. Everyone was shocked at this outcome,' the attorney told the court.

Cooper rejected the suggestion that Patrick's lawsuit depended entirely on whether healthcare providers had a legal duty to warn.

'What is alleged in this complaint is not a duty to warn. What is alleged is negligence,' he said.

The competing arguments leave the court to determine whether the claims can proceed. Doolin took the dismissal motion under advisement without announcing a ruling at the hearing.

Lindsay Clancy's Criminal Case Remains Unresolved

Lindsay, 36, faces three murder charges over the deaths of Cora, five, Dawson, three, and Callan, eight months old. The children died following an incident at the family's home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

The criminal proceedings remain separate from the lawsuits concerning her medical treatment.

During her criminal trial, the defence acknowledged that Lindsay had strangled the children with exercise bands. Her lawyers argued that she was not criminally responsible because she was experiencing postpartum psychosis. That was the defence's position at trial, not a finding of criminal responsibility or an independently established medical diagnosis.

On 4 September, Judge William Sullivan declared a mistrial after jurors failed to reach a unanimous verdict. The jury reportedly divided 11–1 in favour of finding Lindsay not guilty by reason of insanity. The mistrial left the murder charges unresolved.

The criminal proceedings also complicate questions about whether Lindsay might give evidence in Patrick's civil lawsuit. Cooper referred to her Fifth Amendment rights, while Reddington has said she has made no commitment to testify.

Lindsay is scheduled to return to court on 2 November for a hearing concerning the next steps in her criminal case. At the time of publication, the prosecution's next steps remained unresolved.

Meanwhile, Doolin has yet to rule on the request to dismiss Patrick's wrongful death lawsuit. Lindsay is separately pursuing malpractice claims against some of the same providers and other doctors involved in her care. Both civil actions remain pending while the dispute over what she allegedly disclosed to healthcare professionals continues.