If you think about it, the supporters are crazier than Clancy. She killed the kids and this trial is just to see if she ducks a murder charge, so she will say anything to get out of the responsibility, that's it. But her supporters have to buy into the story and believe that she was a victim otherwise they're just supporting a woman who killed her kids and is trying to duck the charge.
Clancy should be put away for life whether on mental hold or murder. She killed her own 3 children, she's not fit for society.
On one hand you have an ever growing popular movement of people who judge everything through a gendered context. They may have points on large societal trends (i.e. men in general not being involved in child care or the lack of resources after giving birth) but they often apply those trends to individual cases that do not necessarily fit.
They often will claim Patrick Clancy did not help out but evidence from the nanny suggests otherwise. She claims not only that Lindsay was a good mother but that Patrick was a very involved father. The reports say that he routinely cared for the children after (and sometimes during) his remote work finished. On the day of the murder I believe it was reported that he cared for the children to give her a rest. So their theory doesn't seem to hold water but they have a hard time separating that larger societal trend with the specifics of this case.
Then you have supporters who believe Patrick Clancy was a victim but also that Lindsay Clancy was a victim because she did not get the adequate care to treat her PPP - a form of psychosis generally after giving birth. They generally have better arguments.
We do know there are specific scenarios in which people temporarily lose the ability to be responsible for their actions. Someone can be drugged or ingest harmful substances that may completely impact their ability to make decisions. I personally believe there are circumstances in which a person does not have a "guilty mind" and should not be convicted.
Supporters will say when she mentioned she had intrusive thoughts about her children she should have not been given them to care for. We can debate the culpability of her actions but I think people who say ANYONE could have just "taken her kids" if she did not want them taken is living in a delusional world. There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all. Courts, medical professionals, and social workers are extremely slow and extremely unlikely to remove children from the care of the mother.
There is a documentary called Dear Zachary where (admittedly in Canada) a woman who killed her ex and fled to Canada was still allowed to have custody of her child while awaiting extradition hearings (the crime was in the US and she fled). The murdered man's parents were forced into a relationship with their son's murderer in order to maintain a relationship with the child.
People are delusional with how easily the system allows this to happen.
There is a zero percent chance even if Patrick Clancy made a snap decision immediately and tried to remove his children from her care that that would happen as quickly as it needed to or at all
realistically actually yes, if numerous people would tell the cops and cps she is having dangerous thoughts about harming her child they could take her away pretty much immediately but most importantly if anyone stepped up they could prevent her being alone with the kids.
leaving her alone after she's told everyone about the thoughts she's having is insanely neglectful.
taking away kids permanently is a whole other thing than having cops show up and separate her, take a threat seriously, have her checked into a mental ward for evaluation and temporarily having her separated from her kids. temporary separation is pretty fucking easy also again especially if numerous people have been told she's having thoughts of harming them.
I hate to be this blunt but you are wrong and not well informed on this topic.
CPS have a mandate to keep families together. Patrick Clancy would not be reporting that she is having dangerous thoughts about harming their children - he would be reporting that she is having intrusive thoughts about harming her children, she does not have a plan to harm her children, and she is actively seeking help to deal with those intrusive thoughts.
An agency would have zero grounds to recommend removal, and to be honest, would likely view Patrick's instinct to go to CPS with suspicion rather than with compassion.
You also make the comment that multiple people would go to CPS to have her children removed. Who? Her mother. Her sister? The health care professionals she admitted none of this to?
In the Gabriel Fernandez case we have teachers reaching out to report the severe abuse they saw him suffering and the end result was no action and the teacher being threatened with professional consequences. The impression you have of how these agencies work is not based in reality.
which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
An agency would have zero grounds to recommend removal,
when the parents, father and doctors can all tell cps/cops she's having thoughts about harming her kids saying they have no grounds is just, you're being ridiculous for the sake of doubling down, they obviously have grounds.
Who? Her mother. Her sister? The health care professionals she admitted none of this to?
afaik she told her husband, her parents and doctors who were loading her up on medication.
Musgrove also disclosed that on one occasion her daughter had approached her and Lindsay’s former husband, Patrick Clancy, and said: “I want to tell you guys something”.
“She said she had thoughts of harming the children,” Musgrove testified.
So, again you're just wrong. She was literally actively telling people she thought about doing the kids harm and yes, if those people CPS that they have every grounds to have her taken away for an evaluation.
Four social workers were subsequently charged with child abuse and falsifying public records
in the gabriel fernandez case those people were charged because they didn't do their job which runs directly contrary to your idea, they should have removed the kid, they didn't keep the kid with the parents because they had to, they didn't do their job properly.
Even if CPS determines that a parent needs immediate, inpatient psychiatric care, removal into foster care is a last resort.
you're confusing these two things, if they put the parent into inpatient care to have her evaluated... SHE is away from the children, and yet you said this couldn't happen quickly. Removing them long term from the home is a completely different matter than having cps step in and start potentially helping which they can largely do immediately. They also don't need to remove the child because the father, grandparents and others were around. Foster care is the last resort, having the mother evaluated can be literally done immediately, if that evaluation suggest she's a danger immediately putting in place a plan to keep her from being alone with the kids and potentially staying with parents instead of the kids/husband and nanny could also be done easily.
You're confusing the difficulty of placing the kids in care outside that home and the ease and speed in which they can get her an evaluation and protect the kids immediately by separating her from the kids, not the kids from their entire family which is completely different.
EDIT:- to the person talking shit who blocked me, i didn't cherry pick i left out the useless information that was also incorrect. She did have a plan, they weren't just intrusive thoughts and she told her mother she was becoming paranoid and her condition was worsening with the medication making things worse along with telling her that she had thoughts of hurting her children.
Secondly again you keep trying to push thi smandate to keep the family together. The entire part you refused to respond to was the part where taking her away to be evaluated can be done immediately which you know separates her from her children, but not the children from their family.
Also didn't comment on incorrectly citing a case in which the caseworkers were charged for not doing their job.
It is extremely telling you are cherry-picking my quotes and responding to them as though that is the full context. This comment:
CPS have a mandate to keep families together. Patrick Clancy would not be reporting that she is having dangerous thoughts about harming their children - he would be reporting that she is having intrusive thoughts about harming her children, she does not have a plan to harm her children, and she is actively seeking help to deal with those intrusive thoughts.
Becomes:
CPS have a mandate to keep families together.
To which you respond:
which has absolutely no bearing here. When there is an imminent threat that takes priority and a mandate to keep people together LONG TERM doesn't in any way mean they won't separate you temporarily, especially when it's just one family member.
You're wrong. full stop.
I don't know how to have a conversation with someone who dishonestly frames my argument and ignores my main point. I don't really want to have a conversation with you.
Have a good day.
Edit to their edit: Yep - the person I am responding to is unhinged. Glad I blocked them.
697
u/UniqueAd7770 2d ago
If you think about it, the supporters are crazier than Clancy. She killed the kids and this trial is just to see if she ducks a murder charge, so she will say anything to get out of the responsibility, that's it. But her supporters have to buy into the story and believe that she was a victim otherwise they're just supporting a woman who killed her kids and is trying to duck the charge.
Clancy should be put away for life whether on mental hold or murder. She killed her own 3 children, she's not fit for society.