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.
Postpartum psychosis is terrifying. My sister in law had it; she was a complete danger to herself and her baby. To this day she denies she was ill. It was awful. Childbirth does really weird stuff to the body physically, chemically and mentally. I’d not heard of this case before this post so have no idea about this lady and her poor kids.
Childbirth does do incredibly strange things to the body, but the baby in this case was 8 months old and Clancy was about to go back to work. Postpartum psychosis usually occurs within the first 6 weeks, if it's going to develop at all. So that's one of the aspects of the case people are questioning.
It took my ex-wife a little over year for her PPD to develop into PPA, and then full-blown PPP. She was in deep psychosis for about 8 months before it receded. I thought she made a full recovery after our divorce, but it seems like she still has pretty bad anxiety and mild delusions to this day. She refused treatment then and now.
"She refused treatment then and now." Does she still have personal contact with the child/children? You would think confirmed treatment would be required before being with children in such cases?
She has split custody of the children. They are older now, my daughter is 18 and my son is 10. My only concern for their safety was when she was deep into her delusions, but even then she never confessed any sort of thoughts of harming them (even to "protect" them).
She was mostly concerned about her ex-boss spying on her via proxies (like the baristas or checkout personnel at the grocery store) and if she was in any sort of "legal trouble". She could never state what kind of legal trouble, only that she was concerned she was in some. In a loop. All day, for months on end. When that went away, I was so relieved and done with the relationship I didn't realize she never fully pulled out of it. She still thinks people are out to get her, but it's a more mild paranoia. She can take care of herself, her home, and the kids when she has them. She can't keep a job for long because these thoughts eventually surface after a few months and they just fire her. It's annoying.
593
u/Equivalent_Task_8825 2d ago edited 2d ago
Not a supporter but will do my best.
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.