Patrick Clancy’s lawyer told a judge Wednesday that Lindsay Clancy will testify she told her psychiatrist and nurse practitioner she had homicidal thoughts before she killed their three children. Within hours, Lindsay Clancy’s criminal defense lawyer said that is not true. “Lindsay Clancy never told any of her healthcare providers that she harbored homicidal ideation toward her children,” Kevin Reddington said in a statement to the Boston Globe and WBZ. “Mr. Clancy’s counsel does not speak for Lindsay Clancy.”
The clash came at the first hearing in Patrick Clancy’s wrongful death lawsuit, on October 28, 2026, in Norfolk Superior Court in Dedham. Judge Michael Doolin took the providers’ motion to dismiss under advisement and did not rule, the Boston Globe, Boston.com, CBS Boston and Court TV reported. Here is what each side argued, why one Massachusetts statute sits at the center of the case, and what happens next.
Who is being sued
Patrick Clancy sued in January 2026, individually and as representative of the estates of Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and Callan, 8 months. The suit names psychiatrist Dr. Jennifer Tufts and her practice, Aster Mental Health, and psychiatric nurse practitioner Rebecca Jollotta and her employer, South Shore Health System. It alleges that if they had provided adequate care, “it is more likely than not” the children “would still be alive today,” the Globe reported. All four defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in April, Boston.com reported. Patrick Clancy was not in court Wednesday, according to Court TV.
What the providers’ lawyers argued
- No threat in the complaint. “Nowhere in that 86-paragraph complaint did the plaintiff ever allege that Mrs. Clancy ever communicated to these defendants that she had thoughts or an intention, much less an explicit threat to harm or to kill the children in any way,” said Timothy Sweetland, who represents Jollotta and South Shore Health, according to CBS Boston. He said that information is not in “the hundreds of pages of medical records that the plaintiff has access to in this case,” Boston.com reported.
- A claim added late. “No allegation about communicating any intention or thoughts about harming or injuring or killing the children was ever raised in this case until after we served the plaintiff with a motion to dismiss,” Sweetland said, according to Court TV.
- Nobody saw it coming. “There’s no foreseeability; everybody was shocked at this outcome, and it is undeniably tragic,” said Mary Alys Azzarito, who represents Tufts and Aster, according to Boston.com.
What Patrick Clancy’s lawyer argued
- “Not a duty to warn.” “What is alleged in this complaint is not a duty to warn. What is alleged is negligence,” Howard Cooper said, according to Court TV. He said the complaint lists “at least eight different allegations” of care that “fell below the standard of care and was grossly negligent.”
- What Lindsay will say. “We believe that Lindsay Clancy, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved one way or the other, will testify that she told these defendants explicitly that she had homicidal ideation, that she was worried about something awful happening to her kids,” Cooper said, according to CBS Boston.
- “A disaster waiting to happen.” “I can’t imagine a more explicit threat,” Cooper said. “These doctors were on notice that this was a disaster waiting to happen,” according to Boston.com.
- On Patrick. Asked by reporters how his client is doing, Cooper said “voices at the fringe of the internet” had made “outrageous, false, and defamatory comments about Patrick.” He would not say whether he plans to file defamation claims, CBS Boston reported.
Reddington’s response
Reddington, who represents Lindsay Clancy in her criminal case, said: “She never indicated that she intended to testify in Mr. Clancy’s lawsuit, and no one acting for her ever represented that she would,” according to the Globe and CBS Boston. At her criminal trial, Tufts and Jollotta both testified that Lindsay Clancy never told them she had thoughts of harming the children, while her mother and Patrick Clancy testified she had made concerning comments to them, the Globe and Court TV reported. Lindsay Clancy did not testify at her trial.
The law: G.L. c. 123, § 36B
The providers rely on the Massachusetts duty-to-warn statute. It says there is “no duty owed by a licensed mental health professional to take reasonable precautions to warn or in any other way protect a potential victim,” and “no cause of action” for failing to do so, unless one of two things is true:
- An explicit threat. The patient “communicated to the licensed mental health professional an explicit threat to kill or inflict serious bodily injury upon a reasonably identified victim or victims and the patient has the apparent intent and ability to carry out the threat,” and the professional failed to take reasonable precautions; or
- A known history of violence. The patient “has a history of physical violence which is known to the licensed mental health professional,” and the professional had “a reasonable basis to believe that there is a clear and present danger” of an attack on an identified victim.
“Reasonable precautions” are defined in G.L. c. 123, § 1: warning the victim, notifying police, arranging a voluntary hospitalization, or starting involuntary commitment proceedings. That is why the case turns on what Lindsay Clancy told her providers. Cooper’s position is that the statute does not control because the suit is a medical malpractice and wrongful death claim, not a failure-to-warn claim. The wrongful death statute, G.L. c. 229, § 2, makes a person who “by his negligence causes the death of a person” liable for the decedent’s “fair monetary value” to the family, funeral costs, and punitive damages of at least $5,000 where death was caused by “gross negligence.”
What the judge decides now
On a motion to dismiss, the judge assumes the complaint’s allegations are true and asks whether they state a claim. The Supreme Judicial Court requires factual “allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with)” an entitlement to relief, Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008). The judge does not decide who is telling the truth about what Lindsay Clancy said. If the case survives, it moves to evidence, where her account, and whether she testifies at all, would matter. Doolin praised both sides: “I thought it was very well argued by all three of you,” he said, according to Boston.com.
What’s next for Lindsay Clancy
Lindsay Clancy’s own malpractice suit against the same providers and others is still pending, the Globe reported. Her criminal case returns to Plymouth Superior Court on November 2. Plymouth District Attorney Timothy Cruz has not said whether he will retry her on first-degree murder charges after the September mistrial, the Globe reported.
Frequently asked questions
Did the judge dismiss Patrick Clancy’s lawsuit?
Not yet. On October 28, 2026, Norfolk Superior Court Judge Michael Doolin heard arguments on the providers’ motion to dismiss and took it under advisement. No ruling has been issued.
Will Lindsay Clancy testify in Patrick’s lawsuit?
Patrick Clancy’s lawyer, Howard Cooper, told the court he believes she will, once her Fifth Amendment issues are resolved. Her criminal defense lawyer, Kevin Reddington, said she never indicated she would testify and never told her providers she had homicidal thoughts.
What is the Massachusetts duty-to-warn law?
G.L. c. 123, § 36B says a licensed mental health professional has no duty to warn or protect a patient’s potential victims, and cannot be sued for failing to, unless the patient made an explicit threat against an identifiable victim with apparent intent and ability to carry it out, or had a known history of violence that created a clear and present danger.
When is Lindsay Clancy’s next court date?
November 2, 2026, in Plymouth Superior Court, in her criminal case.
Sources: Boston Globe, Boston.com, CBS Boston (WBZ) and Court TV, October 28, 2026. G.L. c. 123, §§ 1 and 36B, and G.L. c. 229, § 2, read at malegislature.gov. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 451 Mass. 623 (2008), read on CourtListener. The lawsuit’s claims are allegations; no court has made findings. Lindsay Clancy is presumed innocent of the criminal charges. General information, not legal advice.