Dr. Patrick Clyne Abuse Lawsuit

Help Law Group is reviewing claims connected to Dr. Patrick Clyne, a former pediatrician and licensed foster parent in Santa Clara County, California.

Allegations against Dr. Clyne span more than two decades. Over a dozen former foster children and pediatric patients have accused him of sexual abuse, with reports first surfacing in 2001 and continuing through his private practice years in Santa Cruz County.

Despite repeated complaints to law enforcement, child welfare agencies, and medical oversight bodies, Clyne retained his medical license for more than a decade after county officials formally notified the Medical Board of California. His license was finally surrendered and revoked, effective June 13, 2025.

Civil lawsuits are now active. Help Law Group advocates for survivors who were harmed in clinical settings, foster placements, or both, and provides guidance on what legal options may currently exist under California law.

Dr. Patrick Clyne served as the chief pediatrician for Santa Clara County's foster care system beginning in 1996. He also worked as a staff pediatrician at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, treated children at the Pediatric Medical Group of Watsonville, and maintained a private practice near Watsonville in Santa Cruz County. Alongside his medical career, he served as a licensed foster parent, bringing boys into his home through the county child welfare system.

According to civil filings, medical board records, and investigative reporting, the allegations against Clyne fall into two categories.

The first involves his clinical practice. Former pediatric patients have described exams they characterize as sexually abusive, including medically unnecessary genital and rectal examinations, instructions to walk unclothed in his office, and physical contact that fell outside the scope of legitimate medical care. Other physicians who reviewed descriptions of these exams found them unusual enough to raise immediate concerns.

The second involves his role as a foster parent. Foster children placed in his home by Santa Clara County's child welfare system have alleged sexual abuse occurring in a domestic setting, separate from any clinical context. Three foster children reported abuse beginning in 2001. A civil lawsuit filed in 2020 on behalf of one of those children, identified as Kyle, resulted in a $5.5 million settlement.

Clyne has consistently denied all allegations, asserting that examinations were misrepresented. He has never been criminally charged.

Two groups of children experienced alleged harm through Clyne's access to them.

Pediatric Patients 

Between 2009 and 2011, at least 10 children between the ages of 8 and 11 reported sexual abuse during what should have been routine health examinations. Allegations involving private practice patients in Santa Cruz County, spanning roughly 2014 to 2019, describe similar conduct involving children ages 6 to 16. Across both settings, children described examinations their families had no reason to question in the moment, delivered by a physician with county and institutional authority behind him.

Foster Children 

Boys placed in Clyne's home through Santa Clara County's foster care system were among the first to report abuse, beginning in 2001. These children were already navigating displacement, instability, and prior trauma when they were placed with Clyne. Many lacked the family stability or outside support that might have made it easier to disclose what was happening.

Survivors in both groups describe a pattern that is common in cases involving trusted authority figures: they felt something was wrong but lacked the words, the framework, or the confidence to name it. Some did not connect their experiences to abuse until years later, after seeing public reporting or learning that others had spoken up.

Civil liability in the Clyne case extends significantly beyond the individual. Multiple institutions gave Clyne access to children, received or should have received warnings about his conduct, and failed to act in ways that allowed the alleged abuse to continue.

Santa Clara Valley Medical Center 

Clyne worked as a staff pediatrician at this county-run facility, treating foster youth and children in county programs. Civil claims allege the medical center failed to adequately supervise him and ignored warning signs raised over years.

Santa Clara County / Department of Family and Children's Services 

The county's child welfare agency placed children in Clyne's home as a licensed foster parent. Court records in the Kyle lawsuit documented that the county received a report of inappropriate touching of another foster child shortly after Kyle's placement, failed to adequately investigate, and did not conduct required monthly welfare visits for extended periods.

Medical Board of California 

The board was formally notified about Clyne as early as 2011 through a letter from Santa Clara County officials. No disciplinary action was taken for 14 years.

Pediatric Medical Group of Watsonville / Private Practice 

Clyne treated patients at this group practice and later at his private clinic in Freedom, California. Allegations involving this period span roughly 2014 to 2019, years after Clyne had been terminated by Santa Clara County and barred from foster parenting.

Reports about Clyne's conduct came from social workers, parents, guardians, therapists, a juvenile probation officer, and staff at two residential group homes.

The volume and consistency of those reports, across more than a decade, raise a specific question: why did meaningful intervention take so long?

Court records and investigative reporting point to several overlapping failures:

• The 2002 grand jury declined to indict despite investigators recommending charges, allowing Clyne to return to his county role without restrictions.

• The Santa Clara County child welfare agency failed to investigate a report about inappropriate touching of a foster child and did not conduct required monthly check-ins on children in Clyne's home.

• The Medical Board of California received formal notification in 2011 and took no action for more than a decade.

• After losing his county position in 2011 and his foster care license in 2014, Clyne was permitted to continue private medical practice without restriction, giving him continued access to children through his clinic years.

• Each institution that acted did so in a narrow, contained way, addressing one role while leaving others intact.

For survivors pursuing civil claims, this history matters. Liability in cases like this can attach not only to an individual for what he did, but to institutions for what they knew, what they chose not to investigate, and what they allowed to continue.

Can a civil lawsuit be filed even though Clyne has never been criminally charged?

Yes. Civil claims and criminal prosecutions are separate proceedings with separate standards. The absence of criminal charges does not prevent a civil lawsuit from moving forward. California courts have accepted civil claims based on the same conduct even where no criminal case was filed.

Who can file a civil claim?

Former pediatric patients who received care from Clyne at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center, the Pediatric Medical Group of Watsonville, his private clinic in Freedom, or any other facility where he practiced may have grounds for a civil claim. 

Former foster children placed in his home through the Santa Clara County child welfare system may also have standing. Parents or guardians pursuing claims on behalf of a child who cannot advocate independently may also be eligible, depending on the circumstances.

Can the institutions be held responsible, not just Clyne?

Civil claims in this case have already named Santa Clara County, its child welfare agencies, and Santa Clara Valley Medical Center as defendants. 

A county government, a hospital, or a private medical group can bear civil liability when it placed children in harm's way, received or should have received warning signs, and failed to act. The Kyle settlement demonstrates that institutional claims can succeed here.

What about California's statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse?

California law provides extended statutes of limitations for survivors of childhood sexual abuse. Depending on when the abuse occurred and when the survivor became aware of the harm, filing windows may still be open. A legal review is the most direct way to determine whether a claim remains available based on the specific facts.

What if the abuse happened decades ago?

Survivors have come forward in this case describing abuse from the 1990s through the 2010s. California law recognizes that childhood sexual abuse often takes years to process and disclose. 

Extended lookback provisions have enabled claims involving conduct from earlier decades. Whether those provisions apply to a specific situation depends on timing and the facts of the case.

The Dr. Patrick Clyne case represents one of the most extensively documented failures of institutional child protection in California in recent decades. Complaints reached social workers, county agencies, law enforcement, and medical oversight bodies for years before meaningful action was taken. 

Survivors who lived through that period, whether as pediatric patients or as children placed in Clyne's home, carried the consequences of those failures without any accountability in return.

Help Law Group advocates for survivors of abuse in medical and child welfare settings. Our team provides guidance on potential civil claims, helps identify which institutions may share legal responsibility, and works at the pace that is right for each person.

A case review with Help Law Group can address:

• Whether your contact with Clyne falls within a period or setting connected to active civil claims

• Which institutions, including county agencies and medical facilities, may share liability based on what they knew and when

• What California law currently provides for survivors of childhood sexual abuse, including extended filing timelines

• What documentation may exist, including medical records, county placement files, and prior reports

• What to expect if you choose to move forward, with no pressure and no obligation to decide right away

Reaching out does not start a lawsuit or notify any agency. What you share in a review stays within our team.