Skip to content An overview of the sexual abuse allegations against Dr. Patrick Clyne, claims involving Santa Clara County, and legal options for survivors.
Patrick Clyne, who served as chief pediatrician for foster children in Santa Clara County and was also a licensed foster parent, is accused in civil lawsuits of sexually abusing children while occupying positions that gave him extraordinary access to vulnerable youth. The litigation also raises allegations against Santa Clara County and County officials, including claims that warning signs and reports of suspected abuse were not properly investigated and that Clyne remained in child-facing roles for years.
The allegations are especially significant because many of the children involved depended on the same systems that were supposed to protect them. According to a May 2026 complaint, Clyne worked within or alongside Santa Clara County’s foster-care, child-welfare, and medical systems, where families and children could reasonably view him as a trusted authority. Survivors who were examined, treated, placed with, or otherwise came into contact with Dr. Clyne may have questions about what happened, whether similar experiences have been reported, and whether they still have legal options.
This guide explains the allegations against Dr. Patrick Clyne, the claims involving Santa Clara County and its child-welfare system, key developments in the litigation, and what survivors may want to know about filing deadlines and legal options. It will also be updated as new lawsuits, court rulings, settlements, or regulatory developments emerge.
The May 2026 complaint alleges that Patrick Clyne sexually abused seven plaintiffs during purported medical examinations when they were children. According to the filing, the alleged conduct occurred in County-run or County-connected medical settings and was presented under the guise of legitimate pediatric care.
In 2009, according to the complaint, Clyne allegedly told a foster parent that an intimate examination of her foster child was required by Santa Clara County, even though the child had previously experienced sexual abuse.
The seven plaintiffs in the May 2026 lawsuit are not the only people who have accused Clyne of misconduct. Independent reporting has documented allegations involving dozens of foster youth and several boys who lived in Clyne’s home when he was a licensed foster parent. More than a dozen alleged victims had been publicly identified by 2019, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
The lawsuit also describes earlier reports and disclosures dating back years before some of the plaintiffs were allegedly abused. Those prior warnings are central to the case because the plaintiffs contend that Santa Clara County had multiple opportunities to investigate Clyne, restrict his access to children, warn caregivers, or remove him from child-facing roles, but failed to do so.
Patrick Clyne is a former California pediatrician who served as chief pediatrician for foster children in Santa Clara County and was also a licensed foster parent. The County hired him as a staff pediatrician at County medical clinics, assigned him to child-abuse medical evaluations, appointed him to the County Child Death Review Team, presented him as an expert witness in criminal cases, and referred foster children to him for medical care.
Those overlapping roles placed Clyne in positions of significant trust and gave him access to children within the County’s foster-care, medical, and child-protection systems.
After leaving Santa Clara County, Clyne continued practicing pediatrics at Pediatric Medical Group of Watsonville, a private clinic in the Watsonville/Freedom area that served many low-income and immigrant families. Additional allegations later surfaced involving patients from his private practice. (The clinic is not named as a defendant in the May 2026 lawsuit.)
Santa Clara County is named as a defendant because the plaintiffs allege that County officials had repeated warnings about Patrick Clyne’s conduct but failed to adequately investigate, restrict his access to children, or warn caregivers and medical personnel. The complaint alleges that the County continued to place Clyne in trusted, child-facing roles even after reports and disclosures that the plaintiffs say should have triggered stronger protective action.
The lawsuit also names former County child-welfare official Ken Borelli, who was serving in an emergency response managerial role when County licensing investigator Steven Katz says Borelli dictated a stand-down from the Clyne investigation. Katz testified that this was the only time in roughly 200 to 250 complaint investigations that he had been told to hold off. The plaintiffs argue that this suggests Clyne received treatment that differed sharply from the County’s normal investigative process.
The complaint further alleges that foster parent Dayna Lansaw reported concerns about Clyne to A.O.’s assigned County social worker, who later acknowledged that she had not reported him because he was considered a highly respected doctor.
The current litigation was filed in 2026, but the allegations involving Clyne reach back decades. According to the complaint, Santa Clara County received reports and disclosures concerning Dr. Patrick Clyne long before the seven plaintiffs in the current lawsuit say they were abused.
Multiple civil lawsuits have been filed involving Patrick Clyne and Santa Clara County. One of the earliest was brought in 2020 by a former foster youth, who alleged that Clyne sexually abused him after Santa Clara County placed him in Clyne’s foster home. Santa Clara County reached a $5.5 million settlement with that plaintiff in November 2025. Separate lawsuits filed in late 2025 involved two additional former foster youth.
The litigation expanded again in May 2026, when seven former foster youth filed a joint lawsuit naming Patrick Clyne, Santa Clara County, and former County child-welfare official Ken Borelli. That complaint asserts claims including childhood sexual assault and sexual battery, negligent hiring, supervision or retention, failure to perform mandatory duties, and negligence. The allegations remain unresolved unless established through a settlement, judgment, or other court finding.
For survivors, the Patrick Clyne litigation may have implications beyond the individual claims already filed. The lawsuits allege that Clyne’s access to children was tied to positions of trust within Santa Clara County’s foster-care and medical systems. This raises questions about whether other former patients, foster youth, or families may have had similar experiences that were never formally reported.
The litigation may also help survivors better understand how institutional responsibility can become part of a sexual abuse case. A claim may involve not only the person accused of abuse, but also an organization or public entity that allegedly failed to investigate warnings, supervise appropriately, or protect children in its care.
Survivors who recognize similarities in their own experiences may want to learn whether filing deadlines still allow them to pursue a civil claim and what legal options may be available.
California has significantly expanded the time available to bring civil claims involving childhood sexual assault. Under current California Code of Civil Procedure § 340.1, there is no time limit for certain childhood sexual-assault claims arising from abuse that occurred on or after January 1, 2024.
However, the statute specifically states that claims involving abuse that occurred on or before December 31, 2023 remain subject to the limitations rules that were in effect at the end of 2023.
Under those earlier rules, many childhood sexual-assault claims could generally be filed before a survivor turned 40 or within five years after discovering that psychological injury or illness occurring after adulthood was caused by the abuse, whichever provided more time.
Because the allegations involving Patrick Clyne concern conduct from years before 2024, and because claims may involve both individuals and a public entity such as Santa Clara County, the lawsuit filing deadline can depend on the survivor’s age, when the alleged abuse occurred, when its effects were recognized, and the particular defendants involved. Survivors should therefore avoid assuming that an older experience is automatically too late to pursue.
| When the Alleged Abuse Occurred | General California Rule | What This Could Mean for Survivors |
|---|---|---|
| On or after January 1, 2024 | California eliminated the civil statute-of-limitations deadline for qualifying childhood sexual-assault claims arising from abuse occurring during this period. | Passage of time alone generally does not bar a qualifying claim. |
| On or before December 31, 2023 | Earlier California rules generally apply, including filing before age 40 or within five years after discovering or reasonably discovering that an adult psychological injury or illness was caused by the childhood sexual assault. | An older claim may still be possible, but the deadline depends on the individual circumstances. |
Important: Filing rules can depend on when the alleged abuse occurred and the facts of the individual case. Survivors should not assume that older allegations are automatically too old to support a lawsuit.
A successful civil lawsuit may help address both the financial costs and broader harm connected to alleged childhood sexual abuse. In the May 2026 complaint, the plaintiffs seek damages for past and future medical and therapy expenses, lost wages and reduced earning capacity, as well as physical, mental, and emotional suffering. They also request other economic and non-economic damages allowed by law.
The complaint also seeks punitive damages against Patrick Clyne and any other non-public defendants for whom such damages may legally be available. The amount recoverable in any individual case can vary based on the alleged conduct, resulting harm, available evidence, defendants involved, and whether the case resolves through settlement or trial.
For many survivors, financial recovery cannot undo what happened, but it may help ease some of the long-term costs of healing and rebuilding.
A survivor considering a Patrick Clyne lawsuit does not need to have every record, date, or detail organized before asking about legal options. A useful first step is to write down what you remember about when and where you encountered Clyne, whether the contact occurred through foster care or a County-connected medical setting, and whether any medical, foster-care, school, or other records may still exist.
An attorney experienced in childhood sexual-abuse cases can then help determine whether a lawsuit may still be timely, which individuals or institutions could potentially be responsible, and what records or evidence may be available. Because the litigation involving Clyne includes allegations against both an individual and Santa Clara County, the legal issues can be more complicated than simply filing a case against one person. Survivors do not need to understand every legal theory before taking the first step; an experienced attorney can help make sense of the options and determine what path, if any, may be available.
At least several civil lawsuits involving Patrick Clyne have been publicly reported. One former foster youth filed what The Imprint described as the first civil lawsuit against Clyne in March 2020. That case later resulted in a $5.5 million settlement with Santa Clara County. Additional lawsuits involving former foster youth were filed in late 2025, and in May 2026, seven more plaintiffs filed a joint lawsuit against Clyne, Santa Clara County, and former County child-welfare official Ken Borelli.
Because the litigation has involved separate plaintiffs and cases filed at different times, the total number of individual survivors bringing civil claims is higher than the number of lawsuits themselves.
Survivors may sometimes be able to protect their identities in court by filing under initials or a pseudonym rather than using their full names publicly. In the May 2026 complaint, the seven plaintiffs are identified only by initials, and the filing states that this was done to protect their privacy because the case involves childhood sexual assault, foster-care status, medical records, and trauma. Whether anonymity is allowed can depend on the court and the circumstances of the case, so survivors should ask an attorney about available privacy protections before filing.
Not necessarily. Survivors of childhood sexual abuse may remember certain experiences clearly while being unsure of the exact date, age, or sequence of events. A lack of precise dates does not automatically prevent someone from exploring whether a lawsuit may be possible. Medical records, foster-care records, school records, placement histories, or other documents may help establish when contact with Patrick Clyne occurred.
Exact timing can still matter when determining which filing deadline applies, so survivors should share as much as they reasonably remember without feeling pressure to reconstruct every detail on their own. California’s filing rules depend in part on when the alleged abuse occurred.
Not necessarily. Many civil lawsuits are resolved without a trial, and survivors may not need to be physically present with the person they are suing during every stage of a case. If testimony, a deposition, mediation, or trial becomes necessary, an attorney can explain what to expect and what protections or accommodations may be available. The exact process depends on how the individual lawsuit develops.
Many California sexual abuse attorneys work on a contingency-fee basis, meaning the attorney is paid from a settlement or court recovery rather than charging an hourly fee upfront. California Courts explains that under a contingency arrangement, the lawyer receives a fee from money recovered through a settlement or successful case; if there is no recovery, the lawyer does not receive that contingency fee. Survivors should still ask about the percentage charged, case expenses, and whether they could be responsible for any costs before signing an attorney-client agreement.
No. Records can be valuable, but survivors do not need to locate every medical file, foster-care document, or other record before asking about their legal options. An attorney can help determine which records may be relevant and, when appropriate, assist with obtaining records that still exist.
California has expanded the time available to bring civil lawsuits involving childhood sexual assault, and some older cases may still be eligible depending on when the alleged abuse occurred and the survivor’s circumstances. Because filing deadlines can be complicated, survivors should not assume that an experience from many years ago is automatically too old to pursue. California’s current statute treats abuse occurring before 2024 differently from abuse occurring on or after January 1, 2024.
If you believe you experienced sexual abuse or inappropriate conduct involving Patrick Clyne, you do not need to have every detail, record, or legal question figured out before speaking with someone.
SurvivorsRights.com may be able to help connect you with an experienced attorney who can review what happened, explain whether a lawsuit may still be possible, and answer questions about the process.
Learning about your legal options does not require you to decide immediately whether to move forward with a lawsuit. You can ask questions, understand the potential paths available, and make the decision that feels right for you.
Take the next step when you’re ready.