Twenty-five years after losing his five children in one of America’s most devastating family tragedies, Rusty Yates has spoken candidly about the painful memories resurfacing as Patrick Clancy shares his own story with the world.

In an extended conversation with journalist Brian Entin, Yates reflected on the similarities between his experience and Clancy’s, revealing deeply personal details about grief, forgiveness, psychiatric treatment, and the extraordinary challenge of rebuilding a life after unimaginable loss.

But the interview also contained an unexpected revelation.

Yates, whose former wife Andrea was found not guilty by reason of insanity after the d.e.a.t.h.s of their five children in 2001, disclosed that he still maintains contact with her.

He explained why he continues visiting the woman responsible for the tragedy, how he eventually decided their marriage could not continue, and what he believes Patrick Clancy should understand about surviving intense public scrutiny.

Yates also described a disturbing experience involving his own appearance on 60 Minutes, alleging that the television program filmed a deeply sensitive part of his home without obtaining his permission.

The conversation followed Patrick Clancy’s emotional interview on 60 Minutes, during which he discussed his wife Lindsay’s psychiatric struggles, the loss of their three children, his decision to forgive her, and his attempts to build a new life.

For Yates, the parallels were impossible to ignore.

Patrick Clancy’s Interview Reopens Painful Memories

Brian Entin began his discussion by reviewing several significant revelations from Patrick Clancy’s televised interview.

According to Entin’s account, Patrick said he knew little about postpartum psychiatric illness before his family’s tragedy.

He described Lindsay’s worsening depression, intrusive thoughts, and severe sleep difficulties in the months leading up to the incident.

Lindsay reportedly sought hospital treatment around New Year’s Eve and was released after several days.

Patrick recalled that she wanted to return home.

He also discussed the heartbreaking aftermath of the incident involving their children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan.

One of the most emotional portions concerned Callan, who initially survived and received hospital treatment.

Patrick said he had hoped his youngest child would recover.

Instead, Callan later d.i.e.d in his father’s arms.

The interview also revealed that Patrick had experienced thoughts of ending his own life during the period following the tragedy.

He described writing about forgiveness while his son was still hospitalized.

Patrick said he believed that refusing to forgive Lindsay would eventually consume him emotionally.

When he later asked Lindsay whether she remembered what had happened, she reportedly described the experience as resembling a dream.

The interview also included a previously undisclosed account of Patrick suffering a panic attack at the courthouse before the playing of a 911 recording during legal proceedings.

According to Entin’s summary, Patrick was taken to an ambulance outside the courthouse and declined medication because he wanted to continue his testimony.

Patrick subsequently moved to New York City and began rebuilding his life.

He met Dr. Rachel Danis at a running club in January 2024.

The couple later married.

For Yates, nearly every part of that journey brought back memories of his own experience.

Rusty Yates Recognized a Story He Had Already Lived

When Entin asked Yates about Patrick’s interview, the response was immediate.

Yates said the story felt painfully familiar.

He recognized the difficulty of seeking psychiatric treatment for a spouse experiencing severe mental illness.

He also recognized the uncertainty surrounding medication, medical decisions, and the limitations of the healthcare system.

Yates recalled his own family’s experience in 2001, when Andrea Yates drowned their five children in the family bathtub.

Andrea had a history of severe psychiatric illness, including psychosis associated with the postpartum period.

Her initial conviction was later overturned, and she was found not guilty by reason of insanity in a subsequent trial.

She has remained in psychiatric care.

Yates told Entin that he believed medication changes had played an important role in Andrea’s deterioration.

He questioned decisions involving antipsychotic treatment and antidepressant dosages.

He also wondered whether psychiatric medication might have affected her energy and ability to act on delusional thoughts.

Those statements reflected Yates’s personal interpretation of Andrea’s medical history, not an independently established medical conclusion.

The effects of psychiatric medications vary considerably, and the relationship between treatment changes, psychosis, and behavior requires individual clinical assessment.

Nevertheless, Yates’s central point was clear.

Families facing severe psychiatric emergencies can find themselves navigating complicated treatment decisions without fully understanding the risks.

He believed Patrick had encountered similar difficulties.

The Heartbreaking Hope That One Child Might Have Survived

One of the most affecting moments came when Yates recalled the immediate aftermath of his own family’s tragedy.

He explained that his mother had been visiting the family around that time.

She was staying at an extended-stay hotel and sometimes took individual grandchildren to spend time with her.

In the confusion following the incident, Yates briefly believed that one of his sons, Noah, might have been with his grandmother.

When his mother arrived, he asked whether she had Noah.

For a fleeting moment, he hoped one child had escaped the tragedy.

That hope was shattered.

Yates said Patrick’s account of hoping Callan would survive resonated deeply with him.

He understood the desperate desire to believe that even one child might still be alive.

He also described dreams in which some of his children had survived.

Sometimes, he would dream that two or three were gone while the others remained.

Then he would wake and confront the reality that all five had d.i.e.d.

The emotional contrast was devastating.

Yates described the experience of waking from a nightmare into a reality even more painful than the dream itself.

His comments illustrated the lasting psychological impact of traumatic bereavement.

Even decades later, memories and imagined alternatives remain part of his life.

Why Both Fathers Chose Forgiveness

Perhaps the most controversial similarity between Patrick Clancy and Rusty Yates is their decision to forgive their wives.

Patrick described reaching that decision remarkably early.

Yates said he experienced something similar.

Once he understood Andrea’s psychiatric condition, he explained, forgiveness came naturally.

He did not describe it as a lengthy emotional struggle.

Instead, he viewed her actions through the context of severe mental illness.

Yates remembered Andrea as an intelligent, loving partner with whom he had shared many happy years.

He said they had enjoyed a strong relationship before her psychiatric deterioration.

However, he emphasized that forgiveness did not eliminate the consequences of what happened.

This distinction became one of the interview’s central themes.

Yates argued that forgiving someone does not require restoring the relationship to its previous condition.

He offered the example of forgiving someone who had stolen because of desperate circumstances.

Understanding the person’s motives would not necessarily mean inviting that individual back into one’s home.

For Yates, forgiveness and trust had become separate questions.

He could forgive Andrea while recognizing that he could never again feel safe living with her.

The Conversation With His Mother That Changed Everything

Yates revealed a particularly striking exchange with his mother on the day of the tragedy.

As he struggled to understand what had happened, she spoke to him about the meaning of marriage.

She referred to the traditional wedding promise that spouses remain together until d.e.a.t.h.

Then she pointed out that d.e.a.t.h had already entered their family in the most devastating possible way.

Yates said her words stayed with him.

He did not immediately divorce Andrea.

In fact, he said the decision took years.

But the conversation helped him recognize that his marriage had entered circumstances far beyond ordinary marital difficulties.

He continued to care about Andrea.

He continued supporting her treatment.

Yet he understood that their relationship could not return to what it had been.

Yates said he worried about the possibility of psychiatric relapse.

Even if Andrea were eventually considered stable enough to leave institutional care, he did not believe he could live with her again.

The emotional bond remained.

The possibility of rebuilding their marriage did not.

The Surprising Reason Rusty Still Visits Andrea Yates

One of the interview’s most unexpected revelations concerned Yates’s continuing relationship with Andrea.

He said he had spoken with her within the preceding couple of months.

He also described visiting her periodically, although the frequency has changed over the years.

Early in her incarceration, he visited every few weeks.

After their divorce, visits became less frequent.

Sometimes years passed between in-person meetings.

Nevertheless, they continued communicating.

Entin asked why Yates would maintain contact after everything that had happened.

His answer centered on the children.

Andrea, he explained, is the only other person who knew all five children as intimately as he did.

Other relatives remember Noah, John, Paul, Luke, and Mary.

But nobody else shared the same daily family life.

Nobody else experienced those years from the perspective of their parents.

When Yates and Andrea speak, he said, they often reminisce about their children and the happy experiences they shared.

Those conversations allow him to revisit a part of his life that would otherwise exist only in his memories.

He acknowledged the pain associated with Andrea’s actions.

But he also refused to allow the tragedy to erase every good memory from their marriage.

For him, the years of happiness remain meaningful.

Andrea Yates’ Continuing Psychiatric Treatment

Yates also discussed Andrea’s current psychiatric condition.

He said she was doing well when he most recently visited.

However, he emphasized that her illness remains a continuing concern.

According to his account, Andrea has experienced relapses when antipsychotic medication was discontinued.

He described episodes involving changes in mood, behavior, and perception.

One particularly disturbing memory involved a visit during her incarceration.

Yates recalled entering a room and seeing Andrea looking physically unwell.

She appeared thin, hunched over, and trembling.

Instead of greeting him normally, she asked whether he had seen something that sounded like the word steak.

Yates initially thought she was talking about food.

He then realized she meant the state.

Andrea believed the state intended to execute her.

For Yates, the incident demonstrated how dramatically psychiatric symptoms could alter her understanding of reality.

He said treatment had helped stabilize her condition, but he did not believe the underlying illness had simply disappeared.

His account also highlighted an important distinction between psychiatric stability and permanent recovery.

A person may function well with appropriate treatment while remaining vulnerable to relapse.

The Painful Decision to Remarry and Have Another Child

The conversation eventually turned toward rebuilding a family.

Yates explained that he did not enter another relationship immediately after the tragedy.

He first spent years navigating grief, divorce, and the difficult process of adjusting to a different life.

Eventually, he met another woman through church.

They later married and had a son.

Yates described his youngest child as a source of immense happiness.

He emphasized that having another child did not replace Noah, John, Paul, Luke, or Mary.

Each child, he said, had a unique personality.

He cherished his youngest son just as he cherished his first five children.

That experience helped him understand Patrick Clancy’s discussion of the possibility of having another child.

Yates rejected the idea that rebuilding a family necessarily means forgetting the family that was lost.

Instead, he described love as something that can continue growing without diminishing earlier relationships.

He also acknowledged the awkwardness of beginning a romantic relationship while carrying such a widely known personal history.

A potential partner would eventually need to understand what had happened.

But he did not want someone attracted primarily by the notoriety of the case.

Over time, he learned to assume that most people already knew his story.

That approach allowed him to avoid repeatedly explaining his past.

The Family Photographs He Could No Longer Bear to See

Yates shared another intimate detail about his life after the tragedy.

Before 2001, his family had taken annual photographs.

Those pictures were displayed along a hallway in their home.

After losing the children, Yates removed them.

He placed the photographs in a box because seeing them every day was emotionally overwhelming.

For a time, even ordinary reminders of family life were difficult to endure.

Gradually, he began displaying selected pictures again.

Today, he said, a small number of photographs remain prominently visible in his home.

He described finding a balance.

Too many reminders could become overwhelming.

Too few would leave him feeling disconnected from the children he wanted to remember.

Yates also remained in the original family house for several years before moving into an apartment.

He said leaving the house brought more relief than he expected.

The memories were not confined to photographs or personal possessions.

They were connected to the physical surroundings themselves.

Moving allowed him to establish a new daily environment without abandoning the memories of his children.

Rusty Yates Reveals What Upset Him About 60 Minutes

The interview took an unexpected turn when Entin asked Yates about his own experience with 60 Minutes.

Like Patrick Clancy, Yates had chosen the program for an early major television interview.

He was interviewed by the late Ed Bradley.

Yates recalled spending approximately two hours and fifteen minutes answering more than one hundred questions.

He described the setting as intimidating.

The production crew had rearranged a hotel room and installed extensive lighting equipment.

Despite the pressure, Yates said he generally appreciated Bradley’s professionalism.

He also believed the finished interview was mostly fair.

However, one production decision continued to bother him.

According to Yates, the crew filmed the bathtub inside his family home without first asking his permission.

The location was profoundly sensitive because it was where his five children had d.i.e.d.

Yates said he was upset that the footage had been obtained without an explicit discussion.

He believed the crew should have asked before filming that part of the house.

Although he did not characterize the entire interview negatively, he considered the incident an invasion of a deeply personal boundary.

The allegation represents Yates’s account of the production.

The supplied interview does not include a response from 60 Minutes.

His Warning About Media Coverage and Public Judgment

Yates also spoke at length about the challenges of dealing with journalists.

Before the tragedy, he had spent his professional life working in aerospace engineering.

Accuracy was essential in that field.

He assumed journalists operated under similarly rigorous standards.

His experiences changed that belief.

Yates said he encountered numerous inaccurate reports about his family.

He was especially disturbed by commentators who spoke confidently about details they did not actually know.

He also recalled being surrounded by television crews outside the courthouse.

During one encounter, a cameraman walking backward collided with a sign.

Yates found the incident amusing.

But he worried that a photograph capturing him smiling could be presented without context.

Viewers might assume he was pleased about a courtroom development when he was simply reacting to something happening nearby.

The incident illustrated his broader concern about public perception.

A brief image or quotation can create an impression that bears little resemblance to the circumstances in which it occurred.

Yates said he eventually became more comfortable with live interviews because his comments were less likely to be edited out of context.

The Advice He Wants Patrick Clancy to Hear

Yates believes Patrick faces an even more difficult media environment than he did.

Social media allows speculation, criticism, and misinformation to spread rapidly.

Private moments can become public controversies within hours.

Entin mentioned photographs of Patrick being taken while he was out running.

Yates said he understood the desire to escape that attention.

He encouraged Patrick to accept that not everyone will approve of his decisions.

Some people may criticize his forgiveness of Lindsay.

Others may question his decision to remarry.

Still others may believe they know what he should have done differently.

Yates argued that attempting to persuade every critic is an impossible task.

Instead, he recommended building a smaller circle of supportive people.

He said a person does not need universal approval to live a meaningful life.

What matters more is maintaining relationships with people who understand and respect them.

For Yates, that principle became one of the foundations of his recovery.

Why He Believes Forgiveness Does Not Erase Responsibility

Yates also addressed the difficult relationship between severe mental illness and criminal responsibility.

He believes Andrea’s psychosis profoundly distorted her perception of reality.

He explained that her delusional beliefs were essential to understanding why she acted as she did.

In his view, the psychiatric illness was not merely a diagnosis that existed alongside the crime.

It was central to the mental framework in which the actions occurred.

He used an example involving a hospitalized patient who mistakenly perceived a medical instrument as a dangerous snake.

The patient’s response might appear irrational to observers.

But within the patient’s distorted perception, the behavior could seem necessary.

Yates said he believed a similar understanding of delusions was important when evaluating criminal responsibility.

He also suggested that the public discussion of Lindsay Clancy’s case had not always clearly explained the connection between her alleged psychiatric symptoms and her actions.

His comments were personal observations, not a clinical assessment of Lindsay.

The legal standard for criminal responsibility differs by jurisdiction and requires evidence specific to the defendant’s mental condition at the time of the offense.

A diagnosis alone does not automatically establish legal insanity.

The Courtroom Experience That Left Him Feeling Excluded

Another significant revelation involved the way Yates and his relatives were treated during Andrea’s legal proceedings.

Yates said members of both sides of the family supported Andrea.

They believed her psychiatric illness was central to understanding the tragedy.

However, he recalled being excluded from a courthouse area designated for victims and their families.

According to Yates, he and his relatives were told the room was intended for people supporting the prosecution.

They were moved elsewhere.

The experience left him feeling that his status as a grieving father was being overshadowed by his position on the criminal case.

He had lost five children.

Yet his support for Andrea’s insanity defense apparently complicated how he was treated within the courtroom environment.

Yates said prosecutors had not meaningfully sought his views before pursuing their case.

His recollection highlights the complexity of cases in which victims’ relatives disagree with the prosecution’s preferred outcome.

Family members can experience profound loss while holding different beliefs about punishment, treatment, and responsibility.

Why He Decided Against Filing a Civil Lawsuit

Toward the end of the conversation, Entin asked whether Yates had considered legal action against medical providers involved in Andrea’s treatment.

Yates said he had.

He believed aspects of her psychiatric care warranted scrutiny.

However, he ultimately decided against pursuing a civil lawsuit.

He described the potential litigation as emotionally exhausting and legally complicated.

Establishing responsibility would have required examining decisions made by several different parties.

The process might have involved extensive testimony about Andrea’s treatment, family history, and the events surrounding the tragedy.

Yates also noted that legal deadlines could force grieving families to make major decisions before they were emotionally prepared.

He did not want to spend years reliving the experience in court.

Although financial compensation might have provided practical benefits, he questioned whether the emotional cost would have been worthwhile.

He suggested that Patrick could face similar difficulties if civil litigation were pursued in connection with Lindsay’s treatment.

But he did not claim to know the outcome of any possible lawsuit.

His remarks underscored the difference between believing that mistakes occurred and proving legal liability.

The Thanksgiving Moment That Changed His Perspective

Perhaps the most reflective part of the interview came when Yates described a Thanksgiving gathering at his church.

Attendees were asked to share something for which they were grateful.

For Yates, the request initially seemed impossible.

The people he had been most grateful for were his wife and children.

After the tragedy, the family life he had cherished no longer existed.

He struggled to identify anything that could possibly inspire gratitude.

Rather than abandon the exercise, he decided to spend time thinking about it.

Eventually, his perspective shifted.

He began considering the fact that he had experienced life, love, parenthood, and meaningful relationships at all.

He concluded that those experiences remained valuable even though they had ended in tragedy.

Yates said he came to view life itself as a gift.

That realization did not eliminate his grief.

Nor did it make the events of 2001 acceptable.

Instead, it gave him a way to continue living without allowing the worst moment of his life to define every other moment.

He described gratitude as an intentional practice rather than a feeling that appeared automatically.

Twenty-Five Years Later, the Pain Has Not Disappeared

Throughout the interview, Yates repeatedly emphasized that rebuilding his life did not mean recovering everything he had lost.

He still experiences sadness.

He still remembers his children.

He still encounters moments when the tragedy feels painfully immediate.

His continued contact with Andrea, his family photographs, and his conversations about the children all reflect the lasting presence of that history.

At the same time, he has maintained a long professional career, raised another son, and developed relationships that bring meaning to his life.

He told Entin that he was approaching retirement after approximately 41 years in aerospace.

That ordinary milestone stands in sharp contrast to the extraordinary tragedy that made him nationally known.

For much of his adult life, he has tried to live as an engineer, father, friend, and member of his community rather than as a permanent subject of a true-crime story.

He believes Patrick Clancy deserves the opportunity to do the same.

Two Fathers, Two Families, and One Difficult Question

The experiences of Rusty Yates and Patrick Clancy are not identical.

Their families lived in different states, faced different legal proceedings, and encountered different medical circumstances.

The psychiatric evidence in each case must be evaluated independently.

Nevertheless, their stories share deeply painful themes.

Both fathers lost children in incidents involving their wives.

Both sought to understand the role of severe psychiatric illness.

Both chose forgiveness despite the irreversible harm.

Both faced intense public scrutiny.

And both confronted the question of whether rebuilding a life after tragedy would be interpreted as abandoning the past.

Yates’s interview offers no simple solution to those questions.

He does not suggest that forgiveness restores trust.

He does not claim that grief disappears.

He does not believe public criticism can always be corrected.

Instead, he describes survival as a series of difficult choices.

Remember the people who were loved.

Acknowledge the reality of what happened.

Seek relationships that provide support.

And allow life to contain happiness again without pretending that the suffering never occurred.

For Patrick Clancy, those lessons may carry particular weight because they come from someone who has lived with a similar loss for a quarter of a century.

The most revealing aspect of Yates’s conversation was not his criticism of television producers or his recollection of courtroom treatment.

It was his explanation of why he still speaks with Andrea.

She remains the only person who shared the experience of raising their five children with him.

Their relationship as spouses ended.

Their shared memories did not.

And in that painful distinction lies the central message of the interview: forgiveness does not reverse a tragedy, but for some survivors, it becomes part of learning how to live with what cannot be changed.