PLEASE NOTE: This blog is a bigotry free zone open to all persons, regardless of age, race, religion, color, national origin, sex, political affiliations, marital status, physical or mental disability, age, or sexual orientation. Further, this blog is open to the broad variety of opinions out there and will not delete any comments based upon point of view. However, comments will be deleted if they are worded in an abusive manner and show disrespect for the intellectual process.

Tuesday, November 14, 2017


In the light of Ronan Farrow's exposure of the allegations against Harry Weinstein, the Woody Allen Child Sexual Abuse scandal has again caught notice. Why is it that Harvey Weinstein faces such overall condemnation in the movie industry and yet Woody Allen has not?

For instance, one reporter -- Molly Fitzpatrick of "Splinter News" -- investigated how actors have responded to Dylan Farrow's sexual abuse accusations against Woody Allen. Below are the names of actors she checked up on: Cate Blanchett, Alex Baldwin, Wallace Shawn, Diane Keaton, Louis CK, Scarlett Johansson, Marcia Gay Harden, Colin Firth, Jacki Weaver, Eileen Atkins, Mariel Hemingway, Emma Stone, Joaquin Phoenix, Parker Posey, Anna Camp, Miley Cyrus, Kristen Stewart, Blake Lively. Their responses have been neutral, indifferent, or a resounding "It's none of my business."

Why is it none of their business?

Why don't people care about the sexual abuse of the children within our midst?

This question particularly resounds in Connecticut which has been the setting for several controversial and difficult child sexual abuse cases where family court judges have appeared to fail in their mandate to protect children. For more information on this, you might read Keith Harmon Snow's definitive book on this subject, "The Worst Interests of the Child."

The Woody Allen case began around 1992 during the early years of the backlash against women, the rise of the fatherhood movement, and the investment of billions of dollars to support men in their custody battles. As you may recall, the opening salvo of this movement was the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. The events I will be discussing here began four years prior.

Here is a quick leadup to what happened. For a decade, Woody Allen and Mia Farrow had a relationship in which they lived separately in apartments facing each other from opposite sides of Central Park in New York City. The children lived with Mia. In 1987, the two had a biological child named Satchel, now called Ronan, whom Mia Farrow later claimed might possibly be Frank Sinatra's son. At the end of 1991, Woody Allen legally adopted Mia's two adopted children: Dylan and Moses.

In January 1992 Farrow discovered several pornographic photos Allen had taken of her adopted daughter, Soon-Yi Previn and found out that she and Allen were having an affair. Soon-Yi's age at the time could have been anything from 18 to 20--no one is exactly sure of her birthday--so she was of legal age, although there was a 35 year age difference. Later that year on August 4, 1992, Woody Allen came to visit the children Mia Farrow's home in Connecticut while she was out for the day with a friend. On that visit, Woody Allen allegedly sexually abused his adopted daughter -- 7 year old Dylan Farrow -- during a 15 to 20 interval when the two were alone in the attic of the house. Dylan was later found running around the house in a sundress, not wearing her underpants.

When Dylan reported this incident to Mia Farrow the next day, on the advice of her attorney, Farrow took her to the pediatrician who, as a mandated reporter, informed DCF of the incident. This triggered an extensive investigation of the allegations by a team headed by Dr. John Leventhal of the Yale-New Haven Child Sexual Abuse clinic. In addition, Mia Farrow filed for divorce.

What are we to make of the facts of this case?

Did Woody Allen or did he not molest Dylan?

Are the allegations true or not?

On February 1, 2014 Dylan published a statement in "The New York Times" stating he did molest her. In response, on February 7, 2014 Woody Allen published a statement indicating that he did not molest her. Whom are you to believe?

In the aftermath of this exchange, two journalists faced off on opposing sides in this case. Building upon an original article she published in Vanity Fair in 1992 strongly supporting the case against Allen, Maureen Orth wrote another in "The Hive" on February 7, 2014 restating her case. At the same time, Mr. Robert Weide --who produced a highly reverential documentary film on Woody Allen -- wrote a very cogent defense of Woody Allen in "The Daily Beast". In general, their arguments break down in the following manner:

In support of Woody Allen: 1. A study done by the Yale-New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic concluded that Dylan wasn't molested; 2. Woody Allen was never charged with a crime; 3. Mr. Allen passed a lie detector test; 4. Mia Farrow is accused of coaching Dylan; 5. Mia Farrow is said to be motivated by revenge because of Woody Allen's affair with Soon-Yi; 6. The Babysitter's testimony is conflicting and unreliable; 7. The videotape Mia Farrow made of Dylan reporting on the abuse had several gaps in it.

In opposition to Woody Allen: 1. The prosecutor, Attorney Frank Maco, publicly announced that Dylan's report that Woody Allen molested her was "credible" 2. Attorney Frank Maco made it clear that he felt he had probable cause to take Woody Allen to trial, and that the only reason Woody Allen wasn't charged with a crime was because of the "fragility of the child witness."; 3. Mr. Allen's lie detector test was done by his own team--he refused to allow the CT State police to give him a lie detector test; 4. The judge in the case ruled that there was no reason to believe that Mia Farrow had been coaching Dylan; 5. Again, the judge in the case ruled there was no reason to believe that Mia Farrow was motivated by revenge. 6. One babysitter, Allison Strickland, stated that she observed Mr. Allen on his knees in front of Dylan, with his head in her lap”; 7. Ms. Farrow merely switched the videotape on when Dylan spoke about what happened to her, and switched it off when she did not.

What I find interesting are the multiple inconsistencies in the press reports regarding the details of the Woody Allen case depending upon whose side they are on. For instance, Dr. John Leventhal was the head of the team at the Yale-New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic that evaluated Dylan. Some articles say Dr. Leventhal didn't interview Dylan, while others state that he didn't interview both Dylan and Mia. One Article stated that Mia Farrow discovered Soon-Yi's affair eight months before the incident with Dylan while others say it was four months before. One article says Allen was alone with Dylan for 15-20 minutes while another says he was only alone with her for five minutes. One article says the Yale-New Haven team was made up of three doctors, while another says there were two social workers and a doctor, and another says one of the social workers had a Ph.D. One article states Mia Farrow refused to take a lie detector test while another states that Ms. Farrow was never asked to take a lie detector test. One article states the alleged incident took place on August 4, 1992, while another states that it was August 5, 1992. Another article states that Mia Farrow took Dylan to her pediatrician on the day of the alleged incident while another says she took Dylan the very next day. For anyone who is reading these articles, it becomes very difficult to wade your way through these differing versions and come to any kind of strong conclusion that you know the facts of the case.

I find it extraordinary, when you consider how serious these charges are, and the profound impact they may have on the life of one of the world's most highly regarded and respected filmmakers, that journalists can't seem to get even the most simple facts straight regarding what happened. It is difficult to imagine anything worse than being accused of sexually assaulting your own child. Yet, journalists see fit to play fast and loose with the facts.

Based upon the lack of clarity in regard to the facts, I hesitate to draw any decisive conclusions myself regarding Woody Allen's guilt or innocence. However, I will do my best to give you a sense of the outcome of the case. Just from the outcome, you can begin to draw your own conclusions.

While Woody Allen wasn't charged criminally in connection to Dylan, he received a resounding defeat in every other aspect of his case. There were four exhaustive court battles, i.e. the divorce and custody lawsuit, two appeals of that lawsuit, and disciplinary charges lodged against the prosecutor, Attorney Frank Maco. Woody Allen lost all of them, and in addition, he was required to pay $1 million in Mia Farrow's legal fees.

Furthermore, Superior Court Judge Eliott Rilk's decision was damning towards Woody Allen. It stated, "There is no credible evidence to support Mr. Allen's contention that Ms. Farrow coached Dylan or that Ms. Farrow acted upon a desire for revenge against him for seducing Soon-Yi" and "I agree with Dr. Herman and Dr. Brodzinsky that we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992. The credible testimony of Ms. Farrow, Dr. Coates, Dr. Leventhal and Mr. Allen does, however, prove that Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her."

From reports, this inappropriate behavior towards Dylan began when she was two or three years old, well before the date of the incident that finally precipitated the charges against Mr. Allen. In fact, Woody Allen had been in treatment for this behavior considerably before the incident occurred. Further, babysitters who worked for Mia Farrow had standing orders that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan, very likely for this reason. Journalist Maureen Orth reported that she had at least 25 on the record interviews with sources both named and unnamed who stated that Allen was "completely obsessed with Dylan. He could not seem to keep his hands off her."

To me, this conclusion should be sufficiently creepy for any actors to refuse to work with Woody Allen primarily based upon ethical grounds.

Still, the Yale-New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic investigation cleared Woody Allen of the charges. How can we understand this?

For me what lingers into the present day about the Woody Allen case is how Dr. John Leventhal, the head of the team at the Yale-New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, handled the investigation. In his ruling, Judge Eliott Rilk expressed distrust of the Yale-New Haven Study that cleared Woody Allen of the charge that he sexually molested Dylan. Why is that?

First, the Yale-New Haven Study Team refused to testify at trial except via deposition by the team Leader Dr. John Leventhal.

Second, the team destroyed all their notes in the case on the eve of trial.

Third, Dr. Leventhal never examined Dylan or met with Mia even though he had many opportunities.

Fourth, the team didn't interview anyone who could corroborate Dylan's molestation claims, and finally, the team solely consulted with mental health professionals on Woody Allen's payroll.

I am always surprised at the extent that Judges roll over and play dead in the face of a refusal to cooperate from Mental Health Professionals. Why didn't the Judge simply order every member of the Yale-New Haven team to show up and testify. He certainly had that power. What does that mean team members refused? How can you refuse a Judge's order to testify? In my book, that is simply not possible. 

When the Yale-New Haven team destroyed their notes, in my view that was an open and shut case of obstruction of justice, or at the very least it is spoliation of evidence. Why were there no criminal consequences for destroying evidence? Perhaps someone has some kind of explanation for that, because I don't.

I also don't understand the gross incompetence that the Yale-New Haven team demonstrated. For instance, the team only consulted with the mental health professionals Woody Allen hired. How could that be? What about Mia Farrow's professionals? Further, how could Dr. John Leventhal have the nerve to give testimony in regard to individuals he hadn't actually bothered to meet? How could the team itself draw conclusions without checking with witnesses and getting the facts of the case first hand?

In Connecticut, mental health professionals associated with Family Court have continued the practice of protecting abusers. Unfortunately, unlike the maverick Judge Elliot Rilk, since the Woody Allen case, Judges have allowed them to do so. This has meant that many child victims of sexual abuse in the State of Connecticut have ended up cut off from their protective mothers and condemned to the full custody of the fathers who abused them. In this regard, the Liberti v. Liberti case particularly comes to mind as does the Linda Wiegand case.

Remarkably, since the Woody Allen case, Dr. John Leventhal continued on with his career at the Yale-New Haven Child Sexual Abuse Clinic, his reputation apparently unscathed. He has close ties with The Children's Trust Fund which, from what I gather, has been the recipient of massive amounts of fatherhood funding. He is also a strong proponent of the State of Connecticut's home visitation programs which are largely credited with seeking targets for DCF's alleged child trafficking schemes. Is it possible that these are the rewards he received for his refusal to cooperate in the investigation of Woody Allen? You can't help but wonder.

As I have stated, Attorney Maco announced that he did have probable cause to pursue a criminal case against Mr. Allen, although he decided not to do so because of the "fragility of the child witness'. Woody Allen was outraged by this statement and filed a complaint against Attorney Maco with the Statewide Grievance Committee which investigates ethical complaints against attorneys. Allen also filed a complaint with the Connecticut Criminal Justice Commission which appoints state prosecutors. These complaints dragged on for a couple of years before they were dismissed, but not before the State had expended $250,000 in order to defend Maco. As a result, Attorney Frank Maco retired early in 2003 leaving behind him an essentially unblemished record.

I find it notable that in many of these child sexual abuse cases the accused will sue everyone involved in developing the case against him--the police who take the criminal complaints and take action, the prosecutors, and the mental health professionals involved. This is what happened in the Linda Wiegand case where several of the professionals who provided evidence in the case ended up being sued. The father also sued The Hartford Courant for $200,000 which has had a chilling effect on all future reporting of child sexual abuse cases. This is also happening right now in the Scott Powell case where Mr. Powell is suing the police and even the grandparents. If everyone who stands by a child victim of sexual abuse has to anticipate that he or she might be end up being sued for doing the right thing, this puts them in a very difficult and awkward position. No wonder people hesitate to get involved.

Judges have been equally punitive towards protective mothers who have sought to protect their children. For instance, in the Linda Wiegand case, Judge Herbert Barall seized pretty much everything she owned and gave it to her ex-husband, including her $500,000 defense fund. In the Marlene Dybek case, Ms. Dybek was fined $3,544,500 for trying to protect her child. a prodigious sum of money that she has no ability whatsoever to pay.

Returning to the question of how do we respond to the charges against Woody Allen, it is extremely troubling that so many have chosen to turn a blind eye to what are very serious charges. No one who condemns Harvey Weinstein can fail to condemn Woody Allen as well. So to return to my original question: why is Woody Allen treated with such tolerance?

One answer might be that there are too many people who owe Woody Allen a whole lot. Diane Keaton, for instance, when asked about the fact that she has not held Allen to account, did not actually answer the question, and instead basically stated, "I owe him my career. Where would I be without him?" See the interview below:

Second, I attribute the lack of accountability to the "buy in" factor that I saw operating repeatedly with my narc ex husband during my marriage and divorce. What my ex would do in order to get support from key figures in his personal and professional life was to get them to do something slightly unsavory on his behalf. Once they had done something slightly unethical, he would have them firmly in his clutches--first of all because he could get them into trouble for doing whatever bad thing they had done, and secondly, since they'd done one thing bad as a favor to him, they used that to justify the next bad thing they did for him and the next as a method of resolving the cognitive dissonance that resulted from such actions.

It seems to me that the actors who have worked for Woody Allen over the years, in order to justify the fact that they have profited from working for a pedophile, have pretty much gone into various states of denial and collusion with the perpetrator. In other words, they have bought into Allen's excuses, declared it not their business, because how else can they continue to work with him and profit from the roles he gives them. The Diane Keaton clip above is a clear example of that kind of mentality.

I saw this dynamic operate repeatedly, particularly with the GAL in my case. Once my ex had gotten her to help him by providing him with legal advice in violation of her professional ethics, leading her further by the nose to other ethical violations was pretty simple. It takes people of character to overcome these kinds of deceptive mind control techniques and Hollywood actors are not necessarily known for such qualities!

Ultimately, cases of child sexual abuse and of sexual exploitation overall cannot be addressed simply, for example, by merely throwing the words "me too" out there into the social media sphere. There are many powerful and competing forces at play. Among them is the policy of allowing pedophiles to get away with a slap on the wrist, this business of defending fathers, even to the point of hiding evidence, tolerating gross professional incompetence among mental health experts, and finally, allowing perpetrators to legally harass and intimidate their victims as well as the attorneys whose job it is to protect them. 

Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Harvey Weinstein, Louis CK, Roy Moore. One by one these cases demand that we take a stand in regard to pedophilia and sexual assault. How long are we going to put up with it? How much longer are we going to allow male privilege to stand? It's getting to the point where none of us can linger reluctantly on the sidelines any longer.

Dylan Farrow herself speaks out about the abuse:


  1. You know, I was a mother once not very long ago, and I have to say my attorney (who was VERY well-paid) hired a professional to test my daughter for signs of sexual abuse. We knew that it had happened while she was with him on parent time, because summer's end year after year she would act out sexually on sleepovers with little girls her own age and younger. The professional explained to me that no derogatory information about me would be entered on the record. What I was paying for was NOT therapy, but "work product."

    While I couldn't help but wonder if the evidence wouldn't be tainted by this approach, I needn't have worried, because the judge's clerk PHONED HIM while he was on vacation and the judge shut down my paid expert so that the examination of my daughter was stopped! (This NEVER happens when Dad orders the work-product examination.) I had plenty of evidence to refute my ex-husband's claims that my daughter was endangered by my state of mind somehow or that we were preparing to flee the state or the country (both of these are boilerplate allegations the judge uses WITHOUT PROOF to transfer custody IMMEDIATELY to Dad). My evidence was not admitted.

    Neither was my testimony. I went to the trouble of appearing in two different states to testify, and while I was out of state, the court incarcerated me for 5 days without telling my attorney why I was being jailed. The Court wanted to declare emergency jurisdiction. To do this, they locked me up so they could declare my daughter abandoned and seize her. Finally, they used her participation in public school to remove her from the state where she had lived 7 years. I filed for custodial interference. My local judge dismissed my filings without a hearing.

    You simply cannot protect a child from sexual exploitation under these circumstances, where the fight is fixed before you set foot into the courtroom and all the legal professionals are working backward from the end result they've pre-decided. They're going to use any logic they invent. Facts don't matter. Children don't matter. Lives don't matter.

  2. Sadly, it is not well known that the Family Court System has no legal or government oversight. There are no true binding laws on ethics in this system so it ends up being just a system where attorneys, judges and all legally associated can, and ARE, out to make money. Money made is more important in this system than family, parents, children and/or any individuals who are there for legal protection. Divorces also are also under the jurisdiction of the Family Court System, with the same factors working: how can the lawyers, etc., collude to make as much money as possible? We should demand the Family Court System be SHUT DOWN and find a legally ethical and binding system that abides by legal neutrality vs. this money making unsupervised system. Did ANYONE KNOW THIS INFORMANTION ? The Family Court System is a LEGAL JOKE.

  3. Stanley Kubrick told Nicole Kidman that the world is RUN BY PEDOPHILES and he tried to disclose that in his movies .

  4. In his 9-24-1993 Statement of decision, Fank Maco explained the real reason for refusing the prosecution:

    The arrest warrant application contains evidentiary
    information the majority of which was subject matter in the New
    York Supreme Court custody trial of ållen vs. Farrow.
    To the extent that the evidence of the sexual abuse
    allegations were considered in Justice Nilk's decision of June 7,
    1993, I feel that I have benefited from his observations as to
    the probative force of that evidence, keeping in mind the
    different standards of proof between a custody trial as compared
    to a criminal prosecution. This decision should not be viewed as
    condoning the activities of Mr. allen which Justice wilk termed
    “grosslv inappropriate", but as a recognition of the degree of
    proof necessary to establish those acts as "criminal". For even
    Justice wilk, in doubting the success of a criminal prosecution
    and working in the framework of an evidentiarv standard less
    severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not definitely
    conclude that sexual abuse had occurred. (Note: ñlthough Justice
    wilk was not as certain as the Yale~c1inic that abuse did not


    My review dealt ultimately with determining the existence of
    proof necessary to establish a criminal case beyond a reasonable
    doubt. while arguably such a case may exist considering the
    allegations in the warrant application, I acknowledge that the
    nature of the evidence (as mentioned earlier within this
    decision, the majority of which was considered in the New York
    Supreme Court] is fertile ground for defense attacks and would
    not have the same probative force as it did in the New York
    Supreme Court custody case.

    The real reason was the lack of evidence. Not even in juzde wilks decision, working in the framework of an evidentiarv standard less severe than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, could not
    conclude that sexual abuse had occurred. Os cuerse that means that in a criminal prosecution, where the evidentary framework is the proff beyonf a reasonable doubt there was no chance for the prosecution. Even more, Maco knows that some of the evidences against Allen were imposible to use in a criminal prosecution "would not have the same probative force as it did in the New York
    Supreme Court custody case"

    Maco knows that the case of custody has taken into consideration evidence that would be invalid in a criminal case and that has studied the allegation of abuse without taking into account the principle of presumption of innocence. Despite this, Judge Wilks does not have the conviction that the abuses took place. He is simply "not as certain as the Yale~c1inic that abuse did not

  5. The only evidence against Allen was the videotape that was recorded by Mia Farrow.

    Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist called to testify-
    on Mia s behalf, has impressive credentials. He did a pediatrics
    residency at the Mayo Clinic, an adult residency at Montefiore
    Medical Center in New York, and a two-year fellowship in child
    psychiatry- at the Yale Child Study Center in New Haven. Board-
    certified in both adult and child psychiatry. Dr. Herman noted
    that it was "unfortunate” that Mia, and not an objective and
    trained evaluator, videotaped Dylan's testimony, mainly because
    the way she focused on specific things could possibly “set a tone
    for a child about how to answer. I think it could raise anxieties
    of a child.” In short, he said. "I don’t think it helps matters. I
    think it complicates matters.”

    (Mia & Woody, Love and Betrayas)

    Not even her own experts can defend the only evidence against Allen. Even her experts know that she had made the question leading the child to an anwser.

  6. The order that Allen was never to be left alone with Dylan was dated un June 1.992.
    there is no relationship between Allen's alleged misbehavior and the babysitter's order to watch him b but with the consequences of separation.

    1. There was no Court Order to my knowledge dated or not dated. Since Woody Allen was in therapy well before this date in connection to his inappropriate behavior with Dylan a specific date is probably not relevant.

    2. Sorry, I was referring to the instruction that Mia Farrow gave the nannies to leave Woody Allen alone with Dylan. That instruction was not given until June of 1992. Dylas was adopted by Mia Farrow in 1985 and from that date until after separating from Allen she never put any impediment to the relationship with the girl. Allen was not in therapy for inappropriate behavior and, in fact, Mia Farrow had praised his abilities as the father of Dylan and Moses in December of 1991 in the adoption procedure. She went before the judge in December of 1991 and said that he was a good and loving father who only looked for the best for the children. Allen just started being a bad father when he separated from her.

    3. I believe it is clear that Woody was in therapy regarding his relationship with Dylan well before the incident, and it is clear that many witnesses observed his inappropriate behavior with her, to which the Judge ultimately responded. When the Judge drew his conclusion that Woody Allen was grossly inappropriate with the children, this was also based upon Mr. Allen's own testimony.

    4. Why is clear that Woody was in therapy regarding his relationship with Dylan? Anyway, appropriate or inappropriate, it was not sexual abuse or had sexual component. On the other hand and as described in the sentence, never would have deprived a mother of custody for performing exactly the same behavior.

    5. Also, since we are talking, I think it is important to note that when the investigation started Woody Allen denied ever having gone to the attic. When they found his hair in the attic, then he changed his story to say maybe he had gone up there a few times. So faced with the truth, he admitted that his testimony wasn't accurate. Further, it is worth noting that the existence of the criminal investigation would not have justified interfering with experts Court Ordered to provide an evaluation and testimony on behalf of the Family Court proceedings. Coming up with half baked ideas because there is somehow a desperate need to protect Woody Allen's reputation to the point of inventing nonsense I consider particularly abhorrent.

    6. The judge was unable to determine whether the relationship between Woody and Dylan was sexual or not sexual. I don't think anyone can state that with certainty, but the fact that the Yale Study Team destroyed evidence undermines their conclusions that it was not sexual.

    7. That would not be correct to say--i.e. that the videotape was the only evidence; it is the only videotaped evidence--if that is what you intended to say. There was just one. Any recording done by an upset, non-professional parent is going to have all sorts of problems, and that is just a given.

    8. Woody Allen was in therapy with Dr. Susan Coates re his relationship with Dylan.

  7. There are recordings done by non-profesional parents with all kind of problems and there are recordings by non-profesional parents with a few problems, if any. Mia recording had all the possible problemes: there was not free narration by the child, the questions were leading and was obvious for the child wich one was the "good" answer and, last but not least, the recording was interrupted several times.
    The worst of all is that we are talking about Mia Farrow, she could get the best expert in forensic psicology but she decided to interview the child by herself, alone, for more than a hole day before anyone else were allowed to be with the child.

    1. Of course, Mia made a recording. I'm sure that others could have made recordings, but they chose not to. Mia did the best that she could as a non-professional at the advice of her attorney and the people who supported her. If anything, it proves that she was not coaching Dylan exactly as the Judge concluded. She was simply trying to find out what was going on and protect her child.

    2. Mia was not a regular middle class mother with no support. She was rich and she had the best lawyers and the best professionals money can buy. You can coach a child testimony just doing closed, making the questions in a wrong way or showing which one is the answer you prefer. That kind of interview makes any testimony invalid and was the kind os interview Mia did.

    3. The judge ruled that there was no evidence Mia coached the child!

  8. Dr. Herman was Mia´s expert, that´s a fact and you can check it if you want. Mia herself provide Kiristi Groteke with the transcriptions an trial documentation. Anyway, you can dispute wahtever you want, but then would be fair to see you disputing the source for your afirmations. You said that the instructions about Allen was a consecuence of Allen´s inadecuate behavior, but that order is dated un June 1.992, six month after the rupture. There were never al order like that when Allen was everyday playing with the children. There is no relation with any inadecuate behavior, but with the rupture of the relation with Mia.

    On the other hand, the, sol calles, inadecuate behavior, has no sexual intention and was not abusive , as the juzge and Maco both recognice. It was a public one, never hidden, that was know by Mia and for everyone around.

    1. You are saying that Mia gave Kiristi Groteke, the Nanny, transcriptions and trial documentation all of which can be cut and pasted and slanted. But to go back, those items are highly personal and very expensive for a litigant to obtain. So not calling saying no this didn't happen, but I will say not much credibility to what you are saying. Why would Mia do that voluntarily? I have never heard of a Court Order, but perhaps you have a copy of one? The Judge was very clear that with the evidence he had, as inadequate as it may have been, Woody Allen's behavior was totally inappropriate and also that the children needed to be protected from him. You seem to be talking off the top of your head and also making reference to some book by a Nanny that I'm betting doesn't have much credibility overall.

    2. Just saying, I'm not finding the memories of a college student who has no training whatsoever and was not party to the case very credible and not sure how anyone could cite her.

    3. Prosecutor Maco never cleared Woody Allen of the sexual abuse charges. In fact, he stated he had probable cause to proceed with those charges, but did not based upon the fragility of the child witness.

  9. A person commented to me the following: "If Allen had been in therapy with Dr. Coates she would not have been able to testify about that in the trial for the therapist / patient privilege." This is absolutely NOT true. If Dr. Coates or any doctor was called to the stand regarding any therapy that was provided to Woody Allen, therapist/patient privilege would not have prevented her from providing testimony in that regard. Therapist/patient privilege really doesn't stand up within the family court system where the welfare of a child is a stake. One of the problems with anyone who looks at family court cases is that if they don't understand the law or they are unaware as to the unique manner in which family court cases are conducted, they can draw very flawed conclusions. I am receiving many such ill informed opinions and I am trying to address them as they appear. I am quite shocked at how many deliberately deceptive or simply uninformed statements some readers feel comfortable making.

    1. And, in fact, at trial Dr. Coates freely broke therapist/patient privilege and spoke at length regarding her private conversations with Allen, with Mia, with the kids. It was no holds barred.

    2. You are absolutely right that in family court, no matter what the law or statutes in place about therapist/client confidentiality, your mental health records and private conversations with your therapist will appear before the Court and made available to everyone involved in the case, even people who aren't in it. I recall that when I was court watching, a friend of mine handed over to me and complete record of his ex-wife's mental health treatment which I then, right in Court as the case was proceeding, reviewed fully. So I wasn't even in the case, I wasn't a party and had nothing to do with the proceedings, and yet I was casually given access to this person's ex-wife's medical records right on the spot. So, the law, statutes, case law, nothing can protect you from the violation of your privacy when it comes to your mental health treatment and if you are so foolish as to believe it exists and then end up in family court, it is too bad for you. And, of course, all sorts of private content was aired out in Woody Allen's trial as we all know.

  10. I can see you made no mention to Mia Farrow court testimony about Allen in the adoption. In December 1.991 he was a great father and in 1992 he was not. Mia does not give instructions to watch Allen when he is with Dylan until six months after the breakup, but someone says that those instructions are consequence of Allen's inappropriate behavior since three years ago and you accept it without any criticism. Mia says in December of 1991 that Allen was a good father and in 1992 that he was a horrible father who had been with Dylan for many years. But why did she allow him to adopt Dylan and Moses if he was so harmful? Please try to explain it to me because I do not understand it.

  11. Family Court is completely lawless and it is run in a cruel and arbitrary manner by heartless individuals whose only motivation is to make as much money as they possibly can. Anyone who has had any meaningful contact with the family court system is aware of this, and our legislators, over half of whom are attorneys themselves, are well aware of it. And they couldn't care less. The pretense of CT Statutes, the rules of the CT Practice Book, the Rules of Evidence, case law, are just that, complete pretense used as a smoke screen to hide the completely baseless manner in which citizens in family court get stripped of their constitutional and human rights.

    1. For the rest of her life, Dylan Farrow has to suffer from this because there was no real attempt to address her sexual abuse claims and the campaign of misinformation that has surrounded her case from the beginning and fogged and obscured the issues continues.

  12. Woody Allen was inappropriate and that is a fact, he married his children's sister.