WOODY ALLEN AND THE POLITICS OF TOLERATION IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES!

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: