Judge's 33-page ruling from 1993 against Woody Allen in custody dispute with Mia Farrow - very detailed on allegations/claims made by everyone (pizzagate)

submitted ago by Psalm100

With all that's been said about the allegations against Woody Allen, this ruling by the judge against Allen is the place to start.

It is very detailed and extensive and settles many factual "questions" that the media haven't covered well.

In short, Allen was already in therapy for acting inappropriately towards Dylan. The therapist who was apparently more on Allen's side found him fairly obsessed with her (I believe before the relationship with Soon-Yi even came out) although she says she didn't see it as "sexual." Obviously she'd be motivated not to see that, given who he was and that at that time there weren't accusations of actual abuse against him.

Links:

https://www.scribd.com/document/205403621/Allen-v-Farrow-Custody-Ruling-June-7-1993

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/danny-shea/heres-the-1993-woody-alle_b_4746866.html

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

carmencita ago

  1. Ultimately, “we will probably never know what occurred on August 4, 1992...[but] Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was grossly inappropriate and...measures must be taken to protect her.”

Good God, what more do we need. If he was just a guy living down the street from you, what would be your verdict. Forget about people calling him an Artiste. It should have No Bearing.

Psalm100 ago

And then from one of I believe two of Woody Allen's losses on appeal.

  • We find the fact that Mr. Allen took them at a time when he was formally assuming a legal responsibility for two of Ms. Previn's siblings to be totally unacceptable. The distinction Mr. Allen makes between Ms. Farrow's other children and Dylan, Satchel and Moses is lost on this Court. The children themselves do not draw the same distinction that Mr. Allen does. This is sadly demonstrated by the profound effect his relationship with Ms. Previn has had on the entire family. Allen's testimony that the photographs of Ms. Previn "were taken, as I said before, between two consenting adults wanting to do this" demonstrates a chosen ignorance of his and Ms. Previn's relationships to Ms. Farrow, his three children and Ms. Previn's other siblings. His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen's tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.

  • Allen's various inconsistent statements to Farrow of his intentions regarding Ms. Previn and his attempt to have Dr. Schultz explain the relationship to Dylan in such a manner as to exonerate himself from any wrong doing, make it difficult for this Court to find that his expressed concern for the welfare of the family is genuine.

  • While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur.

  • Moreover, even if the abuse did not occur, it is evident that there are issues concerning Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense relationship with this child that can be resolved only in a therapeutic setting.

  • While the court stated that it was not concerned for Satchel's physical safety, it was concerned by Mr. Allen's "demonstrated inability to understand the impact that his words and deeds have upon the emotional well being of the children". We agree. The record supports the conclusion that Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child. His failure to understand the effect of such exposure upon Satchel as well as upon his other children is evidenced by his statement on direct examination in which he stated: "If you ask me personally, I would say the children, the children adore Soon Yi, they adore me, they would be delighted, if you asked me this personally, I would say they would be delighted and have fun with us, being taken places with us. But, I don't want to give you my amateur opinion on that. That's how I feel. And I know it counts for very little."

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197ad2d3271461

carmencita ago

The pictures that he took of Soon Yi must have frightened the Hell out of Mia. I cannot even imagine a Mother of a child finding pictures like that of her child, and of all things, them being taken by the father (although the adopted father). I have read only once what those pictures looked like and it is so disgusting it completely turned my stomach upside down. It is making me sick to even write this right now. He will never understand how it feels for he had an entirely different view of those children than Mia. Children are playthings to him. Sexual Playthings. He cannot look at them from her perspective. How dare he say the children would be delighted to go on outings with him and Soon Yi? He assumes they will be as happy as he is over the relationship? They look at it as sick and he looks at it as beautiful. Barf.