What falls away : a memoir (42 page)

B) Mia Farrow

Few relationships and fewer families can easily bear the microscopic examination to which Ms. Farrow and her children have been subjected. It is evident that she loves children and has devoted a significant portion of her emotional and material wealth to their upbringing. When she is not working she attends to her children. Her weekends and summers are spent in Connecticut with her children. She does not take extended vacations unaccompanied by her children. She is sen-

skive to the needs of her children, respectful of their opinions, honest with them and quick to address their problems.

Mr. Allen elicited trial testimony that Ms. Farrow favored her biological children over her adopted children; that she manipulated Dylan's sexual abuse complaint, in part through the use of leading questions and the videotape; that she discouraged Dylan and Satchel from maintaining a relationship with Mr. Allen; that she overreacted to Mr. Allen's affair with Soon-Yi; and that she inappropriately exposed Dylan and Satchel to the turmoil created by the discovery of the affair.

The evidence at trial established that Ms. Farrow is a caring and loving mother who has provided a home for both her biological and her adopted children. There is no credible evidence that she unfairly distinguished among her children or that she favored some at the expense of others.

I do not view the Valentine's Day card, the note affixed to the bathroom door in Connecticut, or the destruction of photographs as anything more than expressions of Ms. Farrow's understandable anger and her ability to communicate her distress by word and symbol rather than by action.

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. Mr. Allen's resort to the stereotypical "woman scorned" defense is an injudicious attempt to divert attention from his failure to act as a responsible parent and adult.

Ms. Farrow's statement to Dr. Coates that she hoped that Dylan's statements were a fantasy is inconsistent with the notion of brainwashing. In this regard, I also credit the testimony of Ms. Groteke, who was charged with supervising Mr. Allen's August 4 visit with Dylan. She testified that she did not tell Ms. Farrow, until after Dylan's statement of August 5, that Dylan and Mr. Allen were unaccounted for during fifteen or twenty minutes on August 4. It is highly unlikely that Ms. Farrow would have encouraged Dylan to accuse her father of having sexually molested her during a period in which Ms.

Farrow believed they were m the presence of a babysitter. Moreover, I do not believe that Ms. Farrow would have exposed her daughter and her other children to the consequences of the Connecticut investigation and this litigation if she did not believe the possible truth of Dylan's accusation.

In a society where children are too often betrayed by adults who ignore or disbelieve their complaints of abuse, Ms. Farrow's determination to protect Dylan is commendable. Her decision to videotape Dylan's statements, although inadvertently compromising the sexual abuse investigation, was understandable.

Ms. Farrow is not faultless as a parent. It seems probable, although there is no credible testimony to this effect, that prior to the affair with Mr. Allen, Soon-Yi was experiencing problems for which Ms. Farrow was unable to provide adequate support. There is also evidence that there were problems with her relationships with Dylan and Satchel. We do not, however, demand perfection as a qualification for parenting. Ironically, Ms. Farrow's principal shortcoming with respect to responsible parenting appears to have been her continued relationship with Mr. Allen.

Ms. Farrow reacted to Mr. Allen's behavior with her children with a balance of appropriate caution and flexibility. She brought her early concern with Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan to Dr. Coates and was comforted by the doctor's assurance that Mr. AUen was working to correct his behavior with the child. Even after January 13, 1992, Ms. Farrow continued to provide Mr. Allen with access to her home and to their children, as long as the visits were supervised by a responsible adult. She did her best, although with limited success, to shield her younger children from the turmoil generated by Mr. Allen's affair with Soon-Yi.

Ms. Farrow's refiisal to permit Mr. Allen to visit with Dylan after August 4, 1992 was prudent. Her willingness to allow Satchel to have regular supervised visitation with Mr. Allen reflects her understanding of the propriety of balancing

Satchel's need for contact with his father against the danger of Mr. Allen's lack of parental judgment.

Ms. Farrow also recognizes that Mr. Allen and not Soon-Yi is the person responsible for their affair and its impact upon her family. She has communicated to Soon-Yi that she continues to be a welcome member of the Farrow-Previn home.

C) Dy Ian Farrow

Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan remains unresolved. The evidence suggests that it is unlikely that he could be successfully prosecuted for sexual abuse. I am less certain, however, than is the Yale-New Haven team, that the evidence proves conclusively that there was no sexual abuse.

Both Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz expressed their opinions that Mr. Allen did not sexually abuse Dylan. Neither Dr. Coates nor Dr. Schultz has expertise in the field of child sexual abuse. I believe that the opinions of Dr. Coates and Dr. Schultz may have been colored by their loyalty to Mr. Allen. I also believe that therapists would have a natural reluctance to accept the possibility that an act of sexual abuse occurred on their watch. I have considered their opinions, but do not find their testimony to be persuasive with respect to sexual abuse or visitation.

I have also considered the report of the Yale-New Haven team and the deposition testimony of Dr. John M. Leventhal. The Yale-New Haven investigation was conducted over a six-month period by Dr. Leventhal, a pediatrician; Dr. Julia Hamilton, who has a Ph.D. in social work; and Ms. Jennifer Sawyer, who has a master's degree in social work. Responsibility for different aspects of the investigation was divided among the team. The notes of the team members were destroyed prior to the issuance of the report, which, presumably, is an amalgamation of their independent impressions and observations. The unavailability of the notes, together with their un-

willingness to testify at this trial except through the deposition of Dr. Leventhal, compromised my ability to scrutinize their findings and resulted in a report which was sanitized and, therefore, less credible.

Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist who has extensive familiarity with child abuse cases, was called as a witness by Ms. Farrow to comment on the Yale-New Haven report. 1 share his reservations about the reliability of the report.

Dr. Herman faulted the Yale-New Haven team (I) for making visitation recommendations without seeing the parent interact with the child; (2) for failing to support adequately their conclusion that Dylan has a thought disorder; (3) for drawing any conclusions about Satchel, whom they never saw; (4) for finding that there was no abuse when the supporting data was inconclusive; and (5) for recommending that Ms. Farrow enter into therapy. In addition, I do not think that it was appropriate for Yale-New Haven, without notice to the parties or their counsel, to exceed its mandate and make observations and recommendations which might have an impact on existing litigation in another jurisdiction.

Unlike Yale-New Haven, I am not persuaded that the videotape of Dylan is the product of leading questions or of the child's fantasy.

Richard Marcus, a retired New York City police officer, called by Mr. Allen, testified that he worked with the police sex crimes unit for six years. He claimed to have an intuitive ability to know if a person is truthfial or not. He concluded, "based on my experience," that Dylan lacked credibility. I did not find his testimony to be insightfiil.

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.

D) Satchel Farrow

Mr. Allen had a strained and difficult relationship with Satchel during the earliest years of the child's life. Dr. Coates testified, "Satchel would push him away, would not acknowledge him. . . . If he would try to help Satchel getting out of bed or going into bed, he would kick him, at times had scratched his face. They were in trouble." Dr. Coates also testified that as an infant, Satchel would cry when held by Mr. Allen and stop when given to Ms. Farrow. Mr. Allen attributes this to Ms. Farrow's conscious effort to keep him apart from the child.

Although Ms. Farrow consumed much of Satchel's attention, and did not foster a relationship with his father, there is no credible evidence to suggest that she desired to exclude Mr. Allen. Mr. Allen's attention to Dylan left him with less time and patience for Satchel. Dr. Coates attempted to teach Mr. Allen how to interact with Satchel. She encouraged him to be more understanding of his son when Satchel ignored him or acted bored with his gifts. Apparently, success in this area was limited.

In 1991, in the presence of Ms. Farrow and Dylan, Mr. Allen stood next to Satchel's bed, as he did every morning. Satchel screamed at him to go away. When Mr. Allen refused to leave. Satchel kicked him. Mr. Allen grabbed Satchel's leg, started to twist it. Ms. Farrow testified that Mr. Allen said "I'm going to break your fucking leg." Ms. Farrow intervened and separated Mr. Allen from Satchel. Dylan told the Connecticut State Police about this incident.

That Mr. Allen now wants to spend more time with Satchel is commendable. If sincere, he should be encouraged to do so, but only under conditions that promote Satchel's well being.

E) Moses Farrow

Mr. Allen's interactions with Moses appear to have been superficial and more a response to Moses' desire for a father— in a family where Mr. Previn was the father of the other six children—than an authentic effort to develop a relationship with the child. When Moses asked, in 1984, if Mr. Allen would be his father, he said "sure" but for years did nothing to make that a reality.

They spent time playing baseball, chess and fishing. Mr. Allen encouraged Moses to play the clarinet. There is no evidence, however, that Mr. Allen used any of their shared areas of interest as a foundation upon which to develop a deeper relationship with his son. What little he offered—a baseball catch, some games of chess, adoption papers—was enough to encourage Moses to dream of more, but insufficient to justify a claim for custody. :

After learning of his father's affair with his sister, Moses handed to Mr. Allen a letter that he had written. It states:

. . . you can't force me to live with you. . . . You have done a horrible, unforgivable, needy, ugly, stupid thing . . . about seeing me for lunch, you can just forget about that ... we didn't do anything wrong . . . AU you did is spoil the little ones, Dylan and Satchel. . . . Every one knows not to have an affair with your son's sister ... I don't consider you my father anymore. It was a great feeling having a father, but you smashed that feeling and dream with a single act. / HOPE YOU ARE PROUD TO CRUSH YOUR SON'S BREAK

Mr. Allen responded to this letter by attempting to wrest custody of Moses from his mother. His rationale is that the letter was generated by Ms. Farrow. Moses told Dr. Brodzin-

sky that he wrote the letter and that he did not intend for it to be seen by his mother.

CUSTODY

Section 240(1) of the Domestic Relations Law states that in a custody dispute, the court must "give such direction . . . as . . . justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties and to the best interests of the child."

The case law of this state has made clear that the governing consideration is the best interests of the child. Eschhach v. Esch-bach, 56 NY2d 167 (1982); Eriederwitzer v. Eriederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 (1982).

The initial custodial arrangement is critically important. "Priority, not as an absolute but as a weighty factor, should, m the absence of extraordinary circumstances, be accorded to the first custody awarded in litigation or by voluntary agreement." Nehra v. Uhlar, 43 NY2d 242, 251 (1977).

"[W]hen children have been living with one parent for a long period of time and the parties have previously agreed that custody shall remain in that parent, their agreement should prevail and custody should be continued unless it is demonstrated that the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit (citations omitted)." Martin v. Martin, 74 AD2d 419, 426 (4th Dept 1980).

After considering Ms. Farrow's position as the sole caretaker of the children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fiilfilled that fianction, the parties' pre-litigation acceptance that she continue in that capacity, and Mr. Allen's serious parental inadequacies, it is clear that the best interests of the children will be served by their continued custody with Ms. Farrow.

APPENDIX 337

VISITATION

Visitation, like custody, is governed by a consideration of the best interests of the child. Miriam R. v. Arthur D.R., 85 AD2d 624 (2d Dept 1981). Absent proof to the contrary, the law presumes that visitation is in the child's best interests. Wise V. Del Toro, 122 AD2d 714 (1st Dept 1986). The denial of visitation to a noncustodial parent must be accompanied by compelling reasons and substantial evidence that visitation is detrimental to the child's welfare. Matter of Tarrugia Children, 106 AD2d 293 (1st Dept 1984); Cowan v. Menqa, 178 AD2d I02I (4th Dept 1991). If the noncustodial parent is a ht person and there are no extraordinary circumstances, there should be reasonable visitation. Hotze v. Hotze, 57 AD2d 85 (4th Dept 1977), appeal denied 42 NY2d 805.

The overriding consideration is the child's welfare rather than any supposed right of the parent. Weiss v. Weiss, 52 NY2d 170, 174-5 (1981); Hotze v. Hotze, supra at 87. Visitation should be denied where it may be inimical to the child's welfare by producing serious emotional strain or disturbance. Hotze V. Hotze, supra at 88; see also Miriam R. v. Arthur D.R., supra; cf., State ex rel. HK. v. M.S., 187 AD2d 50 (1st Dept 1993).