<p>Years ago there was one of the original (Japanese language) Iron Chef shows where one of the chef’s made chocolate dipped liver, and one of the panelists said in her evaluation,“That’s too creative to me.” About how I feel about the Farrow/Allen relationship even pre Allen taking up with Soon-Yi.</p>
<p>I would like to know what the heck the social worker was thinking who endorsed the adoptions in these circumstances.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>arabrab, that’s a kind of parlor game among adoptive parents re totally inappropriate adoptions: “Who the hell did their homestudy?” Unfortunately, it’s not at all difficult to find a social worker who would approve just about anyone. “Hey, did you just say you’re adopting for body parts? You were joking, right?”</p>
<p>Can you imagine the “fallout” if one of Hollywoood’s darlings was not approved?</p>
<p>It’s not like unapproved potential adoptive parents are listed on a public register, although adoption always involves an official search of the child abuse registry for where the parents live. I am sure that among those who can pay, there is a well-known list of social workers and agencies that they go to.</p>
<p>Is there any evidence Mia Farrow abused or mistreated her kids? Why should she be disqualified to adopt a kid?The worst I heard about her was hitting Soon Yi during arguments. If there’s more, I’d think Woody camp would have made sure to let the public know. To me, that doesn’t sound too abusive. We all lose temper with our kids at one time or other. I don’t know why the discourse is turning to her parenting style when we are discussing allegation’s Woody Allen’s sexual conduct. Did Mia farrow bing less than a perfect mom force Woody Allen to abuse his kids sexually?</p>
<p>There is no evidence that he abused anyone sexually, either. All that exists are charges from Mia. So, yes her credibility matters. She doesn’t actually have much and this was at a time when those charges were commonplace in custody disputes. And, the Soon Yi thing makes them much more believable although she was not his child in any way except for some weird on-paper entanglements.</p>
<p>There’s a lot more than hitting Soon Yi. The whole “family” was a dysfunctional mess and the now adult kids are as divided as the public. </p>
<p>Actingmgt, I recommend you start reading from page 9 with garland’s Feb 8th post. This way we have facts posted instead of rumors. </p>
<p>I read it all. I also remember a lot if it. There was no physical evidence of sexual abuse. That is a fact.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Emphasis is mine.</p>
<p>Her son Moses claims she abused them. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dylan says he is lying. Who knows where the real truth lies? This seems like one really screwed up family.</p>
<p>*By the way, hitting one’s 18 year old child is abusive to me. I would never strike my daughter. Was this a frequent reaction to Mia’s “losing her temper?” It depends upon whom you believe.</p>
<p>
If you read it all including Justice Wilk’s custody ruling then do you think this is an accurate statement on your part?</p>
<p>We are going in circles on this thread. WA was not going to win a custody battle for child he recently adopted most especially when he was planning to marry her adopted sister. That would be highly weird </p>
<p>As I have stated previously, we indeed are going in an endless loop because the comment stated is misinformation rather than the fact.</p>
<p>Well, Wilk is pretty firm in his conviction that Woody was inappropriate with Dylan - and that he was an awful parent – but concedes that there is no way of determining what exactly happened on the day in question. The custody ruling also has to be taken in context. Even if there had been no molestation charge and no Soon-Yi, I can’t see a scenario in which Allen would have gotten much more than modest visitation. He had never lived with the kids and in the case of Moses and Dylan, had only adopted them pretty recently, whereas Mia had been their mother for years. Add in his appalling behavior with Soon-Yi and his utter unwillingness to concede that he had done anything wrong in the matter, and you have more than enough reason to limit visitation without getting into the merits of the accusation. Yes, the molestation claims are what lost him all contact with the kids, but given the unusual nature of his “fatherhood” of the children and the fact that Dylan might have suffered psychological damage from continued contact with a man she certainly believed molested her, Wilk’s decision makes lots of sense without being a resounding affirmation of Mia’s claims.</p>
<p>I think Dylan believes she was molested. I think Mia believes that Dylan was molested. I think that Allen MIGHT have molested her, but given the overall messiness of the situation and uncertainty about the method in which the child’s testimony was obtained, I’m not prepared to label him definitively as a sexual predator, and I don’t think that is being unsympathetic to either Dylan or Mia.</p>
<p>I, too, give WA the presumption of innocence re: Dylan’s sexual abuse but agree with Justice Wilk’s position that we will probably never know what happened on Aug 1992 but WA was grossly inappropriate with Dyaln. That said, I feel that how the WA-Soon-Yi affair unfolded was predatory on his part and I’m not one of those who disagree with Dylan’s decision to make a public statement now.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There wasn’t supposed to be any physical evidence. He is accused of molestration not rape. Not having physical evedence doesn’t mean much. I hope people aren’t equating no evidence to innocence.</p>
<p>Speaking of credibility, for me Woody Allen’s credibility went out the door when he breached Dylan’s confidentiality and made informations of her pschye evaluation public. I note that only selective information that will suit his version of “truth” was made public by Woody Allen. Mia Farrow didn’t come back to dispute his version of the evaluation which would further breach the confidentiality. I don’t know how she parented but she didn’t betray trust and kept her mouth shut on the matter.</p>
<p>I don’t blame WA for publicizing the psych eval, given what he is being accused of. </p>
<p>I also don’t blame Dylan for coming forward - she has every right to speak. But if she does, he has the right to respond.</p>
<p>Woody Allen didn’t publicize the whole truth; that the conclusion was retracted by the Yale professor. His conveniently selective publicizing was staged on steps of Yale University. Mia didn’t dispute what WA said by pointing out that the conclusion of the evaluation was retracted. That would have further compromised the confidetiality. She was being accused of making it all up and coercing Dylan to play along. It isn’t as severe as being accused of a child molestration but a pretty hideous thing to do. She lived with that. </p>
<p>Igloo, can you provide some clarity on what evaluation was retracted? The evaluation of Dylan by the psychologists?</p>
<p>From Vanity Fair article garland posted on page 9,</p>
<p>quote]The state prosecutor, Frank Maco, engaged the Yale-New Haven team to determine whether Dylan would be able to perceive facts correctly and be able to repeat her story on the witness stand. The panel consisted of two social workers and a pediatrician, Dr. John Leventhal, who signed off on the report but who never saw Dylan or Mia Farrow. No psychologists or psychiatrists were on the panel. The social workers never testified; the hospital team only presented a sworn deposition by Dr. Leventhal, who did not examine Dylan.</p>
<p>All the notes from the report were destroyed. Her confidentiality was then violated, and Allen held a news conference on the steps of Yale University to announce the results of the case. The report concluded Dylan had trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. (For example, she had told them there were “dead heads” in the attic and called sunset “the magic hour.” In fact, Mia kept wigs from her movies on styrofoam blocks in a trunk in the attic.) The doctor subsequently backed down from his contention.
The Connecticut state police, the state attorney, and Judge Wilk all had serious reservations about the report’s reliability.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>^^^^</p>
<p>Interesting.</p>