The Woody Allen Controversy Reader: (5) Debunking Maureen Orth’s “Undeniable Facts About The Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation” — Examining The Court’s Misleading Declaration That Allen Was “Grossly Inappropriate” With His Daughter

Justin Levine
Sep 7, 2018 · 11 min read

This is an excerpt of a larger and more complete essay that debunks Maureen Orth’s false and misleading article “10 Undeniable Facts About The Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation”. This particular section focuses on Orth’s fifth claim — the fact that the judge in the custody dispute between Woody Allen and Mia Farrow stated that Allen had been “grossly inappropriate” with his daughter Dylan.

Here is Orth’s precise contention as stated in her article:

5. In his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk found that Mr. Allen’s behavior toward Dylan was “grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her.” The judge also recounts Farrow’s misgivings regarding Allen’s behavior toward Dylan from the time she was between two and three years old. According to the judge’s decision, Farrow told Allen, “You look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her . . . You don’t give her any breathing room. You look at her when she’s naked.”

The key fact that must be emphasized upfront is that, according to the testimony of Dr. Susan Coates which Wilk himself cites in making the “grossly inappropriate” remark, the so-called “grossly inappropriate” behavior was never alleged to be of a sexual nature. Allen was “never observed him acting in a sexual way toward her”. (For more evidence proving that any claims of Allen’s “inappropriate” behavior were never sexual in nature, see here.)

The “grossly inappropriate” behavior and steps for “protection” are all in reference to Wilk’s personal judgment and revulsion about Allen’s affair with Dylan’s adult and adopted sister, Soon-Yi.

It is not an “undeniable fact” that, during a time when Dylan was between two and three years old, Allen “looked at Dylan in a sexual way” or “fondled” her. Rather, it is an undeniable fact that Farrow merely made that accusation against Allen. There is a huge difference between those two scenarios.

If Farrow’s statements actually were true, think about the implications for a moment. That would necessarily mean that Mia Farrow knew that Allen harbored sexual feelings towards her two-to-three-year-old infant daughter, and yet still actively encouraged him to spend time with her daughter for the next four years, eventually convincing him to adopt her in 1991.

If you believe Farrow’s statement, then there is no getting around that conclusion. The only way to discount the possibility that Farrow actively encouraged someone she seriously thought to be a pedophile into spending more time with her infant daughter is to consider the other obvious conclusion: That Farrow simply made up this claim to exact revenge on Allen for a host of other resentments.

Furthermore, Orth disingenuously omits a further crucial admission by Farrow on the witness stand when she was asked under oath if she had indeed imputed sexual motives to Allen’s smothering of Dylan. Rather than proffer a simple affirmation, Farrow parsed her words with the following, exceedingly qualified response:

“My word was inappropriate. It was the whole quality of it. Relentless and overpowering. It was his neediness expressing itself to Dylan rather than her needs to him.” (See Newsday, Mar. 26, 1993, pg. 13.)

Still on the witness stand, Farrow gave a concrete example of what she described as “inapproriate” behavior:

“[Allen] would pin [Dylan’s] arms to the bed, and she would rock her head from side to side to avoid his gaze. He would hold her down until he got what he wanted — a gaze, a good night, or whatever.” (Newsday, March 30, 1993, pg. 7.)

Farrow said that Dr. Coates put a stop to this.

From this scenario, the fabulist Orth incredibly tries to paint a portrait of sexual abuse in the mind of the reader.

So even Farrow’s own testimony suggests that whatever “inappropriate” actions Allen took towards Dylan, it was not sexual in nature. Rather, it was merely overbearing in a way that placed undue pressure on Dylan, who shared a house with several other children who did not receive such attentions.

(Orth also conveniently omits the fact that, under cross-examination on the witness stand, Farrow admitted to falsely accusing Allen of being a homosexual and of sexually abusing their son Ronan when he was 5-years-old. See also Newsday, March 27, 1993, pg. 6.)

We happen to know that Farrow herself also looks at her children when they are naked. Moses confirmed as much:

“[S]he spanked me repeatedly — as was her way — and had me remove all my clothes saying, ‘You’re not deserving of any clothes.’ Then she had me stand naked in the corner of her room.”

It is also an “undeniable fact” that in on pg. 20 of his 33-page decision, Judge Wilk states: “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.”

How serious is one to take Judge Wilk’s decision when he can make any number of claims that fly in the face of overwhelming evidence?

How can he make the claim that Farrow is a “caring and loving mother” when there are direct accounts of beatings and child abuse by both Moses and Soon-Yi?

As Soon-Yi stated, “Mia was always very hot-tempered and given to rages which terrified all the kids. They can’t speak freely because they’re still dependent on her. But they could really tell stories and I’m sure one day will. It’s true Mia was violent with me and I have conclusive proof…”

Newsday reported on August 21, 1992, that Soon-Yi had told friends that Farrow had hit her, screamed at her, cut up her clothing, “berated and punched her, and hit her with a chair”, and had locked her in her room for days. Even Farrow’s own publicist, John Springer, refused to deny it outright, stating instead, “Maybe she did yell at her. Maybe she did. I have no idea.”

Soon-Yi reportedly had to see a doctor after the incident. (See Newsday, March 26, 1993, pg. 7.)

Newsday, citing friends close to Allen, also reported the following on November 18, 1992: “The friends repeat charges that Farrow was not an ideal mother. They say Farrow threatened to send Soon-Yi, who was slow learning to speak English, back to her orphanage, that she did not exercise control over her older children’s lives, and that she favored her biological children over her adopted children. Soon-Yi, friends said, was the only one to challenge her mother.”

How can Wilk make the claim that he did in light of the fact that at least two of Farrow’s adopted children committed suicide out of despair (which Moses blames on Mia’s abuse)?

How can Wilk make that claim in light of testimony from Jane Read Martin , an “industry friend” to Mia Farrow, Allen’s assistant, and associate producerof their film “Alice”, who said in the custody hearing that Farrow showed favoritism to her biological children and that adopted children like her daughter Lark was simply used as a “scullery maid” who “did most of the chores” before contracting HIV from a drug habit and eventually dying from it on Christmas day?

Martin said that Farrow treated the 19-year-old Lark “like a pack mule”, adding that “she was treated unfairly, relegated to pushing the stroller, lugging diaper bags and babysitting for the children.”

She further testified that when the family vacationed in Helsinki in 1988, Farrow seemed unconcerned when her son Moses fell and hurt himself.

“It was as though she couldn’t have cared less,” Martin said. “It was Mr. Allen who noticed and had me get some medical attention for him and take him to this first-aid stand.” (Newsday Apr. 6, 1993. pg. 4.)

One household insider said that it was a family joke at the time that Lark “would one day write the ‘Mommy Dearest’ of the family.” (Newsday, Aug. 21, 1992, pg. 2.)

How can Wilk make that claim when Martin’s testimony was backed up and confirmed by Farrow’s own nanny, Monica Thompson, who said that the actress gave her biological children more gifts and possessions and depended on her adopted children to do the household work?

This would be the same Monica Thompson who swore in her affidavit that she witnessed Farrow slap Moses across the face because he could not find the dog’s leash.

Thompson further said, “The other children were horrified and told their mother that it could not have been Moses who lost the leash. Farrow told the children that it was not their place to comment on the incident. The children were scared of their mother and did not like to confide in her because they were afraid of what her reactions might be.”

“It was more like a foster home with all those kids,” Thompson said. “I noticed that the adopted kids did most of the chores — the cooking and the shopping — and her biological kids didn’t do much.”

How can Wilk make that claim when Farrow has been credibly accused of brainwashing her children to hate Allen?

The same Mia Farrow who trotted off to Vietnam in late 1991 to adopt another boy, Sanjay, took him back to America, but later “pawned him off to another family” after eventually finding out from a doctor that he might be mentally disabled, which didn’t suit her?

(This fact is also recounted on pgs. 65–67 of Kristi Groteke’s “Mia & Woody: Love and Betrayal”, trying to portray a more sympathetic account of Farrow’s behavior.)

In fact, Groteke’s book and other sources suggest that Farrow had a near reflexive habit of trying to adopt children during times of stress in her own life, as a way of trying to focus her own attentions elsewhere — regardless of the wisdom of the timing of bringing another child into the household or concerns about putting the child’s welfare first.

Again, keep in mind that Groteke’s account is from someone who is overtly sympathetic to Farrow and her experience with Allen. But it still manages to give you a sense of the mindset at play with all of the other evidence regarding her deceased and alienated children.

Farrow’s drive was described as “an obsession to adopt more than anyone can handle.” (Newsday, Aug. 20, 1992, pg. 106)

It was this very mindset that motivated Allen to seek custody of his three children. It wasn’t as “punishment” for Farrow, but rather the fact that he didn’t believe that Farrow could possibly be a proper mother to his own children when she already had her hands full with so many others.

As columnist Liz Smith wrote at the time of the custody battle: “My own assumption, verified by [an unnamed] source, is that Woody believes his case lies in stressing the obsessive nature of Mia’s ongoing need to keep adopting, when she already has 11. (Even though some of these “children” are now grown and out of the nest; Soon-Yi for example.) The nature of Woody’s complaint was his concern that she was spreading herself too thin as a mother.” (Newsday, Aug. 18, 1992, pg. 11)

Dennis Dugan’s separate column on pg. 2 of that same issue of Newsday also reported: “[Allen’s defenders] charge that Farrow wanted to adopt two more orphans and was serious about using artificial insemination for another child. That would raise the family size to 14 and they say that Allen’s concern over the neglect of some children as the family grew led to the lawsuit he launched Thursday.”

Even then, other sources claim that Allen was still originally willing to concede custody rights to Farrow upfront. It was only when his visitationrights were threatened that Allen felt compelled to file suit. (Newsday, Aug. 21, 1992, pg. 2.)

Regardless of whether you sympathize with or admire Farrow’s motivations here, it is incontrovertible that her household more resembled a foster home than a traditional family, and that each new addition put strains on the other children who required additional domestic help to care for.

The cautions against collecting foreign-born children primarily for their use as personal, emotional salves and psychological band-aids was one of the many reasons why there used to be law limiting the number of such adoptions (especially when there continued to be a need to adopt domestic-born children). And that is naturally why Farrow was specifically the one who used her star power and influence to overturn the law in 1977. (Groteke claims that, ironically, Farrow also had a strong hand in helping to overturn a federal law the prevented unmarried couples from adopting children together, thus allowing Allen to co-adopt some of her children without marrying her. See “Mia & Woody: Love & Betrayal”, pg. 253. It is admittedly unclear which federal law she was referring to.)

Farrow would continue to make questionably timed adoptions even over the objections of the rest of her family.)

How can Wilk make the claim that he did regarding Farrow’s parenting in light of statements from Farrow’s own children that directly contradict it, such as Soon-Yi’s observation: “I don’t think you can raise 11 (and soon she will have 13) children with sufficient love and care. Take it from one who’s lived through it-it can’t be done. Some of us got neglected, some got smothered. Anyhow, there’s problems. I could say many devastating things about Mia, but I will only do it if I must in a court.”

Much like his incredible statement that there is “no credible evidence” that Farrow coached Dylan or acted out of a desire of revenge for the Soon-Yi affair, Judge Wilk’s statement that the evidence established that “Ms. Farrow is a caring and loving mother” with “no credible evidence that she unfairly distinguished among her children or that she favored some at the expense of others” defies belief in light of the overwhelming evidence that he doesn’t even bother to list, let alone refute.

Judicial decisions should command respect only to the extent that they provide evidence behind their reasoning. Judge Wilk provides none. It is argument purely by authority, rather than proof and a rational consideration of the evidence.

Elliott Wilk is a judge. You aren’t. So if he declares something without cataloguing the evidence or reasoning behind it, you should just blindly accept it and move on.

That is the essence of Orth’s deeply disingenuous argument.

(The fact that Wilk made these statements in the face of an avalanche of contradicting evidence becomes even more bizarre when you realize that, before rendering his decision, he had “urged in private that the two sides reach an agreement” or personal settlement without requiring him to decide the matter.)

Before issuing his ruling, Wilk admitted in his own courtroom that he considered himself “the least qualified person” to determine whether Allen actually molested Dylan.

Newsday reported the following on April 28, 1993:

Manhattan State Supreme Court Justice Elliot Wilk has listened to weeks of testimony from a dizzying assortment of psychiatrists and family therapists who debated the credibility of the sex abuse charges.

But with no physical evidence to work with, Wilk asked how to sift through the myriad of conflicting expert opinions.

“How do I make a decision if I don’t know what the facts are?” Wilk asked the witness, child therapist Dr. Stephen Herman.

“You’re supposed to decide what the facts are,” Dr. Herman replied. “You aren’t going to know when you make your decision whether Dylan was or wasn’t abused.”

“As the least qualified person to do that, that’s my role,” Wilk replied.

It seems clear from the evidence that Wilk had a visceral reaction to the Allen/Soon-Yi affair, which offended his personal sensibilities, and he thus let it color his ruling and interpretation of the facts accordingly.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade