jillian
Princess
That was a lot of research work, thanks for posting it.
the court didn't like allen.
that isn't child molestation.
so what research?
THIS is the appellate decision:
ALLEN v. FARROW | Leagle.com
and this was the basis for the decision not to foster therapeutic visitation between allen and dylan
NOTHING ABOUT SEXUAL MISCONDUCT.
The links Tinydancer posted , I assumed she had to research to find those court documents.
The psychological damage done to the family, is because of Woody's behavior and choices.
It has been said several times nobody knows if he molested dylan or not.
So we moved onto a discussion about the damage that was done to the family based on choices woody made.
You can join or not.
There's not really much anyone can say about the molestation except opinions and speculation.
Yes the court frowned on Woody's behavior and so did the children who received mixed messages from their dad's choice to marry their adopted sister.
In 1990 at about the same time that the parties were growing distant from each other and expressing their concerns about the other's relationship with their youngest children, Mr. Allen began acknowledging Farrow's daughter Soon-Yi Previn. Previously he treated Ms. Previn in the same way he treated Ms. Farrow's other children from her prior marriage, rarely even speaking to them. In September of 1991 Ms. Previn began to attend Drew College in New Jersey. In December 1991 two events coincided. Mr. Allen's adoptions of Dylan and Moses were finalized and Mr. Allen began his sexual relationship with their sister Soon-Yi Previn.
In January of 1992, Mr. Allen took the photographs of Ms. Previn, which were discovered on the mantelpiece in his apartment by Ms. Farrow and were introduced into evidence at the IAS proceeding. Mr. Allen in his trial testimony stated that he took the photos at Ms. Previn's suggestion and that he considered them erotic and not pornographic.
We have viewed the photographs and do not share Mr. Allen's characterization of them. 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 v. FARROW | Leagle.com
i don't think anyone is arguing that it wasn't creepy.
but like i said . nothing about child molestation.
so i'm not quite sure what you are trying to say. can you explain?