Story...

...In August 1992, the American film director Woody Allen was accused by his adoptive daughter Dylan Farrow, then 7 years old, of having sexually molested her in the home of her adoptive mother, the actress Mia Farrow, in Bridgewater, Connecticut.[1] Allen has repeatedly denied the allegation.[2][3]

When the allegation was made, Mia Farrow and Allen had been in a 12-year relationship and had three children together: two adopted children, Dylan and Moses, and one biological son, Satchel (now known as Ronan Farrow).[1] The molestation is alleged to have taken place eight months after Farrow learned that Allen had been having an affair with another of her adoptive daughters, Soon-Yi Previn, who married Allen in 1997; Previn was a first-year undergraduate and 21 years old when Farrow found out about the relationship.[4] Allen alleged that the affair prompted Mia Farrow to concoct the molestation allegation as an act of vengeance.[3] The Connecticut State's Attorney investigated the allegation but did not press charges,[5] the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale–New Haven Hospital who concluded that Woody Allen had not sexually abused Dylan[6][7] and the New York Department of Social Services found "no credible evidence" to support the allegation.[8] In response to the allegation, Allen sued Farrow for sole custody of Dylan, Satchel and Moses.[9] He lost the case in June 1993; the judge concluded that the allegation of sexual abuse had not been proven.[10] Visitations with Dylan were suspended for six months until the girl recovered from what she had suffered so far,[11] gave him limited, supervised visitation with Satchel, and allowed Moses, a teenager, to decide for himself.[12][13] The decision was upheld on appeal in 1994[14] and 1995.[15]

Dylan Farrow has repeated the allegation several times as an adult, although with important modifications with respect to the original narration of 1992 as it was described by Mia Farrow.[16][17] Her first public comment was in an interview with Maureen Orth for Vanity Fairin 2013,[18] followed by an open letter in the New York Times in 2014,[19] and a Los Angeles Times op-ed in December 2017.[20] Woody Allen has also spoken publicly about the allegations, in an interview with Gayle King for CBS This Morning in a New York Times op-ed[3]and in 2018 with a statement to CBS, denying the allegation in both.[21]

Legal action...

...Custody proceedings and statements

On August 13, 1992, a week after being told about the allegation, Allen began proceedings in New York Supreme Court for sole custody of Dylan, Moses, and his and Farrow's biological son, Satchel.Farrow's mother, the actor Maureen O'Sullivan issued a statement on August 15 that was critical of Allen and said that Farrow had retained Allan Dershovitz Two days later, Allen released his first public comment about his relationship with Soon-Yi Previn: "Regarding my love for Soon-Yi: It's real and happily all true. She's a lovely, intelligent, sensitive woman who has and continues to turn around my life in a wonderfully positive way."

On August 18 Allen held a news conference at the Plaza Hotel Calling the molestation allegation "an unconscionable and gruesomely damaging manipulation of innocent children for vindictive and self-serving motives," he alleged that, during a meeting on August 13, Farrow's lawyers had demanded $5–8 million hush money..Dershowitz responded that the lawyers had suggested Allen pay a lump sum in child support, rather than a monthly one, to reduce Allen's interaction with Farrow. It would be $17,000 a month until each child reach the age of 21, $900,000 for College tuition and $2,500,000 for Mia Farrow herself as compensation for her loss of income for the next 10 years. Allen's lawyers declared that Farrow's proposal was that in exchange for the money she would drop the charges of sexual abuse, Dershowitz flatly denied this possibility and noted that he was trying to reach an agreement that would allow the matter not to be made public and convince the Connecticut police that it was best not to intervene and "decriminalize" the case, but that the proposal was completely separate and independent of the economic proposal. .On August 20 Allen's publicist announced that Allen had passed a lie detector test.The following day, Allen gave an interview to Walter Isaacson of Time magazine, describing the nude photographs of Previn as a "lark of a moment". Of the affair, he said: "I didn't feel that just because she was Mia's daughter, there was any great moral dilemma. It was a fact, but not one with any great import."

...During the fall of 1992, the police interviewed Dylan utilising anatomical dolls. The last of the interviews took place on December 30, 1992, during which Dylan inserted the penis of the male doll into the vagina of the female doll. When the police asked her why she knew that the dolls fit like that, she told them that during the summer her brother Satchel and she had witnessed how Woody Allen introduced his penis into Soon Yi's vagina. "Daddies do not do this" she told them, according to the statement, and "daddies are not supposed to act like boyfriends." This disclosure was made by Eleanor Alter in the course of the court hearing in which they treated the right of visits in favor of Woody Allen that would govern during the processing of the procedure. The session was suspended due to the seriousness of the allegation.

The Yale New Haven team had finished interviewing Dylan on November 13, 1992.One of the aspects they had explored was the relationship between boyfriends and girlfriends. In November 1992 that relationship consisted for Dylan in "kisse and hugs." The judicial investigation concluded that the sexual relationship between Soon Yi and Allen began in December 1991.Allen declared that the allegation that Dylan has witnessed a sexual relationship in summer was not true^[clarify because it was months before his relationship with Soon Yi started clarify and "I think that when Mia needs something, she takes our daughter and makes her say it."

Allen and Farrow reached an agreement through which Allen would not begin visits with Dylan immediately in exchange for Mia Farrow providing a therapist to the child.

Decision...

...In his 33-page decision in June 1993, Justice Elliott Wilk rejected Allen's bid for custody of the three children and rejected the allegation of sexual abuse, denied Allen immediate visitation rights with Dylan, saying of Allen's behavior toward Dylan that it was "grossly inappropriate and that measures must be taken to protect her" pointing out that Allen's inappropriate behavior was not sexual in nature.His criticism of Allen's parenting was harsh. Rejecting Allen's portrayal of Farrow as a "woman scorned", Wilk said there was no credible evidence that she had coached Dylan although the videotape she made of Dylan compromised the investigation of sexual abuse, and he criticized Allen for his "trial strategy" of turning family members and employees against one another. The Yale–New Haven team's unwillingness to testify in court, except through Leventhal's deposition, together with the destruction of its notes, had rendered its report, he wrote, "sanitized and, therefore, less credible".Wilk called the case "frivolous" and ordered Allen to pay Farrow's costs,Regarding the allegation of abuse, Wilk concluded that the evidence did not support that it had occurred, although he was not sure that the evidence demonstrated conclusively that it had not happened. The judge does not order a new battery of forensic evidence with Dylan because all the experts agree with the conclusion expressed by the expert appointed by Farrow that it would not be beneficial or provide useful information.