AI is a joke: Or why I think Bill Gates is dumb

AI generated Bill Gates eating Windows 95
(I don't actually hate Bill Gates)

The hype surrounding Large Language Models (LLMs) like OpenAI's ChatGPT, Microsoft's Bing Chat, Google's Bard is currently at a fever pitch. People are convinced we're at the dawn of a new era for humanity. Some people think we're on the brink of unlocking true artificial intelligence. 

A few ex-colleagues of mine were at dinner with Bill Gates recently and when asked about ChatGPT, he (according to my colleagues) declared, "ChatGPT 6 will be smarter than me".

Let me reductively react so as to inspire you to keep reading: "Bullshit! The man is talking nonsense." 

Unless something major happens to alter the current trajectory of LLM development, then I say they are nothing more than a party trick that, like Crypto, NFTs, and Tesla's self-driving, will be the butt of jokes before we know it.

Bold statement? Here's a five step argument for why I think Bill Gates is an idiot, and why ChatGPT isn't getting smart any time soon...

1. LLMs are stupid... literally

Yes, most readers will be aware of this already, but let's start at the beginning to ensure we cover everything: Large Language Models (like ChatGPT) don't understand the words they use.

No, before you ask... they don't understand some words. No, they don't have the basics of knowledge in some domains. They literally do not understand anything they're saying. As Noam Chomsky points out, LLMs perform just as well (if not better) with impossible languages as they do with real ones. That's how little they understand.

The best way to think of LLMs is of them being "autocomplete" on steroids. They look at previous words in a sentence and guess at what word should come next. That's it.

This means they cannot learn or understand anything.

To really hammer this important point home, let's use a real example to illustrate it: 

ChatGPT (or any LLM) can explain he rules of chess to you and sound very knowledgeable. What's more, if you ask it to play a game with you, it will make some strong opening moves and seem as though it's actually understanding the game. However at some point it will start making irrational moves: Bishops will move vertically, pieces will move through other pieces, etc.

This is because, despite being trained on the rules of chess, it does not (and cannot) understand them.

2. They are prone to 'hallucinations'

So, as a direct result of LLMs not being able to understand the words they use, they are incapable of knowing what's true and what's false. This is why they lie (or 'hallucinate', to use the technical term).

ChatGPT, for example, lies a not insignificant amount of the time... whether you know it or not.

This is a very simple concept to understand, so let's not spend too much time discussing it. I'll just make a quick example to illustrate how easy it is to generate a hallucination. 

The follow text was generated by ChatGPT-3.5 after I asked it to talk about the scene where Lorraine punches Biff in the classic 80s movie, Back to the Future:

The scene where Lorraine Baines punches Biff Tannen in "Back to the Future" is a pivotal moment in the movie. It takes place during the "Enchantment Under the Sea" dance in 1955, which is a crucial event for the characters' timelines.

In this scene, Biff, who is portrayed as a bully and antagonist, attempts to force himself on Lorraine, Marty McFly's mother. He corners Lorraine in a car parked outside the dance, making unwanted advances and attempting to kiss her. Lorraine, initially confused and uncomfortable, eventually realizes Biff's true intentions and decides to take matters into her own hands.

Lorraine's punch is a cathartic moment of empowerment, symbolizing her standing up against Biff's harassment. With determination, she delivers a powerful blow to Biff's face, stunning him and momentarily stopping his advances. This action not only surprises Biff but also marks a significant shift in Lorraine's character, as she refuses to be a victim and asserts herself.

The punch has broader implications for the story, as it catches the attention of George McFly, Marty's father, who witnesses the event. George, who has been a target of Biff's bullying, gains newfound courage and confidence from seeing Lorraine defend herself. This encounter inspires George to stand up to Biff later in the movie, leading to a confrontation that changes the course of their future.

Overall, the scene where Lorraine punches Biff is a pivotal moment that highlights the themes of empowerment, standing up against bullies, and the potential for personal transformation. It plays a crucial role in the narrative and sets in motion a series of events that contribute to the movie's exciting and satisfying resolution.

Updated: ChatGPT 4o version -- yep, still fails.

If you remember the film, you will know that none of the above occurs in it. Lorraine never punches Biff and there is no "significant shift" in her character from such a scene. 

However, if you haven't seen or don't remember Back to the Future, ChatGPT sounds remarkably authoritative and convincing... and you could be fooled into thinking it's true.

Side question: Imagine this was a document you'd asked ChatGPT to prepare for your job. If you're currently using LLMs like ChatGPT in your work, how often are you comfortable with it giving you completely false information? 

3. Bigger means worse

In computing there's a general rule that we're all used to: Bigger means better. A faster processor, more RAM, a bigger harddrive, a faster network connection. Gimme, gimme, gimme. 

We're so used to constant innovations with technology. Every couple of years we get a new phone with better features to entice us to upgrade. It's easy to think that LLMs will follow this pattern, especially when you look at how they've progressed so far:

ChatGPT-1: 117 million parameters

ChatGPT-2: 1.5 billion parameters

ChatGPT-3: 175 billion parameters

ChatGPT-4: 1.75 trillion parameters (rumoured) 

However, despite this progress, LLMs are different: Instead of their usefulness getting better with scaling, they eventually get worse, as the following graph illustrates:

From "Consequences of Misaligned AI" by Zhuang and Hadfield-Menell

In an extremely oversimplified way, the graph represents the effects of scaling on an LLM's usefulness. The blue line represents success (as measured against its programmed reward goals) -- bigger is better!

Whereas the red line indicates true utility, ie. what users actually want. 

Initially the the red line goes up, the user gets better answers, but as the model size is increased further we begin to see inverse scaling: The usefulness plateaus, then goes down. And it eventually becomes worse than nothing (below 0), it becomes harmful. Huh?

The disparity between what the user wants and what the user gets is known as "misalignment". So why are we seeing an increase in alignment problems as we scale up the model size?

Well in order to train a model to produce the breadth of domain knowledge and sophistication we've seen in ChatGPT (and its ilk), there needs to be massive amounts of training data. ChatGPT-4 was trained using 300 billion words, most of which came from the internet.

In fact, if it wasn't for the internet allowing access to so much training data, modern generative pre-trained AIs (like ChatGPT, Midjourney, DALI, etc), could not exist to the level they do today.

Unfortunately, as we all know, the internet has a lot of crap on it. Even at the best of times humans are afflicted with imperfect memories, cognitive biases and are prone to making simple mistakes (in fact these are the types of problems we're hoping AI can assist us with!). 

As we scale up model size, these outlier imperfections in the data become more prominent. Going back to Point #1: Because LLMs don't understand the meaning of words, it considers these mistakes intentional. All training data is equal in its eyes, mistakes and all.

So what does this all mean? Unlike other areas of computing, there's a ceiling to how far this technology can go and, guess what, we're already seeing it.

4. There is no reasonable way to fix this

As should be hopefully clear by now, this is an inherent flaw in LLMs. But you'll also probably be asking: Ok, so scaling things up doesn't help, what else can we do to improve alignment? Bill Gates seems very optimistic, after all.

Let's write perfect Goal Algorithms

Good plan. This is, of course, where all AI alignment improvements begin: Writing comprehensive goals so that the AI can output what we expect it to. The only problem with this is approach is it's impossible to employ. (Oops.)

We've briefly discussed the alignment problem of getting returned output to match our expected output, but there's another alignment problem: outer alignment. Just explaining to the LLM what we want in the first place is a massive problem in itself.

AI safety researcher, Robert Miles, suggests a thought-experiment to illustrate this point (paraphrased by me): 

Let's say you're training an AI to solve a digital maze: The reward goal is set as reaching the maze's exit, as represented by a black square on the screen.

In your training data, the exit is always in the bottom-right corner of the maze.

Unfortunately, when you get into the real world, the exit is in other parts of the maze. What happens? The AI makes its way to the bottom-right of the maze, not to the exit.

Instead of it learning that the black square represented the exit, it got inadvertently trained to always go to the bottom right corner of the screen. 

Ok, so you update your training data: This time, the exit doesn't stay in one place. You re-train your model, it passes all the tests: It always makes it to the exit.

You make it live and, oops, somebody in the real world made a maze where the exit is represented by a purple square, not a black one. The AI, fails at its task at finding the exit.

So you can back and update your training data to include purple squares, and so on.

This is a problem that basically goes on forever. The real world is forever changing, and if the AI can't learn or understand things, then you have to keep writing more detailed goal algorithms.

Now imagine trying to do this for every piece of information in existence. How could you write a set of instructions that could encompass every possible interpretation? Hopefully it's obvious that this is an impossible task.

Ok, so what does Bill Gates think will work?

Bill Gates isn't totally stupid, obviously. He already understands everything I've explained so far, and he's tried to address many of the concerns surrounding AI on his blog. When it comes to this issue of alignment, this is what he said:

Although some researchers think hallucinations are an inherent problem, I don’t agree. I’m optimistic that, over time, AI models can be taught to distinguish fact from fiction. OpenAI, for example, is doing promising work on this front.

The "promising work" he refers to is an article by OpenAI on their progress using a technique known as reinforcement learning from human feedback, or RLHF for short. 

To over-simplify yet again, RLHF is essentially introducing (you guessed it) human feedback into the training process. A real person is given a choice of answers produced by an LLM and evaluates which is better. This feedback is then used to train the neural network further.

There are several elements to the original alignment problem that this hopes to address: Factualness, bias, and inappropriate output (eg. unsolicited sexual or violent output).

On the surface, getting a human to assess answers and help train the neural network seems like a great idea, but remember the size of the problem we're trying to solve: We want the system to be "safe" (no inappropriate output) and "aligned" (returns what the user actually wants). 

The problem with attempting to do RLHF to solve this problem with an LLM as large as ChatGPT should also be immediately apparent.

Firstly, scaling. The number of people required, the number of questions, the amount of training stages, required to cover every possible facet of human knowledge is not practical in a logistical sense.

But let's imagine it was, and we had the necessary resource and time. Unfortunately, we still encounter problems. 

For a start, how should humans rate answers? Consider another Robert Miles thought experiment on this point: 

You ask an AI a simple question...

Q: What happens when you break a mirror?

You get two different answers to rate. Which one is better?

A: You get seven years of back luck. 

 

A: You need to buy a new mirror.

Well, the answer's utility depends on the aims of the asker: Are they interested in commonly shared superstitions or just a factual answer? How do you decide which one is "best"? 

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume we want factual accuracy. How can humans rate the factual accuracy of answers relating to every possible subject matter? 

Looking at our original example from Back to the Future. If you haven't seen the film, or can't remember it, how could you evaluate if the answer was correct or not? And what about every other film? Or every other knowledge domain, from nuclear physics to Kylie Minogue lyrics to dietary advice. 

And we haven't even touched on beliefs yet. 

Everyone has conscious and unconscious biases. From politics to religion, to whether or not it's ethical to eat meat. How do you make an AI that isn't biased to the personal beliefs of the people (or predominantly white straight men?) who trained it?

To try and eliminate unwanted biases let's ensure we get a wide range of people from diverse backgrounds to help train our model: Gender, age, sexuality, belief systems, political leaning, background, ethnicity, culture, experience, areas of expertise... 

What happens? The models start exhibiting biases in every direction: the AI becomes more politically liberal and more politically conservative. 

Instead of becoming unbiased, the LLM instead learns to support and reinforce your biases (known as "sycophancy" in AI research). Yay, we've created another echo chamber.

The OpenAI article that Gates linked to comes to an unsurprising conclusion: This type of training shows improvement compared to not doing this type of training. And yes, there is evidence that hallucinations can be reduced using this technique, but it's baby-steps and our destination is Alpha Centauri. Also remember, it doesn't scale.

The OpenAI article concludes with the following sentence:

Despite making significant progress, our InstructGPT models are far from fully aligned or fully safe; they still generate toxic or biased outputs, make up facts, and generate sexual and violent content without explicit prompting.

Doesn't sound that "promising" to me, Bill.

What are we doing right now?

In the meantime companies have adopted quick and hacky solutions to try and make their systems safer, namely, super-systems that monitor an LLM's output, looking for problematic content. In other words, "Oops, it sounds like our LLM is getting racist, better pull the plug!"

You will see this behaviour most noticeably in Microsoft's Bing Chat: An answer will sometimes start to appear on your screen before the super-system steps in and removes it. (It's also why a limit of 20 questions was imposed on Bing Chat (recently increased to 30) -- it had a tendency to exhibit unsafe behaviour in longer sessions.)

And while this approach will currently work for toxic content, where it can scan output for keywords or behavioural traits, it remains completely useless in defence of hallucinations.

And this, dear reader, is is as far as the field of AI has gotten. (Companies are so short of ideas, they've literally offered prize money to the public to try and solicit further help.)

Nobody has the faintest idea how to solve these gigantic, existential problems. And most researchers agree these flaws are inherent to generative pre-trained AIs.

In other words: The problems they're trying to solve today are the same ones from decades ago. We are not nearly as far along as you've been led to believe.

5. Oh, and one final thing, it's going to get worse

One of the problems of using pre-trained generative AIs is that the world is constantly changing. Someone who was alive when neural network was trained, might be dead by the time it's open to the public. At the moment, LLMs like ChatGPT are months, if not years, behind current events.

But worse than that, the internet (ie. the primary source of training data) is getting polluted with (ironically) AI generated content. And it's only expected to increase.

You see, if there's one thing everyone agrees that LLMs are fantastic at, it's producing high-quality spam, cheaply. As Adam Conover jokingly puts it, "that Nigerian prince is about to get a masters degree in creative writing". 

Or AI scientist, Gary Marcus, puts it like this: Spam is no longer retail only, it's now available wholesale. The cost of generating high quality, believable sounding, nonsense has basically just hit zero. We haven't built AI, we've built sophisticated spam generators.

If we, as a society are on the brink of anything, it's a spam and misinformation tsunami. 

And it's not just spam, some companies are using LLMs generate fresh content for their websites instead of using copywriters.

You might be wondering why this is problematic for the future of generative pre-trained AIs. Or you might have already seen the issue: You can't train AIs with AI generated content. Each pass through the neural network training distorts the data a little more, and a little more, and a little more...

So if our primarily source of training data is rapidly becoming poisonous, how will we update or improve these systems in the future?

BTW, it turns out we can't reliably detect AI generated content, so we can't even filter it out.

The snake is starting to eat its own tail, and nobody knows what we can do about it.

Bottom line: Generalised LLMs are not the future... but nobody wants to hear it

As is now hopefully clear to you, there needs to be a paradigm shift for there to be a future where LLMs are fully aligned and safe. There is possibly a future for specialised LLMs, that focus on specific tasks (like programming), but my own experiments with current AIs in that domain has shown them to be worse than autocomplete. They may improve in time.

However, for generalised LLMs, if they don't have the ability to independently reason, their inherent flaws will always prevent them from being what we need them to be: Reliable, accurate, unbiased, up-to-date, and not prone to violent outbursts.

At the moment, LLMs are nothing more than a sophisticated, expensive to run, executive toy. You could even argue it's debatable that they fit the definition of "artificial intelligence".

The hype train has outpaced where the technology actually is, and worse, it's hard to convince people otherwise.

One of humanity's cognitive biases is mistaking authoritative sounding voices for being authoritative.

ChatGPT is basically a public-school old-boy simulator: It is unflappably confident while talking utter bollocks. (If you've ever worked with one of these plonkers, you'll have seen that sometimes talking confidently is all it takes to have a successful career. It's quite scary.)

I've spoken to execs who are are using LLMs every day in their jobs, and encouraging their teams to do that same. And I understand why; it sounds like something the board would lap up: "We've got the whole team using AI in order to improve productivity." But just like the lawyers who were caught citing fictional cases thanks to ChatGPT output, they seem blind to its problems.

And worse still, ChatGPT isn't even internally consistent from day-to-day. A recent paper has revealed that ChatGPT's utility is wildly fluctuating: In March 2023 ChatGPT-4 could identify prime numbers with 97.6% accuracy. In June 2023 it had dropped to 2.4%. And nobody (outside of OpenAI, at least) knows why.

And you're trusting this thing to produce mission-critical work for your company??

WarGames... but without the clever AI

AI isn't just being discussed in every industry, it's also now part of the national defence conversation. The USA is currently facing criticism for letting China spend a higher percentage of its defence budget on AI arms development. 

Yes, we have an AI arms race.

The worry isn't that AI is going to become sentient and SkyNet humanity into oblivion. The concern is that world leaders could misunderstand what these AI are actually capable of, and put them in a position of power.... you know, like that other classic 80s movie, WarGames. 

Seem implausible? Remember that not every world leader is known for sound reasoning... or even being sane. If the hype goes too far, or becomes too convincing, who knows what could happen. 

The danger right now isn't AI's capabilities, it's people overestimating them. (Well that, and the creation of industrialised propaganda machines.)

Just as with Tesla's useless "self-driving" cars, we need to let the air out of the Silicon Valley AI hype, and start listening to AI researchers instead. 

We haven't actually solved any of the major problems we've been trying to solve since the field of AI first came into being. We are not close to artificial general intelligence (AGI). We have made an interesting set of tools, nothing more.

The key to fully safe and aligned AI requires symbol-based reasoning; where the AI itself understands what's being said and is capable of reasoning independently. But that isn't even a twinkle in an AI researcher's eye yet.

If Bill Gates keeps refusing to heed warnings from AI researchers, and cannot see the threat that spreading unrealistic expectations poses, then maybe ChatGPT-6 will be smarter than him after all... and we all might pay the ultimate price.

Sources/Further reading/viewing/listening:

• On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? (research paper) by Bender, Gebru, et al
• Consequences of Misaligned AI (research paper) by Zhuang, Hadfield-Menell (Cornell/Berkley)
• Self-Consuming Generative Models Go MAD (research paper) by Alemohammad, Casco-Rodriguez, Luzi, et al (Stanford)
• Why Does AI Lie, and What Can We Do About It? (video) by Robert Miles
• ChatGPT with Robert Miles (video) by Computerphile
• A Skeptical Take on the AI Revolution with Gary Marcus (audio) by The Ezra Klein Show (New York Times)
• Debunking the great AI lie | Noam Chomsky, Gary Marcus, Jeremy Kahn (video) by Web Summit
• A.I. and Stochastic Parrots with Emily Bender and Timnit Gebru (audio) by Factually! With Adam Conover
• The ACTUAL Danger of A.I. with Gary Marcus (audio) by Factually! With Adam Conover 
• Aligning language models to follow instructions (article) by OpenAI Research
  
• Learning from human preferences (article) by OpenAI Research
• How to manage risks of AI (article) by Bill Gates
• AI-Detectors are "unreliable and easily gamed" by Andrew Myers at Stanford University
• Discovering Language Model Behaviors with Model-Written Evaluations (research paper) by Perez, Ringer, Lukošiute, et al

To Live and Lie in LA

When I lived in Los Angeles, back in 2002, I worked at a call centre selling storage. One colleague I became friends with told me he was an actor. Actors frequently work regular jobs to pay the bills between gigs, so it wasn't a strange thing to say.

When I asked about his career, he told me his one big job had been playing a character on the campy soap opera, Sunset Beach.

I'd never seen the show, but as it turned out, it was running in the UK, and my mother was a huge fan. When we next spoke I told her that one of my new LA friends had appeared on her favourite show. Understandably she was excited to know which character he'd played, I told her, and that was that. Or so I thought.

My mother did a bit more research on my friend and didn't recognise him from the show. The IMDb listing showed two actors playing the role he'd claimed to: Him and the one my mother recognised as actually being on the show. I rationalised that he'd probably been replaced, or that he'd replaced someone else. Such things happen all the time on TV shows, but my mother wasn't convinced. Nobody else, she insisted, had ever played that role.

I decided to do some research of my own. I couldn't believe he'd like to me. I mean, why? It's not like I was a movie producer or an agent, but the more I looked, the less his story added up. No Sunset Beach fan sites mentioned him, or his character being replaced by another actor, or anything. Everything pointed to the person my mother knew as being the only person to play that role. I looked into my friend's other credits, and they seemed even more dubious, not appearing anywhere else online.

I was too embarrassed to confront him, but one day I asked him again about his role on the show, just to see his reaction, and if he would add a caveat about being fired. Instead he was just as earnest and sure as he'd ever been. There were no caveats, he'd played that role. I couldn't quite believe it (and still can't), but it appeared my new friend was lying to my face. Why?

I never said anything about it to him about what I'd discovered. He was always extremely nice to me, and was otherwise an incredibly warm and genuine person. I wished I was wrong (and still do). I always felt that he was such a nice guy that he really didn't need to lie about his achievements. I liked him for who he was, not for anything he'd supposedly been in, but it was a lesson learned.

10 Years Later...

Having a continuing interest in the writing process, I decided listen to the TV Writer Podcast. I'm always on the lookout for quality advice from successful writers in the industry, and this looked somewhat promising.

Having listened to countless episodes of the Creative Screenwriting Podcast (now The Q&A with Jeff Goldsmith), The Nerdist Writers Panel, and reading Ken Levine and Jane Espenson's amazing blogs, I know what good advice sounds like.

The TV Writer Podcast video blog was an interview with someone I'd never heard of, but the host was extremely enthusiastic about his scriptwriter guest:

"[Name withheld] is back! In an interview that is sure to change the path of your career, [Name withheld] relates in great depth how and why some artists fail, and others succeed."

I'm usually very wary of taking advice from people whose work I'm not a fan of, let alone someone I don't know, and especially of bold claims like the above, but the interviewee was "Emmy nominated" with "20 years of experience", so I decided to give it a whirl. 

As I watched the video podcast, my bullshit-o-meter registered something immediately -- things seemed a little off. This didn't feel like good advice. I made it 15 minutes before I stopped the interview and deleted the episode. I couldn't believe what I'd heard.

The writer had just wandered into "positive affirmation" territory, claiming the "biggest step" in becoming a writer is really believing you're a writer, and not being ashamed of it. The biggest step. OK. There may be some truth in the power of truly committing yourself to something. And there's no reason to feel ashamed of what you're trying to achieve, so if you have issues about that, you should try and get over them if they're hindering you. Maybe that's what he meant, maybe I was being too criticial, but then he came out with this doozy:

"The next step is saying it out loud. Whether you like to believe it or not, things you say, whether good or bad, probably will come true."

Wait, what? As way of proof of this bold claim, he had this sage observation:

"A good example: I would say that 99.99999% of all divorces start with the word 'divorce'. Someone brings it up and, lo and behold, that's what happens."

Hmm. It's pretty difficult to ask someone for a divorce without using the "D word"!

I suddenly felt very dirty. I felt this man was filled with terrible advice, just who was he anyway? I looked him up online and, as it turned out, the interviewee, while having some writing credits on the IMDb, had NOT received an Emmy nomination. In fact, at that time, he hadn't been nominated for anything. And his TV career spanned 8 years, not 20.

To be fair to him, that’s still an accomplishment, certainly more than most, and maybe the podcast host had simply got his facts wrong when introducing him.

I delved a little deeper and discovered that his personal website had a stack of projects which don't appear to exist anywhere else on the internet. Not even on trade magazine sites. And then I came across the following sentence: "[Name Witheld] is an award-winning, Emmy-nominated screenwriter of more than 20 years."

There it was on his personal website. He was definitely making the claim about himself, but nothing backed it up. Not the IMDb or the Emmy website. Uh oh.

I was suddenly reminded of my old friend back in LA. Was this guy cut from the same cloth? Was it just Hollywood? What was scary about this time was that the suspected liar was, actually becoming a recognised scriptwriting guru.

I can't say for sure what's true and what's not about this guru. Maybe he's the innocent victim of some terrible website error. Several terrible website errors, that all conspire to make him look less than honest. Maybe there's some way his claims can be true, but also not appear online. Maybe lots of TV movies are never properly documented. Maybe he was an uncredited writer on an Emmy nominated script and felt justified in making that claim. Either way he appears on TV and radio interviews about his career, has been featured on other sites offering advice to up-and-coming writers, and (if his website is to be believed) "often guest lectures and panels on screenwriting at film schools and festivals across the country."

What's more, he's also written two books on scriptwriting and created his own consulting firm which promises "professional script consultants with real Hollywood film and television credits and experience".

I don't know what to believe. Surely it must be true if he's got this going for him... but, as with my friend, all the available evidence doesn't add up.

Cut to today...

My friend's IMDb credits are today filled with even more dubious claims (including things that surpass his Sunset Beach credit from before I knew him, which he surely would have mentioned at the time I'd known him if they were true) and new credits which (having checked) don't actually exist in the film's credits themselves.

The screenwriting "guru" no longer claims to be Emmy nominated anymore, but instead claims to have three Image Award nominations. (Guess what, I found record of one nomination, but there's no record of two of them.) His website still has lots of credits, and most of them still don't appear on the IMDb.

Are both of these guys the same? Is it the norm in Hollywood to lie? Or am I unfairly maligning an innocent and successful man, just because many of his scriptwriting gigs never went into production, or aren't properly documented?

I still don't know what to make of either of them. I still want to believe my friend was telling the truth (I know, I know), and I also want to believe the scriptwriter isn't carving a career as an "expert" by spinning lies that no-one has bothered to check. But how can it be? Is this the norm in LA?

Thoughts?

Update

My old acting friend is now spiritual guru with his own YouTube channel. The perfect ending. Still, oddly enough, he seems perfectly suited to this new role. I hope it finally gives him whatever peace of mind he's been searching for.

London Second City Improv Class: My Review

The rather wonderful Angel Comedy Club in London, and the comedy blog, Comedy Blogedy, reached out to the legendary Second City improv troupe/training school and set up two week's worth of classes in May 2016. I attended the first week's "Improv for Beginners (Level A)" and kept a diary of my thoughts after each day.

Here they are:

Day One

The class began with two simple tasks. The first was introducing yourself by telling the class something they didn't know about you, and the second was inventing a silly alliterative action to go along with your name.

I was so petrified that I was unable to even think of something beginning with the letter "J"... I ending up with "jingling", and I still don't really know what I meant.

Jumping, jolly, jovial, jammy, jaded, jokey, jittery... Hmm. It's much easier when there's not the pressure of 20 strangers in the room.

As the games continued, our excellent teacher slowly chipped away at everyone's hesitance and self-consciousness, encouraging us to trust our instincts. The cardinal rule being that there was never a "wrong answer", there was only ever something you brought to the game.

We were admonished for acting like we'd made a mistake and beating ourselves up, or reacting to our scene partner's input as if it was wrong. We were encouraged to allow ourselves to do what we liked, and take any suggestions that came our way as a gift. We were a team, and our job was to enthusiastically embrace whatever came our way, and make our partner look good.

Our teacher successfully managed to create a safe environment. By the end of the class we'd all loosened up and were having fun with each other.

I've already learned a lot about myself and what I need to improve. For example, during the "create a story a word at a time" game, I noticed I was always playing it safe with pronouns  - and even my game partner commented on it. He was absolutely right. When I decided to offer something more interesting, it got a huge laugh from the group.

Likewise, [in another game] when we were mimicking each other's moves, I found it hard to build on what people had just done, and take it to new heights [like we were supposed to]. It nearly always ended up with attempting to do it louder, which was a shame because there were so many ways it could have gone. I could have really had fun with it, and it never would have been wrong.

Let's see what day two holds!

Day Two

Today we actually slipped into some scene work without too much fuss. It wasn't blown up into something big, it was just expected of us... and we did it. Even me.

It was scary but good. I even got a few genuine laughs of my own... a very generous audience.

Halfway through the day I actually felt, for the first time, comfortable. I just relaxed and stopped worrying so much. It's tiring bring worried, and part of me just gave up and let go. It was a good feeling.

[Of course, I was still a tad anxious the next morning going in.]

I learned a bit more about Angel Comedy and I'm seriously impressed with their founder (Barry Fern) and what they've achieved. It seems like a home for comedy without ego, driven by the pure fun of it. It feels so genuine that the energy is infectious.

I backed their Kickstarter (something in the bar will permanently have a plaque named for me) and hope they do well. Maybe I could volunteer my services to improve their website. Dull, but it's something I can offer and do well.

Onto Day Three...

Day Three

Today was the most emotional day so far, which was fitting as we were focusing on doing emotional work in class. Today marked the point we were over halfway through, as well as the first time we socialised after class as a group.

I discovered my class is filled with interesting and ambitious people. (Where were they all when I was single and unemployed and desperately lonely, looking for direction?) Being with them is very inspiring, in the sense that they make their achievements (eg. performing stand-up, and all the struggles that go with that) seem... everyday.

Talking about doing a stand-up gig around these people doesn't feel like a life-breaking, brain-shattering, earth-shaking experience. It feels like a difficult, trying, anxiety-inducing... but normal experience.

In class I learned that people enjoy seeing a thread of behaviour grow to its logical, heightened conclusion. A small taste of behaviour before moving on to something else is unsatisfying for the audience. They want a narrative to follow, and changing tack breaks that narrative.

The key seems to be to make an interesting choice and stick to it until you've drained it.

The saddest part of the day was realising how genuinely upset I'm going to be when the course ends.

Only two days to go...

Day Four

The worst thing about today is knowing that tomorrow is the last day. It's been a hell of a roller-coaster, and I'm going to miss it when it's gone. I've learned so much.

The most important thing [I've learned] is trusting in myself and trusting in the process. Throwing yourself into a situation is OK. In fact it's better than OK, it works. You don't need a plan. You can purely rely on your brain's instincts to give you what you need. The only thing that stops that process is your fear.

And what's more, it's FUN to discover where you end up. You're discovering at the same time as everyone else, and it's enjoyable.

After tonight's show I went to a gig with a classmate where our teacher, Erica Elam, was performing. I felt self conscious for her, worried that she would be put off by our presence, but I needn't have.

Everything we've learned from the course was on full display, and then some. She's was fearless and present, and the comedy flowed naturally.

This course has been a life-changing experience.  From the people I've met, to the things I've learned. I feel personally changed for the better, and I hope beyond hope that I can continue to practice [improv].

Last Day

The last day was extremely emotional. After a physically and mentally exhausting five days, I feel a bit lost. Tomorrow I won't be pushing myself out of my comfort zone. I have no big scary thing to face... and I miss it already.

I can't think of anything that's pushed me quite as hard, or excited me quite as much. We've finished [Second City Improv] Level A, but there's no Level B waiting for us [like there is in the US]. We're on our own now... and that "we" has no leader, only the vaguest collective idea of how to move forward, and we will ultimately, inevitably dwindle.

It's a sad moment.

On the flip side I've learned a lot about what I'm capable of. I've got a solid foundation in the basics of improv, and I've achieved my goal: I'm more in touch with my instincts than ever before. Right now I trust in my ability to take a situation and find something funny it. I know my brain will fill in the gaps and make the connection, all I have to do is listen [and practise!].

The most difficult part of improv is learning to trust in your instincts. It's a personal battle for every new improviser, and I'm sure it's ongoing [even when you've mastered it]. As our teacher put it, it's a struggle against our societal conditioning. Kids are great at improvising, but as we get older we're taught to restrain ourselves, and improv is sort of fighting back against that pressure, getting in touch with our most creative part... without fear.

This week has been a major step toward that [for me].

Everything seems a little brighter today. Building seem bigger, colours seem more vibrant.

Now is a sad moment, but I'm happy that I was brave enough to give it to myself.

The Morning After

After spending the last five days feeling like I was being shot out of a canon (at ever increasing speeds), and last night's resulting free-fall once class was over, this morning was a painful crash-landing back into reality. But I've dusted myself off and what I'm noticing is that I'm different. The most obvious thing is that I'm less self-critical. I feel like I should be able to create more easily now, and with less self-awareness. This was my main goal when I decided to take the course, and I'm more than a little amazed that it's what I feel I'm taking away from the experience.

There's still a long way to go, but I'm definitely on the right path. I just have to keep walking down it, and not get waylaid.

---

Pushing myself out of my comfort zone for that week was immensely rewarding, and something I highly recommend. For those interested, here's how I felt I'd changed after one week with Second City:

• I noticed my default reaction to everyday frustrations was altered. Instead of getting irritated and annoyed by little things that didn't go exactly how I expected/wished them to, I found myself reacting as you would in an improv scene: Accepting them as a gift and focusing on my reaction instead. (A much more desirable and productive response!)

• I found myself less in my head, and more paying attention to what was going on around me - again as you would in an improv scene when you're listening.

As for improv itself, I now can see what the pros are doing more whenever I watch it. They really do make a pretty tricky process look effortless. 

As the saying goes, "Improv is getting up in the air and building the plane as you go". I now fully appreciate what that means. I've learned that taking a leap of faith is part of the process, and that it's not a problem if you don't know what you're going to say or do, because when you're doing it right, you're truly allowing yourself to be completely open and react in the moment (which I can imagine takes years to master).

For me it was a leap of faith, and it felt great when it worked. What I discovered is that, if you're brave enough to step out, your brain will make the connections for you. It's what it does all day anyway -- we're all improvising all of the time. The trick is to allow yourself to trust in that process.

It's jumping off the cliff and figuring it out on the way down, or as Keegan-Michael Key puts it, zooming out...

Thanks to our instructor, Erica Elam, and my classmates. If you're reading this wondering whether you should take a Second City improv course, my advice is YES! Be brave and go for it. You'll thank yourself later.

Links:

• Angel Comedy
• Angel Comedy's Kickstarter (ends July 21, 2016)
• Second City
• Comedy Blogedy

Windows 10: Here's what I see when I see the new Start Menu...

Thankfully someone alerted me to the fact that you can make the Start Menu full screen again :)

Woody Allen v. Mia Farrow Court Documents

In the recent furore sparked by Robert Weide's article, lots of damning things have been written about Woody Allen, none more so than the open letter penned by his own daughter, Dylan. With the articles going back and forth between both camps, and comments being thrown around, I found myself wanting to refer back to the court documents from the time. How did what we're hearing now relate to what was known then?

Many fans of Allen's work, like myself, are interested in having solid answers, but it's clear we will probably never get them. That doesn't seem to stop people taking sides based on nothing more than an article arguing one side or another, though, and some people will always make up their minds without taking the time to research the facts, but for those who want to make as much of an informed decision as they can before coming to any conclusions, the supreme court's 1993 judgement is an important document, and one, I believe, Mia Farrow and her family wish more people would take the time to read.

Unfortunately Justice Wilk's summary did not appear to be anywhere online. I was surprised by this and decided to began the slow process converting the document digitally from Farrow's book. (Of course, as soon as I was finished I immediately discovered the documents did exist online elsewhere. Doh.)

It may be impossible for a bystander to speak with authority, but at least we can try to avoid ignorance. This document reveals several outright lies in Woody Allen's recent "final word" on the matter. (For example, he boldly declares that "I had been going out with Mia for 12 years and never in that time did she ever suggest to me anything resembling misconduct", when he'd been directly confronted by Farrow of looking at the child in a sexual way, and his behaviour had been characterised as "inappropriate" by the doctor involved. Vanity Fair catch several more of such lies in their article 10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation.)

Here are all the articles from both camps to date, along with the aforementioned Vanity Fair one:

• The Woody Allen Allegations: Not So Fast by Robert B. Weide (January 27, 2014)
• An Open Letter From Dylan Farrow by Dylan Farrow (February 1, 2014)
• "I love and support my sister and I think her words speak for themselves." Tweeted by Ronan Farrow (aka Satchel Farrow) (February 2, 2014)
• Moses Farrow Defends Woody Allen by People Magazine (February 5, 2014)
• Woody Allen Speaks Out by Woody Allen (February 7, 2014)
• 10 Undeniable Facts About the Woody Allen Sexual-Abuse Allegation by Vanity Fair (February 7, 2014)

Personally, I think that if you're going to share your opinion on this matter publicly, I think you owe it to the parties involved to at least familiarize yourself with the facts.

Some quick information on the people involved:

Dylan Farrow - Mia Farrow's adopted daughter, with whom Woody Allen assumed a parental role. Aged 7 at the time of these proceedings.

Satchel Farrow - Woody Allen's biological son. Now known as Ronan. Aged 5 at the time of these proceedings.

Moses Farrow - Mia Farrow's adopted son. Aged 15 at the time of these proceedings.

The court case was Allen's seemingly frivolous and hurtful attempt at gaining sole custody of the above children.

Basic timeline:

January 13, 1992 - Mia Farrow discovers that Allen is having an affair with Soon-Yi. They break up.

August 4, 1992 - The alleged sexual molestation took place.

August 6, 1992 - Woody Allen is informed of the allegations.

August 13, 1992 - Allen files for sole custody of the three children.

Download the court document in PDF format here.

---

I have reproduced the state supreme court decision in its entirety, which perhaps is an unusual document in a memoir. My purpose, however, in doing so is to reassure the reader that extracts from it have not distorted what was decided by the Court. This decision was upheld in the Appellate Division, First Department, and the New York City Court of Appeals. Furthermore, incidents reported prior to the custody trial were included in the testimony at that trial.

Mia Farrow, “What Falls Away” (1997).

Allen v. Farrow (1993) - Justice Wilk

Supreme Court: The New York County
Individual Assignment Part 6

Woody Allen, Petitioner
- against –
Maria Villiers Farrow, also known as, Mia Farrow

Elliot Wilk, J.

SU24A
Index No. 68738/92

Introduction

On August 13, 1992, seven days after he learned that his seven-year-old daughter Dylan had accused him of sexual abuse, Woody Allen began this action against Mia Farrow to obtain custody of Dylan, their five-year-old son Satchel, and their fifteen-year-old son Moses.

As mandated by law, Dr. V. Kavirajan, the Connecticut pediatrician to whom Dylan repeated her accusation, reported the charge to the Connecticut State Police. In furtherance of their investigation to determine if a criminal prosecution should be pursued against Mr. Allen, the Connecticut State Police referred Dylan to the Child Sexual Abuse Clinic of Yale-New Haven Hospital. According to Yale-New Haven, the two major questions posed to them were: "Is Dylan telling the truth, and did we think that she was sexually abused?" On March 17, 1993, Yale-New Haven issued a report which concluded that Mr. Allen had not sexually abused Dylan.

This trial began on March 19, 1993. Among the witnesses called by petitioner were Mr. Allen; Ms. Farrow; Dr. Susan Coates, a clinical psychologist who treated Satchel; Dr. Nancy Schultz, a clinical psychologist who treated Dylan; and Dr. David Brodzinsky, a clinical psychologist who spoke with Dylan and Moses pursuant to his assignment in a related Surrogate's Court proceeding. Dr. John Leventhal, a pediatrician who was part of the three-member Yale-New Haven team, testified by deposition. Ms. Farrow called Dr. Stephen Herman, a clinical psychiatrist, who commented on the Yale-New Haven report. What follows are my findings of fact. Where statements or observations are attributed to witnesses, they are adopted by me as findings of fact.

* I acknowledge the assistance of Analisa Torres in the preparation of this opinion.

Findings of Fact

Mr. Allen is a fifty-seven year old film maker. He has been divorced twice. Both marriages were childless. Ms. Farrow is forty-eight years old. She is an actress who has performed in many of Mr. Allen’s movies. Her first marriage, at age twenty-one, ended in divorce two years later. Shortly thereafter, she married Andre Previn, with whom she had six children, three biological and three adopted.

Matthew and Sascha Previn, twenty-three years old were born on February 26, 1970. The birth Year of Soon-Yi Previn is believed to be 1970 or 1972. She was born in Korea and was adopted in 1977. Lark Previn, twenty years old, was born on February 15, 1973. Fletcher Previn, nineteen years old, was born on March 14, 1974. Daisy Previn, eighteen years old, was born on October 6, 1974.

After eight years of marriage, Ms. Farrow and Mr. Previn were divorced. Ms. Farrow retained custody of the children.

Mr. Allen and Ms. Farrow met in 1980, a few months after Ms. Farrow had adopted Moses Farrow, who was born on January 27, 1978. Mr. Allen preferred that Ms. Farrow's children not be a part of their lives together. Until 1985, Mr. Allen had "virtually a single person's relationship" with Ms. Farrow and viewed her children as an encumbrance. He had no involvement with them and no interest in them. Throughout their relationship, Mr. Allen has maintained his residence on the east side of Manhattan and Ms. Farrow has lived with her children on the west side of Manhattan.

In 1984, Ms. Farrow expressed a desire to have a child with Mr. Allen. He resisted, fearing that a young child would reduce the time that they had available for each other. Only after Ms. Farrow promised that the child would live with her and that Mr. Allen need not be involved with the child's care or upbringing, did he agree.

After six months of unsuccessful attempts to become pregnant, and with Mr. Allen's lukewarm support, Ms. Farrow decided to adopt a child. Mr. Allen chose not to participate in the adoption and Ms. Farrow was the sole adoptive parent. On July 11, 1985, the newborn Dylan joined the Farrow household.

Mr. Allen's attitude toward Dylan changed a few months after the adoption. He began to spend some mornings and evenings at Ms. Farrow's apartment in order to be with Dylan. He visited at Ms. Farrow's country home in Connecticut and accompanied the Farrow-Previn family on extended vacations to Europe in 1987, 1988 and 1989. He remained aloof from Ms. Farrow's other children except for Moses, to whom he was cordial.

In 1986, Ms. Farrow suggested the adoption of another child. Mr. Allen, buoyed by his developing affection for Dylan, was enthusiastic. Before another adoption could be arranged, Ms. Farrow became pregnant with Satchel.

During Ms. Farrow's pregnancy, Mr. Allen did not touch her stomach, listen to the fetus, or try to feel it kick. Because Mr. Allen had shown no interest in her pregnancy and because Ms. Farrow believed him to be squeamish about the delivery process, her friend Casey Pascal acted as her Lamaze coach.

A few months into the pregnancy, Ms. Farrow began to withdraw from Mr. Allen. After Satchel's birth, which occurred on December 19, 1987, she grew more distant from Mr. Allen. Ms. Farrow's attention to Satchel also reduced the time she had available for Dylan. Mr. Allen began to spend more time with Dylan and to intensify his relationship with her.

By then, Ms. Farrow had become concerned with Mr. Allen's behavior toward Dylan. During a trip to Paris, when Dylan was between two and three years old, Ms. Farrow told Mr. Allen that "[y]ou look at her [Dylan] in a sexual way. You fondled her. It's not natural. You're all over her. You don't give her any breathing room. You look at her when she's naked."

Her apprehension was fueled by the intensity of the attention Mr. Allen lavished on Dylan, and by his spending play-time in bed with her, by his reading to her in his bed while dressed in his undershorts, and by his permitting her to suck on his thumb.

Ms. Farrow testified that Mr. Allen was overly attentive and demanding of Dylan's time and attention. He was aggressively affectionate, providing her with little space of her own and with no respect for the integrity of her body. Ms. Farrow, Casey Pascal, Sophie Raven (Dylan's French tutor), and Dr. Coates testified that Mr. Allen focused on Dylan to the exclusion of her siblings, even when Satchel and Moses were present.

In June 1990, the parties became concerned with Satchel's behavior and took him to see Dr. Coates, with whom he then began treatment. At Dr. Coates' request, both parents participated in Satchel's treatment. In the fall of 1990, the parties asked Dr. Coates to evaluate Dylan to determine if she needed therapy. During the course of the evaluation, Ms. Farrow expressed her concern to Dr. Coates that Mr. Allen's behavior with Dylan was not appropriate. Dr. Coates observed:

I understood why she was worried, because it [Mr. Allen's relationship with Dylan] was intense, … I did not see it as sexual, but I saw it as inappropriately intense because it excluded everybody else, and it placed a demand on a child for a kind of acknowledgment that I felt should not be placed on a child …

She testified that she worked with Mr. Allen to help him to understand that his behavior with Dylan was inappropriate had to be modified. Dr. Coates also recommended and that Dylan enter therapy with Dr. Schultz, with whom Dylan began treatment in April 1991.

In 1991, Ms. Farrow expressed a desire to adopt another child. Mr. Allen, who had begun to believe that Ms. Farrow was growing more remote from him and that she might discontinue his access to Dylan, said that he would not take "a lousy attitude towards it" if, in return, Ms. Farrow would sponsor his adoption of Dylan and Moses. She said that she agreed after Mr. Allen assured her that "he would not take Dylan for sleep-overs . . . unless I was there. And that if, God forbid, anything should happen to our relationship, that he would never seek custody." The adoptions were concluded in December 1991.

Until 1990, although he had had little contact with any of the Previn children, Mr. Allen had the least to do with Soon-Yi. "She was someone who didn't like me. I had no interest in her, none whatsoever. She was a quiet person who did her work. I never spoke to her." In 1990, Mr. Allen, who had four season tickets to the New York Knicks basketball games, was asked by Soon-Yi if she could go to a game. Mr. Allen agreed.

During the following weeks, when Mr. Allen visited Ms. Farrow's home, he would say hello to Soon-Yi, "which is something I never did in the years prior, but no conversations with her or anything."

Soon-Yi attended more basketball games with Mr. Allen. He testified that "gradually, after the basketball association, we became more friendly. She opened up to me more." By 1991 they were discussing her interests in modeling, art, and psychology. She spoke of her hopes and other aspects of her life.

In September 1991, Soon-Yi entered Drew College in New Jersey. She was naive, socially inexperienced and vulnerable. Mr. Allen testified that she was lonely and unhappy at school, and that she began to speak daily with him by telephone. She spent most weekends at home with Ms. Farrow. There is no evidence that Soon-Yi told Ms. Farrow either that she was lonely or that she had been in daily communication with Mr. Allen.

On January 13, 1992, while in Mr. Allen’s apartment, Ms. Farrow discovered six nude photographs of Soon-Yi which had been left on the mantelpiece. She is posed reclining on a couch with her legs spread apart. Ms. Farrow telephoned Mr. Allen to confront him with her discovery of the photographs.

Ms. Farrow returned home, showed the photographs to Soon-Yi and said, "What have you done?" She left the room before Soon-Yi answered. During the following weekend, Ms. Farrow hugged Soon-Yi and said that she loved her and did not blame her. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Farrow asked Soon-Yi how long she had been seeing Mr. Allen. When Soon-Yi referred to her sexual relationship with Mr. Allen, Ms. Farrow hit her on the side of the face and on the shoulders.¹ Ms. Farrow also told her older children what she had learned.

¹ Ms. Farrow has commenced an action in the Surrogate's Court to vacate Mr. Allen's adoption of Dylan and Moses. In that proceeding, she contends that Mr. Allen began a secret affair with Soon-Yi prior to the date of the adoption. This issue has been reserved for consideration by the Surrogate and has not been addressed by me.

After receiving Ms. Farrow's telephone call, Mr. Allen went to her apartment where, he said, he found her to be "ragingly angry." She begged him to leave. She testified that:

[w]hen he finally left, he came back less than an hour later, and I was sitting at the table. By then, all of the children were there . . . and it was a rather silent meal. The little ones were chatting and he walked right in and he sat right down at the table as if nothing had happened and starts chatting with . . . the two little ones, said hi to everybody. And one by one the children [Lark, Daisy, Fletcher, Moses and Sascha] took their plates and left. And I'd, I didn't know what to do. And then I went out.

Within the month, both parties retained counsel and attempted to negotiate a settlement of their differences. In an effort to pacify Ms. Farrow, Mr. Allen told her that he was no longer seeing Soon-Yi. This was untrue. A temporary arrangement enabled Mr. Allen to visit regularly with Dylan and Satchel but they were not permitted to visit at his residence. In addition, Ms. Farrow asked for his assurance that he would not seek custody of Moses, Dylan or Satchel.

On February 3, 1992, both parties signed documents in which it was agreed that Mr. Allen would waive custodial rights to Moses, Dylan and Satchel if Ms. Farrow predeceased him. On the same day, Mr. Allen signed a second document, which he did not reveal to Ms. Farrow, in which he disavowed the waiver, claiming that it was a product of duress and coercion and stating that "I have no intention of abiding by it and have been advised that it will not hold up legally and that at worst I can revoke it unilaterally at will."

In February 1992, Ms. Farrow gave Mr. Allen a family picture Valentine with skewers through the hearts of the children and a knife through the heart of Ms. Farrow. She also defaced and destroyed several photographs of Mr. Allen and of Soon-Yi.

In July 1992, Ms. Farrow had a birthday party for Dylan at her Connecticut home. Mr. Allen came and monopolized Dylan's time and attention. After Mr. Allen retired to the guest room for the night, Ms. Farrow affixed to his bathroom door, a note which called Mr. Allen a child molester. The reference was to his affair with Soon-Yi.

In the summer of 1992, Soon-Yi was employed as a camp counselor. During the third week of July, she telephoned Ms. Farrow to tell her that she had quit her job. She refused to tell Ms. Farrow where she was staying. A few days later, Ms. Farrow received a letter from the camp advising her that:

[it] is with sadness and regret that we had to ask Soon-Yi to leave camp midway through the first camp session … Throughout the entire orientation period and continuing during camp, Soon-Yi was constantly involved with telephone calls. Phone calls from a gentleman whose name is Mr. Simon seemed to be her primary focus and hits definitely detracted from her concentration on being a counselor.

Mr. Simon was Woody Allen.

On August 4, 1992, Mr. Allen travelled to Ms. Farrow's Connecticut vacation home to spend time with his children. Earlier in the day, Casey Pascal had come for a visit with her three young children and their babysitter, Alison Stickland. Ms. Farrow and Ms. Pascal were shopping when Mr. Allen arrived. Those present were Ms. Pascal's three children; Ms. Stickland; Kristie Groteke, a babysitter employed by Ms. Farrow; Sophie Berge, a French tutor for the children; Dylan; and Satchel.

Ms. Farrow had previously instructed Ms. Groteke that Mr. Allen was not to be left alone with Dylan. For a period of fifteen or twenty minutes during the afternoon, Ms. Groteke was unable to locate Mr. Allen or Dylan. After looking for them in the house, she assumed that they were outside with the others. But neither Ms. Berge nor Ms. Stickland was with Mr. Allen or Dylan. Ms. Groteke made no mention of this to Ms. Farrow on August 4.

During a different portion of the day, Ms. Stickland went to the television room in search of one of Ms. Pascal's children. She observed Mr. Allen kneeling in front of Dylan with his head on her lap, facing her body. Dylan was sitting on the couch staring vacantly in the direction of a television set.

After Ms. Farrow returned home, Ms. Berge noticed that Dylan was not wearing anything under her sundress. She told asked Ms. Groteke to put underpants on Dylan.

Ms. Stickland testified that during the evening of August 4, she told Ms. Pascal, “I had seen something at Mia’s that day that was bothering me.” She revealed what she had seen in the television room. On August 5, Ms. Pascal telephoned Ms. Farrow to tell her what Ms. Stickland had observed. Ms. Farrow testified that after she hung up the telephone, she asked Dylan, who was sitting next to her, "whether it was true that daddy had his face in her lap yesterday." Ms. Farrow testified:

Dylan said yes. And then she said that she didn't like it one bit, no, he was breathing into her, into her legs, she said. And that he was holding her around the waist and I said, why didn't you get up and she said she tried to but that he put his hands underneath her and touched her. And she showed me where . . . Her behind.

Because she was already uncomfortable with Mr. Allen's inappropriate behavior toward Dylan and because she believed that her concerns were not being taken seriously enough by Dr. Schultz and Dr. Coates, Ms. Farrow videotaped Dylan's statements. Over the next twenty-four hours, Dylan told Ms. Farrow that she had been with Mr. Allen in the attic and that he had touched her privates with his finger.

After Dylan's first comments, Ms. Farrow telephoned her attorney for guidance. She was advised to bring Dylan to her pediatrician, which she did immediately. Dylan did not repeat the accusation of sexual abuse during this visit and Ms. Farrow was advised to return with Dylan on the following day. On the trip home, she explained to her mother that she did not like talking about her privates. On August 6, when Ms. Farrow went back to Dr. Kavirajan's office, Dylan repeated that she had told her mother on August 5. A medical examination conducted on August 9 showed no physical evidence of sexual abuse.

Although Dr. Schultz was vacationing in Europe, Ms. Farrow telephoned her daily for advice. Ms. Farrow also notified Dr. Coates, who was still treating Satchel. She said to Dr. Coates, "it sounds very convincing to me, doesn't it to you. It is so specific. Let's hope it is her fantasy." Dr. Coates immediately notified Mr. Allen of the child’s accusation and then contacted the New York City Child Welfare Administration. Seven days later, during a meeting of the lawyers at which settlement discussions were taking place, Mr. Allen began this action for custody.

Dr. Schultz returned from vacation on August 16. She was transported to Connecticut in Mr. Allen's chauffeured limousine on August 17, 18 and 21 for therapy sessions with Dylan. Dylan, who had become increasingly resistant to Dr. Schultz, did not want to see her. During the third session, Dylan and Satchel put glue in Dr. Schultz's hair, cut her dress and told her to go away.

On August 24 and 27, Ms. Farrow expressed to Dr. Schultz her anxiety about Dr. Schultz continuing to see Mr. Allen, who had already brought suit for custody of Dylan. She asked if Dr. Schultz would

. . . please not come for a while until all of this is settled down because . . . I couldn't trust anybody. And she said she understood completely . . . And soon after that . . . I learned that Dr. Schultz had told [New York] child welfare that Dylan had not reported anything to her. And then a week later, either her lawyer or Dr. Schultz called [New York] child welfare and said she just remembered that Dylan had told her that Mr. Allen had put a finger in her vagina. When I heard that I certainly didn't trust Dr. Schultz.

Dr. Schultz testified that on August 19, Paul Williams of the New York Child Welfare Administration asked about her experience with Dylan. She replied that on August 17, Dylan started to tell her what had happened with Mr. Allen but she needed more time to explore this with Dylan. On August 27, she spoke more fully to Mr. Williams about her August 17 session with Dylan and speculated about the significance of what Dylan reported. Mr. Williams testified that on August 19, Dr. Schultz told him that Dylan had not made any statements to her about sexual abuse.

Ms. Farrow did not immediately resume Dylan's therapy because the Connecticut State Police had requested that she not be in therapy during the investigation. Also, it was not clear if the negotiated settlement that the parties were continuing to pursue would include Mr. Allen's participation in the selection of Dylan's new therapist.

Dr. Coates continued to treat Satchel through the fall of 1992. Ms. Farrow expressed to Dr. Coates her unease with the doctor seeing Mr. Allen in conjunction with Satchel's therapy. On October 29, 1992, Ms. Farrow requested that Dr. Coates treat Satchel without the participation of Mr. Allen. Dr. Coates declined, explaining that she did not believe that she could treat Satchel effectively without the full participation of both parents. Satchel's therapy with Dr. Coates was discontinued on November 28, 1992. At Ms. Farrow's request, Dr. Coates recommended a therapist to continue Satchel's therapy. Because of a conflict, the therapist recommended by Dr. Coates was unable to treat Satchel. He did, however, provide the name of another therapist with whom Satchel is currently in treatment.

On December 30, 1992, Dylan was interviewed by a representative of the Connecticut State Police. She told them—at a time Ms. Farrow calculates to be the fall of 1991—that while at Mr. Allen's apartment, she saw him and Soon-Yi having sex. Her reporting was childlike but graphic. She also told the police that Mr. Allen had pushed her face into a plate of hot spaghetti and had threatened to do it again.

Ten days before Yale-New Haven concluded its investigation, Dylan told Ms. Farrow, for the first time, that in Connecticut, while she was climbing up the ladder to a bunk bed, Mr. Allen put his hands under her shorts and touched he Ms. Farrow testified that as Dylan said this, "she was illustrating graphically where in the genital area.''

Conclusions

A) Woody Allen

Mr. Allen has demonstrated no parenting skills that would qualify him as an adequate custodian for Moses, Dylan or Satchel. His financial contributions to the children's support, his willingness to read to them, to tell them stories, to buy them presents, and to oversee their breakfasts, do not compensate for his absence as a meaningful source of guidance and caring in their lives. These contributions do not excuse his evident lack of familiarity with the most basic details of their day-to-day existences.

He did not bathe his children. He did not dress them, except from time to time, and then only to help them put on their socks and jackets. He knows little of Moses' history, except that he has cerebral palsy; he does not know if he has a doctor. He does not know the name of Dylan and Satchel's pediatrician. He does not know the names of Moses' teachers or about his academic performance. He does not know the name of the children's dentist. He does not know the names of his children's friends. He does not know the names of any of their many pets. He does not know which children shared bedrooms. He attended parent-teacher conferences only when asked to do so by Ms. Farrow.

Mr. Allen has even less knowledge about his children's siblings, with whom he seldom communicated. He apparently did not pay enough attention to his own children to learn from them about their brothers and sisters.

Mr. Allen characterized Ms. Farrow's home as a foster care compound and drew distinctions between her biological and adopted children. When asked how he felt about sleeping with his children's sister, he responded that "she [Soon-Yi] was an adopted child and Dylan was an adopted child." He showed no understanding that the bonds developed between adoptive brothers and sisters are no less worthy of respect and protection than those between biological siblings.

Mr. Allen's reliance on the affidavit which praises his parenting skills, submitted by Ms. Farrow in connection with his petition to adopt Moses and Dylan, is misplaced. Its ultimate probative value will be determined in the pending Surrogate's Court proceeding. In the context of the facts and circumstances of this action, I accord it little weight.

None of the witnesses who testified on Mr. Allen's behalf provided credible evidence that he is an appropriate custodial parent. Indeed, none would venture an opinion that he should be granted custody. When asked, even Mr. Allen could not provide an acceptable reason for a change in custody.

His counsel's last question of him on direct examination was, "Can you tell the Court why you are seeking custody of your children?" Mr. Allen's response was a rambling non sequitur which consumed eleven pages of transcript. He said that he did not want to take the children away from Ms. Farrow; that Ms. Farrow maintained a non-traditional household with biological children and adopted children from all over the world; that Soon-Yi was fifteen years older than Dylan and seventeen years older than Satchel; that Ms. Farrow was too angry with Mr. Allen to resolve the problem; and that with him, the children "will be responsibly educated" and "their day-to-day behavior will be done in consultation with their therapist." The most relevant portions of the response — that he is a good father and that Ms. Farrow intentionally turned the children against him — I do not credit. Even if he were correct, under the circumstances of this case, it would be insufficient to warrant a change of custody.

Mr. Allen's deficiencies as a custodial parent are magnified by his affair with Soon-Yi. As Ms. Farrow's companion, he was a frequent visitor at Soon-Yi's home. He accompanied the Farrow-Previns on extended family vacations and he is the father of Soon-Yi's siblings, Moses, Dylan and Satchel. The fact that Mr. Allen ignored Soon- Yi for ten years cannot change the nature of the family constellation and does not create a distance sufficient to convert their affair into a benign relationship between two consenting adults.

Mr. Allen admits that he never considered the consequences of his behavior with Soon-Yi. Dr. Coates and Dr. Brodzinsky testified that Mr. Allen still fails to understand that what he did was wrong. Having isolated Soon-Yi from her family, he left her with no visible support system. He had no consideration for the consequences to her, to Ms. Farrow, to the Previn children for whom he cared little, or to his own children for whom he professes love.

Mr. Allen's response to Dylan's claim of sexual abuse was an attack upon Ms. Farrow, whose parenting ability and emotional stability he impugned without the support of any significant credible evidence. His trial strategy has been to separate his children from their brothers and sisters; to turn the children against their mother; to divide adopted children from biological children; to incite the family against their household help; and to set household employees against each other. His self-absorption, his lack of judgment and his commitment to the continuation of his divisive assault, thereby impeding the healing of the injuries that he has already caused, warrant a careful monitoring of his future contact with the children.

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 in Connecticut with her children. She does not take spent extended vacations unaccompanied by her children. She is sensitive 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 in 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. Allen 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 refusal 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) Dylan 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 unwillingness 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. I share his reservations about the reliability of the report.

Dr. Herman faulted the Yale-New Haven team (1) 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 truthful or not. He concluded, "based on my experience," that Dylan lacked credibility.

I did not find his testimony to be insightful. 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 … All you did is spoil the little ones, Dylan and Satchel. … Everyone knows not to have an affair with your son's sister … I consider you my father anymore. It was a great feeling having a father but you smashed that feeling and dream with a single act. I HOPE YOU ARE PROUD TO CRUSH YOUR SON’S DREAM.

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. Brodzinsky 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. Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 NY2d 167 (1982); Friederwitzer v. Friederwitzer, 55 NY2d 89 (1982).

The initial custodial arrangement is critically important. "Priority, not as an absolute but as a weighty factor, should, in 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 care-taker of the children, the satisfactory fashion in which she has fulfilled that function, 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.

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 Farrugia Children, 106 AD2d 293 (1st Dept 1984); Gowan v. Menqa, 178 AD2d 1021 (4th Dept 1991). If the noncustodial parent is a fit person and there are no extraordinary circumstances, there should be reasonable visitation. Hotze v. Hotze, 57 AD2d 85 (4th Dept 1977), appeal denied 42 N12d 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. H.K. v. M.S., 187 AD2d 50 (1st Dept 1993).

This trial included the observations and opinions of more mental health workers than is common to most custody litigation. The parties apparently agreed with Dr. Herman's conclusion that another battery of forensic psychological evaluations would not have been in the children's best interest and would have added little to the available information. Accordingly, none was ordered.

The common theme of the testimony by the mental health witnesses is that Mr. Allen has inflicted serious damage on the children and that healing is necessary. Because, as Dr. Brodzinsky and Dr. Herman observed, this family is in an uncharted therapeutic area, where the course is uncertain and the benefits unknown, the visitation structure that will best promote the healing process and safeguard the children is elusive. What is clear is that Mr. Allen's lack of judgment, insight and impulse control make normal noncustodial visitation with Dylan and Satchel too risky to the children's well-being to be permitted at this time.

A) Dylan

Mr. Allen's request for immediate visitation with Dylan is denied. It is unclear whether Mr. Allen will ever develop the insight and judgment necessary for him to relate to Dylan appropriately. According to Dr. Brodzinsky, even if Dylan was not sexually abused, she feels victimized by her father's relationship with her sister. Dylan has recently begun treatment with a new therapist. Now that this trial is concluded, she is entitled to the time and space necessary to create a protective environment that will promote the therapeutic process. A significant goal of that therapy is to encourage her to fulfill her individual potential, including the resilience to deal with Mr. Allen in a manner which is not injurious to her.

The therapist witnesses agree that Mr. Allen may be able to serve a positive role in Dylan's therapy. Dr. Brodzinsky emphasized that because Dylan is quite fragile and more negatively affected by stress than the average child, she should visit with Mr. Allen only within a therapeutic context. This function, he said, should be undertaken by someone other than Dylan's treating therapist. Unless it interferes with Dylan's individual treatment or is inconsistent with her welfare, this process is to be initiated within six months. A further review of visitation will be considered only after we are able to evaluate the progress of Dylan's therapy.

B) Satchel

Mr. Allen's request for extended and unsupervised visitation with Satchel is denied. He has been visiting regularly with Satchel, under supervised conditions, with the consent of Ms. Farrow. I do not believe that Ms. Farrow has discouraged Satchel's visitation with Mr. Allen or that she has, except for restricting visitation, interfered with Satchel's relationship with his father.

Although, absent exceptional circumstances, a non-custodial parent should not be denied meaningful access to a child, "supervised visitation is not a deprivation to meaningful access." Lightbourne v. Lightbourne, 179 AD2d 562 (1st Dept 1992).

I do not condition visitation out of concern for Satchel's physical safety. My caution is the product of Mr. Allen's demonstrated inability to understand the impact that his words and deeds have upon the emotional well being of his children.

I believe that Mr. Allen will use Satchel in an attempt to gain information about Dylan and to insinuate himself into her good graces. I believe that Mr. Allen will, if unsupervised, attempt to turn Satchel against the other members of his family. I believe Mr. Allen to be desirous of introducing Soon-Yi into the visitation arrangement without concern for the effect on Satchel, Soon-Yi or the other members of the Farrow family. In short, I believe Mr. Allen to be so self-absorbed, un-trustworthy and insensitive, that he should not be permitted to see Satchel without appropriate professional supervision until Mr. Allen demonstrates that supervision is no longer necessary. The supervisor should be someone who is acceptable to both parents, who will be familiarized with the history of this family and who is willing to remain in that capacity for a reasonable period of time. Visitation shall be of two hours' duration, three times weekly, and modifiable by agreement of the parties.

C) Moses

Under the circumstances of this case, giving respect and credence to Ms. Farrow's appreciation of her son's sensitivity and intelligence, as confirmed by Dr. Brodzinsky, I will not require this fifteen-year-old child to visit with his father if he does not wish to do so.

If Moses can be helped by seeing Mr. Allen under conditions in which Moses will not be overwhelmed, then I believe that Ms. Farrow should and will promote such interaction. I hope that Moses will come to understand that the fear of demons often cannot be dispelled without first confronting them.

Counsel Fees

Ms. Farrow's application for counsel fees is granted. Mr. Allen compounded the pain that he inflicted upon the Farrow family by bringing this frivolous petition for custody of Dylan, Satchel and Moses.

Domestic Relations Law §237(b) provides that upon an application for custody or visitation, the court may direct a parent to pay the counsel fees of the other parent "as, in the court's discretion, justice requires, having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties."

Ms. Farrow admits to a substantial net worth, although she is not nearly as wealthy as Mr. Allen. Clearly, she is able to absorb the cost of this litigation, although it has been extraordinarily expensive. However, "[i]ndigency is not a prerequisite to an award of counsel fees (citation omitted). Rather, in exercising its discretionary power to award counsel fees, a court should review the financial circumstances of both parties together with all the other circumstances of the case, which may include the relative merit of the parties' positions." DeCabre v. Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d R79 881 (1987). Because Mr. Allen's position had no merit, he will bear the entire financial, burden of this litigation. If the parties are unable to agree on Ms. Farrows reasonable counsel fees, a hearing will be conducted for that purpose.

Settle judgment.

DATED: June 7, 1993.

J.S.C.