Allan v. Farrow Brief

Allen v. Farrow, 197 A.D.2d 327, 611 N.Y.S.2d 859 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Procedural History:

            Allen started dating one of Farrow’s daughters soon yi.  When Farrow found out about the affair a highly publicized custody trial ensued.  Allen went to court asking for custody of Satchel, Moses and Dylan or for better visitation than Farrow was allowing him.  He objected to supervised visitation.  The trial court denied Allen’s request.  Farrow was granted custody and counsel fees.  Allen has now appealed to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division.

Facts:

            Mr. Allen started a relationship with one of Farrow’s daughters named Soon Yi Previn.  Mr. Allen was also accused of having sexual abuse with the younger daughter Dylan.  From the beginning of Mr. Allen and Farrow’s relationship Mr. Allen wanted nothing to do with Ms. Farrow’s kids.  The couple tried for six months to get pregnant.  They decided to adopt a child, Dylan, only to find that Ms. Farrow was pregnant.  Mr. Allen showed little or no interest in the pregnancy.

            When Satchel was born Ms. Farrow displayed extreme attachment to the child at the expense of the other children.  Because of this Mr. Allen displayed more feelings for Dylan thinking it would hurt her.  Upon later diagnosis by experts they say that Mr. Allen’s attention to Dylan was abnormally intense.

           

Issue:

            May an adoptive father/biological father obtain increased visitation rights or custody of children when the father is known to have had a sexual relationship with one child and is alleged to have an inappropriate relationship with another child?

Holding:

            No.  However, the court found that it would be detrimental if the father didn’t see the children at all so supervised visits would be allowed.

Rationale:

            In determining who to give custody to the court used Domestic Relations Law section 70: Eschbach v. Eschbach, 56 N.Y.2d 167,171 that any determination of issues of child custody or visitation must serve the best interests of the child.  The issue of Mr. Allen’s inappropriately intense relationship with Dylan can be resolved only in a therapeutic setting.

            The trial court denied unsupervised visitation with Satchel.  Allen has an inability to understand the impact his words and actions have on the emotional well being of the children.  The expert medical testimony said it would be beneficial to have Mr. Allen in the picture still as well as their older sibling Ms. Previn.  However, it would be detrimental for the children to see both of them together so the court denied unsupervised visits with the children.

Decision:

            The Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed the trial courts decision in favor of Farrow’s custody, visitation and counsel fees.

Dicta:

            Justice Carro offers a dissention in part to this case.  Carro disagrees with the courts decision of Mr. Allen’s son Satchel saying it is unduly restrictive.  Carro says that they have a warm and loving relationship and that this relationship is is jeopardy because Mr. Allen is being estranged and alienated from his son by the current custody and visitation arrangement.