Open Letter From Dylan Farrow on Abuse by Woody Allan

[Project Willow]

It's always the victim's protectors who get blamed for brainwashing, ironically not the perps who, like Woody, tell their victims they must keep it a secret. The false memory meme is so deeply implanted that the pat answer now is she was abused, but by whom, we cannot say. This erases the agency, the very personhood of the victim.

Except this isn't just someone throwing speculative shade on a victim's guardian, this is the brother, the son, who for years had been within that protectorship, and is now, for whatever reason, not only driven apart from Mia Farrow but embracing Woody Allen.

Just like we see in nearly every sexual abuse case, only usually the outspoken victim is left without any sibling advocates. It's not a red flag issue, it's typical.

- Weide is not dependent on Woody Allen, and if he had good reason to believe Allen molested Dylan then making a film about that scandal or being an oft-consulted source on that controversy would serve him just as well in a raw careerist kind of way.

If you believe that you don't understand how power works in Hollywood.

- Your reticency to begin a review is surely either an excuse for an unwillingness to put your analysis on the line, or an aversion to dealing with unpleasantness. I could entirely understand the latter. If it's the former, well, you should be aware: It is not obvious, quite the opposite actually.

It's neither, it's called, I have a too busy life atm. I have an exhibit to hang tomorrow which opens on Thursday, and a pile of work so high on my desk I won't have day off until March. If this whole thing didn't strike a nerve with me I wouldn't be typing this after a twelve hour day at 11:30pm. I have no time to nit pick every point and issue, and there's plenty of commentary outside of the cited articles. If you are truly interested in the case, you can find the same information I did, much better presented and stated than I have time to construct for you here. See below.

- In the cataloging of all the power dynamics possibly at play, did it occur to you that Mia Farrow would've been able to wield life-changing power over the babysitter?

The babysitter was on Woody's payroll.

Woody Allen is presumed innocent. However, having represented many child sexual abuse victims for decades, I find Dylan’s story is highly credible. Here’s why.

1. She is not seeking anything from Woody Allen. She is not suing him. No criminal case is pending. (Nor could there be, due to the statute of limitations.) She is not selling a book or movie or anything else. Her sole motivation appears to be to tell her story. When sexual abuse victims grow up and get healthy, telling is a crucial, life-affirming step. Secrecy is toxic. Telling is liberating. It takes the shame off the victim’s shoulders and places it squarely where it belongs: on the perpetrator.

2. She spoke out immediately after the incident, when she was seven years old. Many victims take years or decades to tell. Many keep the secret to their graves. According to reports, Dylan Farrow endured Woody Allen’s alleged creepy but not criminal behaviors (putting his head on her naked lap, his thumb in her mouth) but told shortly after he sexually assaulted her, asking innocently whether this is something fathers do to daughters. This is not a story she just came up with.

3. Blaming the mother is a tired, common strategy for those accused of sexual abuse. (Mothers also get blamed when they fail to act promptly in response to a child’s accusation.) A loving, healthy mother will be sickened and outraged when a child tells on an adult for sexual abuse. This is how Mia behaved. She should not be faulted for it.

The claim that Mia Farrow manufactured all of this does not ring true because (i) Dylan reportedly told a babysitter first; (ii) Mia Farrow reportedly gave her daughter multiple opportunities to recant if she wanted to; and (iii) Dylan is now a mature, happy adult who would have no motivation to continue to lie for her mother, twenty two years later, who lives a thousand miles away from her.

Mia Farrow also did not sue Woody Allen for the sexual abuse of her daughter. She could have. She gained nothing by backing her daughter, and endured a nightmare in the courts and the media by doing so after a mandatory reporter went to the police with Dylan’s allegations. She has spent her life raising her own biological children as well as disadvantaged, often disabled children, and fiercely advocating for human rights for desperately poor Africans and victims of genocide.

4. Woody Allen not only has had a long-term, well-established interest in young girls, he’s never seen anything wrong with it. His film Manhattan, in which he stars, features a forty-two year old man in a sexual relationship with a seventeen year old high school student without any compunction whatsoever. (Don’t tell me things were different in 1979. Plenty of us opposed sexual abuse then too.) And more significantly, he demonstrated an outrageous ability to prey on Mia’s family by secretly engaging in a sexual relationship with Dylan’s teenaged sister Soon-Yi and taking explicit pornographic pictures of her. (He ultimately married her.) He made bizarre public statements showing an almost sociopathic lack of understanding of the devastating pain this caused to Mia and the siblings at the time, like:

“I didn’t find any moral dilemmas whatsoever, I didn’t feel that just because she was Mia’s daughter, there was any great moral dilemma. It was a fact, but not one with any great import. It wasn’t like she was my daughter.”

Not important! Not a moral issue at all! No wonder Woody Allen is kept from making public statements now, hiding behind his publicists and attorneys.

5. The lack of criminal findings tells us nothing. There was no finding of guilt, and no finding that Dylan or Mia was lying. In 1992 a prosecutor oddly announced that while there was “probable cause” to believe Dylan, he would not pursue the case because of the “fragility of the child victim.”

When it comes to allegations of sexual abuse, especially against wealthy, powerful men, the child is easily discredited and often loses. See, e.g., Roman Polanski. In this case the prosecutor is alleged to have persuaded Mia not to put Dylan through the ordeal of testifying. This is very common and completely outrageous. Children should be supported, prepared, and encouraged to testify. I have done this many times and they find it an empowering experience when it’s over. Testifying teaches a child to hold her head high, that she can speak her truth without being swallowed up by the earth, that she has done nothing wrong and is a hero for bringing justice to the predator and protecting future victims. Discouraging kids from testifying allows predators to escape justice and to prey on others.

Our legal system is entirely broken when it comes to child molestation. It’s heartbreaking. People contact me constantly seeking help for prosecutors who won’t prosecute, or police who won’t investigate.

6. Dylan’s story is entirely consistent with what we know about sexual abuse. Commonly, decades pass before a victim can become centered and brave enough to speak out. (Many never do.) Dylan’s details are powerful (such as getting sick looking at toy trains to this day and Woody’s claimed “grooming” behavior like putting his head in her naked lap and his thumb in her mouth) and consistent with the literature about the effects of molestation on its victims.

Woody Allen’s friend says that the idea of him molesting her in an attic when he was claustrophobic and there were others in the large house implies that child molesters behave rationally. Nothing could be further from the truth. Child molestation is inherently irrational, compulsive behavior. Little girls are commonly molested when family lurks in the next room. Little boys are victimized in homes, hotels, out of doors, anywhere and everywhere. The digital sexual assault Dylan alleged can happen in seconds and leave no trace.

Woody Allen’s publicist said that seven year old Dylan was unable to distinguish between fantasy and reality. Seven year olds do not fantasize about sex with their father. They don’t fantasize about sex at all. To a seven year old, sex is disgusting and unimaginable.

This matter will probably never be resolved, as no one is going to court now. But the least we can do is acknowledge the credibility of Dylan’s story, and, more broadly, show respect to other sexual abuse victims by avoiding tired myths about how and why they speak out.

Cited from: Lisa Bloom: Six Reasons Why Dylan Farrow is Highly Credible http://nakedlaw.avvo.com/crime/six-reasons-dylan-farrow-highly-credible.html#ixzz2sQl8Bo9x

[FourthBase]

It's always the victim's protectors who get blamed for brainwashing, ironically not the perps who, like Woody, tell their victims they must keep it a secret. The false memory meme is so deeply implanted that the pat answer now is she was abused, but by whom, we cannot say. This erases the agency, the very personhood of the victim.

Except this isn't just someone throwing speculative shade on a victim's guardian, this is the brother, the son, who for years had been within that protectorship, and is now, for whatever reason, not only driven apart from Mia Farrow but embracing Woody Allen.

Just like we see in nearly every sexual abuse case, only usually the outspoken victim is left without any sibling advocates. It's not a red flag issue, it's typical.

What? No, the situation with Moses cannot be typical.
Dylan has hardly been left without any sibling advocates.
You don't even seem to be trying here.

- Weide is not dependent on Woody Allen, and if he had good reason to believe Allen molested Dylan then making a film about that scandal or being an oft-consulted source on that controversy would serve him just as well in a raw careerist kind of way.

If you believe that you don't understand how power works in Hollywood.

Gee, could you have elaborated on that with, say, one more sentence?
Or is your word logic enough alone?

- Your reticency to begin a review is surely either an excuse for an unwillingness to put your analysis on the line, or an aversion to dealing with unpleasantness. I could entirely understand the latter. If it's the former, well, you should be aware: It is not obvious, quite the opposite actually.

It's neither, it's called, I have a too busy life atm. I have an exhibit to hang tomorrow which opens on Thursday, and a pile of work so high on my desk I won't have day off until March. If this whole thing didn't strike a nerve with me I wouldn't be typing this after a twelve hour day at 11:30pm. I have no time to nit pick every point and issue, and there's plenty of commentary outside of the cited articles. If you are truly interested in the case, you can find the same information I did, much better presented and stated than I have time to construct for you here. See below.

You had time enough to explain at length why you don't have time to explain?

Do you honestly think that the thing you quoted by Lisa Bloom contains well-presented, logical substantive information about this particular case? It contributed approximately nothing to what we already had been discussing here about this particular case. It was just one person's speculation, generalizations, intuitions, and assumptions. Look, intuition's great. But so is rigor. You are not applying any rigor.

[FourthBase]

You probably would've been better off posting this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/cult ... d_her.html

But note that even Winter thinks the Moses thing is a big, unusual deal.

[Nordic]

You're telling PW she's not applying any rigor?

Please.

You are clearly emotionally hamstrung by some sort of desperate clinging to what you want to be true. You are not showing any rigor OR any intuition!

You simply want your feelings to be validated and are cherry picking tiny bits of hope from the avalanche of reality raining down upon your head.

Really. Check your emotional attachments at the door before plunging in.

There was possibly no bigger WA fan than I, especially back in the late 70s and early 80s. I even owned one of his books. But c'mon.

[Nordic]

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... story.html

In light of Sunday’s open letter from Dylan Farrow, which resurfaced allegations that her adoptive father Woody Allen sexually assaulted her at age 7, the Internet continues to dig up disturbing stories about the celebrated writer and director’s relationship with children. Farrow coming forward follows a campaign by her mother, Mia, and brother, Ronan, to shine a brighter light on the accusations against Allen in the early nineties, around the time he left Mia for another of her adoptive daughters, Soon-Yi Previn, resulting in a hideous custody battle. Once considered tabloid scripture, the upsetting specifics had been largely forgotten, or overlooked, but no longer.
It’s all resurfacing now.
The details of the allegations against Allen, which never resulted in criminal charges, are reported in the 1992 Vanity Fair article “Mia’s Story,” by Maureen Orth, which begins, “There was an unwritten rule in Mia Farrow’s house that Woody Allen was never supposed to be left alone with their seven-year-old adopted daughter, Dylan.” A similar New York story from the same period, “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Woody and Mia (But Were Afraid to Ask),” by Phoebe Hoban, includes additional background and back-and-forth from the pair’s friends and attorneys:
From the start, Farrow’s friends say, Allen seemed “obsessed” by the little girl. He would arrive at Mia’s house at six in the morning and sit on the end of Dylan’s bed, staring at her until she woke up. He insisted that she be kept up until he got home in the evening to tuck her in. He was reluctant to leave her alone at school. His behavior struck several parents of other children as odd.
A follow-up in Vanity Fair late last year, “Momma Mia!,” repeats the allegations. (A defense of Allen, by the filmmaker behind Woody Allen: A Documentary is here.)
But a deeper look into the archives has turned up additional interviews and anecdotes suddenly deemed relevant. For instance, in the October 4, 1976 issue of People magazine, a 40-year-old Woody Allen, pre-Annie Hall, is profiled. It concludes on an upsetting-in-retrospect note about his sexuality (and disinterest in fatherhood):
"I try to have sex only with women I like a lot," Woody explains solemnly. "Otherwise I find it fairly mechanical." (He has little interest in family life: "It's no accomplishment to have or raise kids. Any fool can do it.")
He goes on: "I'm open-minded about sex. I'm not above reproach; if anything, I'm below reproach. I mean, if I was caught in a love nest with 15 12-year-old girls tomorrow, people would think, yeah, I always knew that about him." Allen pauses. "Nothing I could come up with would surprise anyone," he ventures helplessly. "I admit to it all."
Also of note is a personal essay, published in May of 1993, by the writer Nancy Jo Sales, formerly of New York and now at Vanity Fair, titled “Woody Allen, My Pen Pal,” about her running correspondence with Allen, then 42, when she was a 13-year-old girl. “I don't know how he found the time to respond to that first letter I wrote,” she recalls.
A few weeks later I received his reply:
Dear Nancy,
Hard to believe you're 13! When I was 13 I couldn't dress myself, and here you write about one of life's deepest philosophical problems, i.e., existential boredom. I guess it's hard for me to imagine a 13-year-old quoting anything but Batman -- but T. Mann? Anyway, there's too much wrong with the world to ever get too relaxed and happy. The more natural state, and the better one, I think, is one of some anxiety and tension over man`s plight in this mysterious universe ...
Next time you write, if you ever do, please list some of the books you've enjoyed and movies, and which music you've liked, and also the things you dislike and have no patience with. And tell me what kind of place Coral Gables is. What school do you go to? What hobbies do you have? How old are your parents and what do they do? What are your moods like? Are you energetic? Are you an early riser? Are you "into clothes" ... At the moment, I am re- filming some parts of my next film, which have not come out so good.
Best, Woody.
Sales, 25 years later, writes that in light of the Previn scandal and Allen’s “alleged yen for underage girls, I have listened to all the Woody jokes with discomfort and outrage — because I wonder if they are also, somehow, on me. I prefer to think they aren’t.” But Sales also wonders if she left a mark on him:
I was born during a hurricane. Water had rushed down the halls of the hospital, and nurses had screamed. At 13 I took this to be a cosmic warning to the world of my arrival — or perhaps a warning to me of the hostile nature of the universe. I'm not sure if I told Woody this in any of the many letters I sent. ("Two letters from you in one day!" he once cheerfully exclaimed.) But the young writing student Rain (Juliette Lewis) in Woody’s film Husbands and Wives was born during a hurricane too.
Watching Woody’s movies I sometimes experience a little jolt of recognition that makes me wonder if I could possibly have had some lasting effect on him, as he so affected me.
The two met once at Allen’s Manhattan penthouse; Sales brought “two older companions”:
I couldn’t say a word, and my companions filled in the silence with aimless chatter while Woody, wearing his very same clothes from Annie Hall, sat Indian-style in an armchair, nodding politely and trying to catch my eye.
Often discounted in the recent hysteria surrounding adult/child relations are the very real romantic fancies entertained by developing girls. Perhaps sometimes girls make too much of them; I think Woody saw that in me the day we met.
Our visit was brief, and when it was time to go I looked into his eyes. “Goodbye,” they said sadly.
The New Yorker television critic Emily Nussbaum also dug up a child-molestation joke, uncomfortably similar to the details alleged by Dylan Farrow, from the Allen play Honeymoon Hotel, in which an older man runs off with his son’s bride:
Triggerish, FWIW. Here's a graphic WA joke about child molestation from Honeymoon Motel, a 1-act produced 3 yrs ago: pic.twitter.com/at1Z7DrXxd
— emilynussbaum (@emilynussbaum) February 4, 2014
According to a recent review, “the comedy is so clever that only in the final moments one realizes what a muddled character the philandering husband really is. Could Allen have borrowed the idea from his own reality?” Esquire has also collected the “newly chilling themes that you can see throughout his movies.”
None of which, of course, is evidence. But Allen’s art, as well as his public persona and pen-pal relationships, are being closely examined with new eyes, as they were when the pre-Internet allegations were first made public. “It’s as if, like the picture of Dorian Grey, Allen’s films served as his conscience, leaving him free to misbehave in three dimensions,” wrote Phoebe Hoban in New York almost 22 years ago. “All those elbow-nudging jokes about child molestation (the subject pops up in at least four of his films) and the permutations of sex with 16-year-old twins don’t seem quite so funny anymore.”

[bks]

You probably would've been better off posting this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/cult ... d_her.html

But note that even Winter thinks the Moses thing is a big, unusual deal.

Except if you read a bit more closely, FB, she suggests it very well may NOT be a big deal:

If Moses has indeed cut off contact with his mother, reconciled with his father and sister/stepmother, and is talking to Weide about it, then it’s extremely puzzling that Weide chooses to quote Moses using a grand total of five words’ worth of sentence fragments.

Which was my first thought as well. Wiede gives us an exceedingly brief characterization of this interesting turn of events. If he knows more but is withholding, it's of no value to someone trying to make an evaluation of this new info. On its face, it looks like the sort of thing a skilled writer constructs with due care in order to make a turn of events sound more significant than it in fact is. He may be trying to create an impression without actually having to result to untruths. "Enjoying a renewed relationship" isn't falsifiable, and he clearly knows that.

Using direct quotes or simply sharing confirmable particulars (something on the order of "They've had lunch on several occasions this year) would support the argument better.

[FourthBase]

You're telling PW she's not applying any rigor?

Please.

You are clearly emotionally hamstrung by some sort of desperate clinging to what you want to be true. You are not showing any rigor OR any intuition!

You simply want your feelings to be validated and are cherry picking tiny bits of hope from the avalanche of reality raining down upon your head.

Really. Check your emotional attachments at the door before plunging in.

There was possibly no bigger WA fan than I, especially back in the late 70s and early 80s. I even owned one of his books. But c'mon.

Yes. She is not being rigorous. Neither are you.
Try answering those questions from before. Thanks.

[FourthBase]

She only suggests Moses may not be a big deal because she doesn't know and only hopes that it somehow isn't a big deal because then it might undermine her thesis on Allen and Weide. Until we know more about Moses, then we're forced to either trust that Weide knows exactly why Moses rejected Mia and sided with Woody, or...what? If Moses isn't a big deal, then either Weide is making shit up or Moses is consciously betraying a sister he knows was sexually abused by her father, in favor of the father. I find neither of the latter scenarios more likely than the possibility that Weide just simply knows what the situation is. If he's going to be accused of being too close to Allen to be objective, then the corollary of that is that he's close enough to know what the deal with Moses is.

[Nordic]

You're telling PW she's not applying any rigor?

Please.

You are clearly emotionally hamstrung by some sort of desperate clinging to what you want to be true. You are not showing any rigor OR any intuition!

You simply want your feelings to be validated and are cherry picking tiny bits of hope from the avalanche of reality raining down upon your head.

Really. Check your emotional attachments at the door before plunging in.

There was possibly no bigger WA fan than I, especially back in the late 70s and early 80s. I even owned one of his books. But c'mon.

Yes. She is not being rigorous. Neither are you.
Try answering those questions from before. Thanks.

Try answering the question I've put to you and others, which nobody has even attempted to answer:

Why do you believe she's lying?

Give it a try!

[FourthBase]

Yeah, uh, done. Above. Moses did not hesitate to use the word "brainwashing", remember? Unless it's just Weide being disingenuously clever with words, then: That could very well be the reason, so, not so much lying, per se. The darling of Sinatra, Rosemary herself, the tagalong of the Beatles in India, the proprietor of a global-outreach-charity...is positioned by her son as a brainwasher, and...RI members have no interest in exploring that possible dimension of the story? Because stopblamingthevictim? Think more, please.

[stillrobertpaulsen]

You're telling PW she's not applying any rigor?

Please.

You are clearly emotionally hamstrung by some sort of desperate clinging to what you want to be true. You are not showing any rigor OR any intuition!

You simply want your feelings to be validated and are cherry picking tiny bits of hope from the avalanche of reality raining down upon your head.

Really. Check your emotional attachments at the door before plunging in.

There was possibly no bigger WA fan than I, especially back in the late 70s and early 80s. I even owned one of his books. But c'mon.

Yes. She is not being rigorous. Neither are you.
Try answering those questions from before. Thanks.

Try answering the question I've put to you and others, which nobody has even attempted to answer:

Why do you believe she's lying?

Give it a try!

Actually, I did.

Now, could you try answering FourthBase's questions please?

[minime]

Thanks Willow. I can't believe there are people here who would even argue, and argue so vehemently, about this.

It's as disturbing to me as the molestation. How awful that this girl came out publicly and so many people choose to disbelieve her, all because they have some preconceived notion as to the character of the creep whose fake name is Woody Allen. He's a miserable and talented creep.

Men. Why am I one? This is why I always had more female friends than male. Men are dicks.

Nordic,

It's not about being a woman instead of a man, not about being more like a woman and less like a man. It's about being more of a man and more of a woman, at once.

Is there any forum on the internet where an RIer might go to discuss topics like this one?

[stillrobertpaulsen]

You probably would've been better off posting this.

http://www.slate.com/articles/life/cult ... d_her.html

But note that even Winter thinks the Moses thing is a big, unusual deal.

Except if you read a bit more closely, FB, she suggests it very well may NOT be a big deal:

If Moses has indeed cut off contact with his mother, reconciled with his father and sister/stepmother, and is talking to Weide about it, then it’s extremely puzzling that Weide chooses to quote Moses using a grand total of five words’ worth of sentence fragments.

Which was my first thought as well. Wiede gives us an exceedingly brief characterization of this interesting turn of events. If he knows more but is withholding, it's of no value to someone trying to make an evaluation of this new info. On its face, it looks like the sort of thing a skilled writer constructs with due care in order to make a turn of events sound more significant than it in fact is. He may be trying to create an impression without actually having to result to untruths. "Enjoying a renewed relationship" isn't falsifiable, and he clearly knows that.

Using direct quotes or simply sharing confirmable particulars (something on the order of "They've had lunch on several occasions this year) would support the argument better.

Looks like there's been an update on that link today:

Update, Feb. 5, 2014: In a piece published online on Wednesday, Moses Farrow spoke with People magazine at greater length to defend his father against the molestation allegations, which he described as false. "My mother drummed it into me to hate my father for tearing apart the family and sexually molesting my sister,” he told People. “I see now that this was a vengeful way to pay him back for falling in love with Soon-Yi.” Moses Farrow also stated, "Of course Woody did not molest my sister.” Also in People, Dylan Farrow responded to her brother's comments: "My memories are the truth and they are mine and I will live with that for the rest of my life."

You may be right, bks, that Wiede is exhibiting a lack of intellectual curiosity with the impressions he's trying to convey. But I don't think that diminishes the account of Moses or the account of Dylan. I believe them both. I have no doubt Dylan was molested as a child and have no doubt Moses grew up in an environment of brainwashing. The devil is in the details. My hope is that some of us here can examine those details and look deeper into the possibility that this may be bigger than what's being splashed across the headlines. I start with these questions:

Keeping in mind the historical relationship between the MIC mind control and charity organizations (World Vision being the most egregious example), I'm curious to know of the many charity organizations Mia Farrow is involved with, who had access to Frog Hollow during the early 90's?

Are they an NGO with intelligence links?

[brekin]

I tend to lean towards Dylan Farrows account. It is possible Mia Farrow has her own agenda and being betrayed by Allen could be enough for her to concoct an elaborate vendetta but I just don't see Dylan Farrow having anything to gain by coming forward. Even if she was coached or brainwashed by Farrow, now as an adult, why would she invite such attention and controversy? To me it reads as someone who can't live any longer with her abuser being glorified while he has caused her so much pain. I can only imagine what it would be like if someone who abused me and my trust was such a frequent popular icon.

Also there is a strange dichotomy going with Allen from different magazine pieces. He was either Mia Farrow's boyfriend who isn't interested in the raising of kids or any family life OR he's the suffocating adoptive dad in the family unit.
The thing is Mia Farrow and he did have a biological kid together, Ronan (who has disowned Allen and potentially may be Sinatra's) and they jointly adopted two kids together. That is a family. Even if Allen had his own residence and only popped in once a day he was legally and practically a father to Mia's kids (all of them). If he was just a romantic partner of Mia's why would he jointly adopt two kids together? And if he isn't into the domestic family scene why would he have been with Mia who had such a sizable brood in the first place? I mean it's like dating the Octo-Mom or Angelina Jolie and not being into kids. He lost custody of the kids. If he was just Mia's bf why would he have had custody in the first place? And if Allen isn't into the domestic scene why did he adopt two girls with Soon-Yi? When he was around 60? Unless, of course he's into the domestic scene for other reasons.

Children

Mia Farrow and Allen jointly adopted two children, Dylan Farrow (who changed her name to Eliza and later to Malone)[128] and Moshe Farrow (known as Moses); they also had one biological child, Satchel Farrow (known as Ronan Seamus Farrow). Allen did not adopt any of Farrow's other family, including Soon-Yi Farrow Previn (adopted daughter of Farrow and André Previn, now known as Soon-Yi Previn).

Following their separation, Farrow won custody of their children. Allen was denied visitation rights with Malone and could see Ronan only under supervision. Moses, who was then 15, chose not to see Allen[129] but by age 36 he had been estranged from his mother and reestablished his relationship with Allen and his step-sister. Farrow also went to court to have Allen's two adoptions with her nullified. In that case, the court decided for Allen and he continues to be their legal father.[130]

Soon-Yi Previn and Allen have two adopted daughters,[131] Bechet Dumaine (born c. 1999, China)[132] and Manzie Tio (born 2000, Texas).[133]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woody_Allen#Children

[justdrew]

And if Allen isn't into the domestic scene why did he adopt two girls with Soon-Yi?

maybe because his wife wanted children? Maybe his feelings on the subject changed?