Dr. Leventhal never saw Dylan:

https://radaronline.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/yale-new-haven-hospital-allen.pdf

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.

From the judge's ruling in the case:

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.

And interestingly, Dr. Leventhal himself never met with Dylan. I believe the Connecticut Magazine article goes into how the Yale-New Haven study was flawed.

But despite all this, including the judge's serious concerns about the study, Woody Allen had no problem touting it as vindicating him, the same way he and his defenders have no trouble claiming he passed a polygraph, without mentioning that he refused to take one from the police and instead "passed" the one that he took privately and paid for.

And this (and there's still much more to read in that opinion):

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.

I knew a lot about this case and Woody Allen, but have learned still more recently, and all I've learned demonstrates to me that he's a liar without a conscience and concern for others. The judge wrote at length about how he's self-absorbed and seems to lack any true consideration for the well-being of other people, and gave many examples of how that's so. And about 25 years later, those same sorts of things were evident in this interview he gave:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/woody-allen-is-creepy-af-about-soon-yi-in-the-hollywood-reporter_us_572a39e4e4b016f378946e02

Oh, and the judge's opinion addresses the major points of the pro-Allen testimony given by Dr. Coates which the old NY Times article is about.

'In short, Allen was already in therapy for acting inappropriately towards Dylan."

This is not actually the case (This is because you need find the actual testimony that occurred to get the full flavor of this case.)

Yes, it is actually the case. Your response was an attempt to muddy the waters, but if there is possibly anyone here who both cares about truth, justice, and protecting all innocent parties, including children, and thinks that what you wrote might be just an impartial opinion, I encourage whoever that might be to actually read all they can for themselves on the facts of the case, including the judge's opinion and the other articles linked to here.

Perhaps it is time you learned about Temple of Kek.

Sold.

And then from one of I believe two of Woody Allen's losses on appeal.

• We find the fact that Mr. Allen took them at a time when he was formally assuming a legal responsibility for two of Ms. Previn's siblings to be totally unacceptable. The distinction Mr. Allen makes between Ms. Farrow's other children and Dylan, Satchel and Moses is lost on this Court. The children themselves do not draw the same distinction that Mr. Allen does. This is sadly demonstrated by the profound effect his relationship with Ms. Previn has had on the entire family. Allen's testimony that the photographs of Ms. Previn "were taken, as I said before, between two consenting adults wanting to do this" demonstrates a chosen ignorance of his and Ms. Previn's relationships to Ms. Farrow, his three children and Ms. Previn's other siblings. His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen's tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.

• Allen's various inconsistent statements to Farrow of his intentions regarding Ms. Previn and his attempt to have Dr. Schultz explain the relationship to Dylan in such a manner as to exonerate himself from any wrong doing, make it difficult for this Court to find that his expressed concern for the welfare of the family is genuine.

• While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur.

• Moreover, even if the abuse did not occur, it is evident that there are issues concerning Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense relationship with this child that can be resolved only in a therapeutic setting.

• While the court stated that it was not concerned for Satchel's physical safety, it was concerned by Mr. Allen's "demonstrated inability to understand the impact that his words and deeds have upon the emotional well being of the children". We agree. The record supports the conclusion that Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child. His failure to understand the effect of such exposure upon Satchel as well as upon his other children is evidenced by his statement on direct examination in which he stated: "If you ask me personally, I would say the children, the children adore Soon Yi, they adore me, they would be delighted, if you asked me this personally, I would say they would be delighted and have fun with us, being taken places with us. But, I don't want to give you my amateur opinion on that. That's how I feel. And I know it counts for very little."

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197ad2d3271461

And then from one of I believe two of Woody Allen's losses on appeal.

>We find the fact that Mr. Allen took them at a time when he was formally assuming a legal responsibility for two of Ms. Previn's siblings to be totally unacceptable. The distinction Mr. Allen makes between Ms. Farrow's other children and Dylan, Satchel and Moses is lost on this Court. The children themselves do not draw the same distinction that Mr. Allen does. This is sadly demonstrated by the profound effect his relationship with Ms. Previn has had on the entire family. Allen's testimony that the photographs of Ms. Previn "were taken, as I said before, between two consenting adults wanting to do this" demonstrates a chosen ignorance of his and Ms. Previn's relationships to Ms. Farrow, his three children and Ms. Previn's other siblings. His continuation of the relationship, viewed in the best possible light, shows a distinct absence of judgment. It demonstrates to this Court Mr. Allen's tendency to place inappropriate emphasis on his own wants and needs and to minimize and even ignore those of his children. At the very minimum, it demonstrates an absence of any parenting skills.

>Allen's various inconsistent statements to Farrow of his intentions regarding Ms. Previn and his attempt to have Dr. Schultz explain the relationship to Dylan in such a manner as to exonerate himself from any wrong doing, make it difficult for this Court to find that his expressed concern for the welfare of the family is genuine.

>While the tendency of Dylan to withdraw into a fantasy and the inconsistencies in her account of the events of August 4, 1992, noted particularly by the Yale-New Haven team, must be taken into account in the evaluation of these serious allegations, the testimony given at trial by the individuals caring for the children that day, the videotape of Dylan made by Ms. Farrow the following day and the accounts of Dylan's behavior toward Mr. Allen both before and after the alleged instance of abuse, suggest that the abuse did occur.

>Moreover, even if the abuse did not occur, it is evident that there are issues concerning Mr. Allen's inappropriately intense relationship with this child that can be resolved only in a therapeutic setting.

While the court stated that it was not concerned for Satchel's physical safety, it was concerned by Mr. Allen's "demonstrated inability to understand the impact that his words and deeds have upon the emotional well being of the children". We agree. The record supports the conclusion that Mr. Allen may, if unsupervised, influence Satchel inappropriately, and disregard the impact exposure to Mr. Allen's relationship with Satchel's sister, Ms. Previn, would have on the child. His failure to understand the effect of such exposure upon Satchel as well as upon his other children is evidenced by his statement on direct examination in which he stated: "If you ask me personally, I would say the children, the children adore Soon Yi, they adore me, they would be delighted, if you asked me this personally, I would say they would be delighted and have fun with us, being taken places with us. But, I don't want to give you my amateur opinion on that. That's how I feel. And I know it counts for very little."

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1994524197ad2d3271461

And what the judge's opinion also touches on is that Satchel (Ronan) was in therapy first because they had concerns about his behavior. That's concerning on its own. He apparently as a small boy wanted nothing to do with Allen and often tried to kick him. Very unusual behavior for a very young boy towards his father -- or the man publicly identified as his father. From everything that even Mia and Ronan have said, it does seem more than likely that Frank Sinatra is his actual father.

Yes, if he wasn't Woody Allen the case would have gone very differently. He's confirmed to have done things like this (from page 5 of the judge's ruling):

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.

It's how to understand how that therapist didn't see Allen's attentions to Dylan as sexual, except, again, it was Wood Allen the director. Ronan Farrow wrote he had a virtual army doing his bidding to protect him.

The judge also went into how the people who did the Yale investigation actually declined to testify but just submitted an affidavit saying there was no abuse.

Other articles:

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-farrow-woody-allen-me-too-20171207-story.html

http://www.connecticutmag.com/the-connecticut-story/mia-farrow-s-vanity-fair-interview-references-connecticut-magazine-article/article_4327cac7-ffef-5eb5-9c19-fdaf70e84855.html (haven't read it yet but supposedly Allen hired private investigators to try to dig up dirt on law enforcement personnel assigned to the case)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/my-father-woody-allen-danger-892572