Dorrie Dies in Hiding while Protecting Daughter from Sexual Abuse

#3 in the History of the Custody Crisis Series

Dorrie died in hiding while trying to protect her young daughter from sexual abuse.

Dorrie’s is the third case in our series: the History of the Custody Crisis. Her case gets its start in 1984 in Mississippi and was one of the first to incite the formation of “Underground Railroad” of mothers using a network of protectors to hide them. Her case got the attention of local media.

The first case profiled in the series was Mary Lou’s. It began in 1976, also in the South and also lasting only a few years, only Dorrie’s death is what ended it so quickly for her. Hers was our first “combat mortality”. The second, Dr. Elizabeth Morgan’s case, began in 1983 in Washington DC. She was one of the rare mothers who was eventually able to protect her child, but only after a long stint in prison, changed laws, and exile to New Zealand.

Looking at the history of cases in which Family Court judges switched custody to an abusive or self-serving father helps to identify the core cause of the crisis. Seeing clearly how the methodology of the opposition, the Old Boy Network, evolves over the decades, helps to distinguish the source from the symptoms. This source is what must be eliminated if women are going to have the power to keep and protect their children and their financial well-being after divorce or separation.

DORRIE’S STORY

Louise Armstrong says it best, so we will take excerpts from her book: Rocking the Cradle of Sexual Politics in the telling of Dorrie’s Story.

The house was empty.

The streets were deserted.

The phone was dead.

It was, in short, the perfect atmosphere in which to spend time with the haunting figure of a young woman, recently dead, Dorrie Lynn. It was in this house that Dorrie had hidden for what would prove to be the remainder of her life: on the run, attempting to protect her young daughter, whom Dorrie said she had seen being sexually violated by her husband. She had left and divorced him. He had then sought custody of the child.

…This was the New Orleans home of Judy Watts, director of Agenda for Children, an advocacy group. Judy, along with other activists and mothers from Louisiana and Mississippi, had become enmeshed in Dorrie’s struggles, along with those of another young mother, Karen Newsom, similarly situated.

…A modestly educated girl from the rural South, Dorrie was an unlikely tragic heroine—martyr, if you like—in this struggle: a young woman who liked to sew, iron, cook, sing to her kids; who had most likely never had a political thought before falling victim to what she could not fail to know was a deliberately enacted display of raw power, designed to silence her—though perhaps not to sentence her to death. (Dear lady,” said the judge, Sebe Dale, Jr., to a reporter on learning of Dorrie’s death. “I am extremely sorry to hear that she has expired. I don’t wish that on anyone I know or don’t know.”)

“The saddest day in my life,” Dorrie wrote in her journal, discovered the day following her death, “was telling my 8 year-old son goodbye, and my 7 month-old son. And then came my 5 year-old daughter, whom I’ve tried and will continue to protect, goodbye. They know I love them. I hope God helps each one through this horrid time we’re going through.”

It is historically fitting that the first two cases to clearly illuminate the issue as one of civil rights took place in Mississippi, locus of so many earlier civil rights struggles. These two 1987 cases were firsts in other ways as well: They were the cases that threw up our first combat mortality.

…It was the summer of 1984 when Dorrie said she saw her husband, Tim Foxworth, kiss two-year-old Chrissy in the vaginal area as the child lay on Dorrie and Tim’s bed. But she said it was when she later observed him in the bathroom, having Chrissy play with his penis, that she took the child and left.

Filing for divorce on the grounds of habitual, cruel, and inhuman treatment, Dorrie got custody of Chrissy and Tim received visitation one night every other week.

[Dorrie moves to Texas with the children and the father files a motion for contempt which was not served on Dorrie. A hearing without her occurred and, unbeknownst to her, a warrant was issued for her arrest.]

…On July 8^th she was arrested for contempt and was jailed for the next ten days.

Released from jail, Dorrie sought help from the district attorney…who told her that before criminal proceedings could occur, Dorrie had to have physical evidence of the sexual abuse. Still complying with visitation, Dorrie took Chrissy—now four—to the Hancock General Hospital emergency room. The examining physician filed a “Report of Suspected Battered Child” with the Hancock County Welfare Department, noting the physical symptoms he observed and suggesting Chrissy may have been sexually abused. He then sent Dorrie on to meet with the Hancock County Welfare Department, where a caseworker recommended an examination by a pediatrician experienced in child sexual abuse cases.

A week later, the worker and Dorrie took Chrissy to Dr. Bryant McCrary, who examined Chrissy and also filed a “Report of Suspected Battered Child.” He stated that his findings were “very suspicious of child abuse.” In addition, Dr. McCrary notified Margaret Alfonso, assistant district attorney for Hancock County, ofo his finding of possible abuse.

Alfonso interviewed Chrissy the next day. Chrissy was explicit about the sexual abuse that had occurred during the November visits and Alfonso was convinced that the evidence was strong enough to warrant advising the district attorney to go forward with criminal prosecution.

Alfonso also recommended Garnett Harrison to Dorrie, suggesting Harrison file for modified visitation to protect the child from abuse.

In light of what was to follow, it seems almost cruel that, up to this point, Dorrie had been given nothing but corroboration that what she was doing was just and right, and encouragement to proceed. Had Dorrie any knowledge that at roughly this same time, Elizabeth Morgan in Washington D.C. was found in contempt of court and jailed for similarly trying to protect her child? Or that Virginia LaLonde had shortly before been driven to flee Massachusetts rather than comply with the demand that her daughter visit with the father the child said had abused her?

…Each of the mothers begins by believing that this is about no more than the protection of a child who states unequivocally to her and, at least initially, to medical doctors, psychologists, and caseworkers, that he or she is being abused. It is only over time that the mothers discover that systematic and deliberate vilification, denigration, punishment, and mockery of her has become the only significant point: The child is the trophy, to be ceremoniously awarded to the man whose paternal right the mother has so recklessly elected to challenge. Far from being male-defying radicals, these women are then radicalized by indomitable events—one by one by one. Each, however, would formulate her defiance not in terms of her own rights, but in terms of the rights of her child.

As Dorrie, addressing Judge Dale, would write in her journal, “No child deserves to be raped and no child should have to live with her rapist.”

…Judge Dale rendered his opinion in Dorrie’s case. Noting that she’d had two kids out of wedlock, he found her an unfit mother. He said:

“The living circumstances and lifestyle of Dorrie Lynn shown to exist since her return to Mississippi are sorely lacking in stability and are reflective of lack of maturity and sense of responsibility on the part of Dorrie Lynn as it pertains to Chrissy, and subjects Chrissy to influences and environment which the court finds to be detrimental to the best interest of Chrissy.”

He transferred full custody of Chrissy to the father.

Both Karen and Dorrie decided independently to evade the court order at least long enough to have the children evaluated at Children’s Hospital in New Orleans by Dr. Rebecca Russell, a pediatrician specially trained in the use of the colposcope—a diagnostic device that can see what the naked eye cannot.

Dr. Russell concluded that both children had been harmed in ways that could only have been caused by molestation, not by some self-inflicted injury. About Chrissy, Russell wrote that she had found physical evidence of old, well-healed trauma to the hymen and perihymenal area consistent with repeated penetration by some object.” She explained, “Several of the genital findings could only be caused by molestation, and not from vaginal infection or self-stimulation by the child.”

Harrison filed an appeal for a new hearing based on new evidence on behalf of both children with the Mississippi Supreme Court. Both petitions were denied.

Both the Sun Herald and the Clarion-Ledger Daily News recorded [the father’s] attorney’s position: “This is a classic example of a mother crying child abuse where there is no child abuse.” But they simply did not know what to make of Dale’s grandiosity, the spectacularly punitive act of severing the children from the mothers. “Judge Dale dismissed as unconvincing the expert testimony that resulted from [the children’s psychological and physical examinations], saying the conclusions those experts reached were ‘not supported by any factual basis’ and were even reminiscent of the Salem with trials…But for the judge to go far beyond that and accuse the mother of abusing the children, then take custody away from her, is incomprehensible. This is especially so since the psychiatrist Judge Dale, himself, had appointed as a special advisor to the court had recommended some of the very psychological sessions the judge found abusive.”

Both Karen and Dorrie stated they had now hidden their children in defiance of a court order awarding custody to the fathers.

…Dorrie’s hearing was set for the following week. She did not show up. Instead, she sent a statement, exonerating Garnett Harrison and taking full responsibility for her decision. She said, “I am certain as I am preparing this statement that I will be put in Marion county jail if I were to appear at my hearing.” And, “I will not turn custody  over to the father of my child who I honestly believe has sexually abused her.”

And, “It seems to me that one mother in jail protecting her children from sexual abuse is one too many.” And, as though with uncanny prescience: “To go to jail for me means a life sentence.”

An order was issued for Dorrie’s arrest.

The day of her hearing, Dorrie wrote, “I’ve chosen not to go…How dare Judge Dale order me to jail for protecting what God gave me to love and protect, Chrissy.” The next day, she wrote, “I’m glad I didn’t go. I think they intended to lynch me. I saw the news coverage…Back to Custody Battle. How do you call rape a custody battle.”

As for Dorrie, for a month now she had suffered what she thought were severe migraine headaches. Early in September, she was brought to Judy Watts’s home, where, Judge Watts told me, “Dorrie was sick off and on through the time she was with me. When she wasn’t in pain, though she kept busy around the house. She cleaned, washed dishes, did laundry. She sewed and cooked. She’d have dinner waiting for me when I came home. She read magazines and books.

Dorrie’s journal, through this period, testifies to chronic torment, acute isolation, misery at being apart from her children—and to the abysmal dislocation experienced by someone who has suddenly stepped outside the world as she has always known and believe it to be. Dorrie’s experience of individual men—certainly her experience of [the father]—might not have been sublime. But her journal describes her complete shock that so much deadly force would be brought to bear against her simply for doing what she couldn’t imagine anyone not doing, what she no doubt would have expected anyone—male or female—to do for a child who was testifying to having been sexually abused.

And—virtually without relief—there were the excruciating headaches…She had insisted vehemently from the time she came to Judy Watts’s house that she would not go to a hospital. They’d learn who she was, and she’d be sent back to jail, and she’d probably stay there the rest of her life because she would never, ever tell where Chrissy was.

…Now, the screws for Dorrie and Chrissy began tightening. [The father’s] attorney started threatening to bring kidnapping charges against the women who had confessed. Garnett Harrison’s phone records were subpoenaed, and she was threatened with prosecution. She was certain her phone was bugged. The Federal Bureau of Investigation was soon to be called in on the case. A federal grand jury was convened.

Dorrie missed most of this. On October 13, she was stricken by the brain aneurysm that would rupture and kill her. She was taken to the hospital, where she died the next day.

Her last journal entry is dated September 21. It reads, in part: “Judge Dale, Honorable, isn’t that what they call you? Honorable, isn’t that what you’re supposed to be? I find this hard to believe.

“An honorable man would protect the innocent rather than the accused. At least that’s what I always believed. I thought justice was what protected the victim. How wrong I’ve been for 27 years…”

The entry is signed “A Loving Mom.”

By mid-November of 1987, the hunt for five-year-old Chrissy or, apparently more paramount, the hunt for those hiding her, had begun to rival any all-systems-alert for an escaped desperado. Along with the threats of kidnapping charges against the people she was with, there were rumors that subpoenas had been readied for anyone who might know of her whereabouts.

END OF EXCERPTS

---

AFTER DORRIE DIES

Chrissy was found in San Francisco. A judge there took jurisdiction and only allowed her be sent back to Mississippi after Judge Dale assured him personally, on the phone, that Chrissy would not be given back to the father until a proper investigation was conducted and Chrissy had independent representation.

Judge Dale lied to the San Francisco judge. He immediately gave Chrissy back to the father. Appeals were filed by advocates over the years to follow. Some were won; some were lost. But Chrissy, as far as anyone knows, was never protected.

A movement was started with protests and rallies. But nothing seemed to make any difference. Children continued to be taken from mothers and given to abusive fathers.

The depressing thing is that nothing we do seems to make a difference.

Garnett Harrison was targeted for destruction for having dared to zealously represent Dorrie and Karen. She was facing jail on false charges. The Old Boys made sure to make an example of her: dare to fight for mothers and children and you will end up in jail yourself. This is why attorneys to this day are not eager to represent women post-separation; and the ones who do, do not represent them zealously, in fact often sell them out knowing full well they will be rewarded by the Boys (or at least not punished).

THROUGH LINES

There are many through lines from these first cases to the present day. It is already clear by the ‘80’s that Child Protective Services defers to Family Court judges. Cases are shunted into family courts, even when clear evidence of abuse is present, when there is a father fighting for custody. And District Attorneys will not prosecute cases that involve otherwise respectable fathers. That leaves mothers trapped in Family Court, right where the Old Boys want them.

Dorrie’s is the third case in which there is no significant presence of court-appointed children’s attorneys, evaluators, therapists, mediators, et. al. The term “parental alienation” is not yet being used, but Dorrie was found to have influenced Chrissy and both Mary Lou and Elizabeth Morgan were found to have knowingly caused their daughters to falsely disclose sexual abuse. They supposedly created this incredible chaos in their lives because they were vindictive—the age-old sexist trope.

All three mothers were also accused of other blame-the-mom type things to justify switching custody—the spaghetti on the wall strategy. Dorrie was said to be unfit, as she had had two children out of wedlock.

All these cases point to the fact that the problem is not what the judges falsely find; it is that judges can falsely accuse women—of anything. Which is why the campaign to ban alienation will make no significant difference, nor will new laws within the system.

These early cases also make clear that the profiteering by court-appointed lackeys, i.e. the “cottage industry”, is not the core problem, as it can and will happen with or without them. They just give judges cover and make it easier to accomplish their dirty work.

So, if judges are going to wrongly switch custody to men regardless of what women are accused of, with or without lackeys, that shows the system is rotten to the core. It is designed from the top down to empower and entitle men. In other words, systemic sexism is the problem and the only way to stop that, and the financial devastation that accompanies it, is to dismantle the Family Court system and have post-separation cases heard in regular courts with juries, where judges do not have the power to take and endanger children.

The Women’s Coalition has initiated a new platform that includes the financial destruction women are experiencing due to Family Court litigation, along with the custody injustice: the Post-Separation Crisis.

We have a new activism arm to fight on this platform: Sisters in Solidarity. Women are joining together under the shared knowledge that systemic sexism is causing the Post-Separation Crisis and the acknowledgement that a new system is necessary to end it.

If you would like to join, please read this post and fill out this brief form with your email.

If you have extra time to devote to activism would like to be a “Sister Aide” please fill out this form.

---

You may also support the Coalition’s work through a one-time or recurring contribution through PayPal.

---