Dr. Elizabeth Morgan: 2nd "History of the Custody Crisis" Case: 1983

Looking for a Through Line

Dr. Elizabeth Morgan’s case is the second in Women’s Coalition’s “History of the Custody Crisis” series. Her case began in Washington DC in 1983 and went on until 1997.

Our first case profiled, Mary Lou’s, began and ended in the late ‘70’s, with Mary Lou never seeing her daughter again. Elizabeth’s case had a happier ending, bit still tremendous trauma and torture inflicted upon her by a Family Court judge.

The purpose of this historical series is to be able to pinpoint the nature and cause of the crisis, so an effective solution can be sought. What are the similarities in all these cases? Differences? Most importantly, what is the through line?

Above is a video of Saturday Night with Connie Chung recorded in 1988, which gives a good overview of the case. Elizabeth told her story from prison in the hope of gaining public support for protecting Hilary—which she got. There is an update at the end from 1992. [You can also watch it on youtube].

BABY HILARY DISCLOSES

Dr. Elizabeth Morgan was one of the first practicing female cosmetic surgeons. She became pregnant after a brief relationship which she left before giving birth to Hilary in 1982.

Hilary started having behavioral problems as a baby. She began disclosing sexual abuse, first by gestures demonstrating what her father was doing to her.

She often acted out what was being done to her because she didn’t have all of the vocabulary to say it in words.

She would occasionally pick up crayons and reenact her father’s rape using the crayon as an indicator of what and where he hurt her.

Then, as she became verbal, she would tell Elizabeth about the things her father was doing to her on visits with him.

Hilary disclosed various forms of sexual abuse to many experts over the next few years, including medical and psychological professionals. Hilary told about how her father would put things inside her mouth and “hiney” as she called private parts, including his “hiney”.

Elizabeth fought for supervised visits. She hired the best attorneys money could buy. No luck.

Judge Herbert Dixon kept dismissing or explaining away the disclosures and blaming Elizabeth.

Judge Herbert Dixon

Hilary began having what appeared to be body flashbacks. She would writhe around and make strange animal-like sounds.

It was like an animal suffering, only it was my little girl.

Hilary would often scream and cry and refuse to go to her father when he came to take her for visits. Elizabeth filmed one of those disturbing scenes (shown in the video) but Judge Dixon dismissed them as a “self-serving fiasco”.

Elizabeth took pictures of Hilary demonstrating what her father was doing to her by putting crayons inside her. Elizabeth was accused of making child porn.

There were at least five experts who substantiated or supported the sexual abuse disclosures. The court-appointed children’s attorney tried ten times to get Dixon to order supervised visits, to no avail. There was only one court-appointee, a custody evaluator with no experience in child sexual abuse, who did not support the “allegations”. CPS and law enforcement failed her so she was stuck in Family Court.

A daughter from the father’s previous marriage had also disclosed sexual abuse by him and had the same genital injuries. Her abuse was substantiated as well.

Elizabeth fought and fought and fought for supervised visits. Judge Dixon dismissed all the compelling evidence. He accused her of being vindictive and causing Hilary to make up the disclosures.

“IN EQUIPOISE”

Ultimately Dixon’s finding was that the “allegation” was “in equipoise”, meaning there was a 50/50 chance the father was raping Hilary, which meant it did not meet the >50% necessary to find the abuse occurred and protect her. So, if there was just .00001% more evidence, it would meet the burden and Hilary would be protected.

Elizabeth was jailed twice briefly for contempt during the custody battle, in an attempt to terrorize her into silence about the sexual abuse and compliance with the court-ordered, unsupervised visits with the father. She did not break.

Elizabeth, like countless other mothers would do in the decades to follow, finally came to the realization that no matter how much evidence there was and no matter how much public support she had, the judge was not going to protect her daughter.

So, in 1987, she sent Hilary, at five years old, into hiding with her parents. She knew that if she took her into hiding with her, she would most likely be found due to all the publicity.

Of course, Judge Dixon immediately sent Elizabeth to jail on contempt and told her she would stay there until she revealed Hilary’s whereabouts. Elizabeth chose to stay in jail. She remained there for over two years, becoming a symbol for mothers who would endure being imprisoned to protect their children.

After traveling around the world, the grandparents ended up settling with Hilary on New Zealand’s South Island.

HAPPY ENDING

In the end, Elizabeth was released from jail in 1989 through an Act of Congress prohibiting civil incarcerations of more than 18 months. She went to New Zealand to join her daughter and parents.

They could not return to the U.S. because Judge Dixon refused to retract his order for unsupervised visits. The father applied for custody in New Zealand but was ultimately denied.

In 1996, Congress passed the Elizabeth Morgan Act, which permitted children 14 and older to decide whether or not to see their father. Elizabeth and Hilary, now 14 years-old, were able to return home to the U.S. The father sued Congress and that Act was repealed, but by that time Hilary, who had changed her name to Ellen and later Elena, was safe at 21.

So there were two Acts of Congress. There was more media attention on Elizabeth’s case than any other before or since. Over a thousand news, magazine and legal articles. Protests and demonstrations. Gatherings of similarly situated mothers.

There was even a documentary—Hilary in Hiding. And a really good movie—A Mother’s Rights: The Elizabeth Morgan Story. [Neither of those is available anymore (coincidence? not), but a you can view a bad copy of the movie on youtube here.]

Judge Dixon, despite all of that, continued to refuse to order supervised visitation with the father. What could explain that?

THROUGH LINE

Why, with the tsunami of evidence and publicity, would Judge Dixon not just order supervised visitation? And how does this help to establish a through line with other Custody Crisis cases?

Elizabeth had everything going for her. She was a doctor, came from a good, supportive family, gained a ton of media and public support. Elizabeth had as much money as the father, so money was not the problem. She had access to good attorneys, so that was not the problem. She was as credible as they come being a licensed physician, but that did not keep Dixon from discrediting her.

Elizabeth was not accused of parental alienation. That tactic would arise later, so that is not the core problem. There was also not yet an insider cabal of GAL’s, minors’ counsels and psychologists who judges could count on to steer the case to the father. Judge Dixon simply gave the father what he wanted, without much help from appointees and against all the corroborating evidence.

Elizabeth described the situation as “The judge hates me.” But Judge Dixon did not hate her. He simply did not care. He had his sights set on climbing the ladder.

Dixon gained a lot from upholding the status quo—the entitling and empowering of of fathers. He was promoted to Presiding Judge and other important positions and garnered many awards. Sure, he may have gotten off on tormenting such a beautiful, accomplished woman, but that wasn’t the central drive. He gained greatly in his own status and power. And all he had to do was sacrifice a child to her rapist and destroy a mother’s life.

Judge Dixon knew the OBN [old boy network] would reward and promote him. Nobody had to tell him that. Nobody had to say a word. It’s a wink, wink, nod, nod. Actually a wink or a nod isn’t even necessary. It’s in the air. Everybody Knows—as Dr. Pridgeon’s book characterizes the cover up and enabling of child sexual abuse.

The reason nothing has changed since Elizabeth’s case in the ‘80’s, and has arguably worsened, is that activists are not identifying the crisis as a women’s issue, as being caused by a disparity in power between men and women in their roles as fathers and mothers, which the Family Court system exists to enforce.

It is obvious from Elizabeth’s case that the problem was the power that Judge Dixon wielded to be able to give the father custody regardless of facts, evidence, law or appointee spin. He had the power to deem Elizabeth a liar and that is all it took.

Abuse of judicial power is the through line in all Custody Crisis cases.

So the near-absolute judicial power is what needs to be eliminated. Family Court judges cannot be allowed to wield the critical power of deciding custody and visitation. It is too important. Our children’s lives depend on it.

Join Women’s Coalition International to fight for a new system.

NEXT

There is so much more to this story. It is impossible to recount everything Elizabeth did to protect Hilary in this column. But her case helps set the stage for the rash of cases that follow hers in the mid- to late ‘80’s.

The next in the History of the Custody Crisis will be Dorrie’s case. She was quite different than Elizabeth—a traditional, stay-at-home Southern mother. It began in 1984 just a year after Elizabeth’s was filed.

NOTE: Hilary, now Elena, recently went on a podcast to help raise awareness about sexual abuse. She talks about her experience on Overcoming Child Sexual Abuse ~ With Kathy Andersen: THE ELENA MORGAN STORY. She is a physician now and it is interesting to hear this story from her perspective as an adult.

Kudos to Elizabeth and Elena for raising awareness.

---

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

---