Trail of Abuse in the ‘Hilary’ Custody Case : Television: Tonight’s ‘Frontline’ presents an updated BBC program that uses sensationalism in advancing the claims of the mother.

The Morgan-Foretich child custody war may be the most stunning case of abuse in America these days. Abuse by the media.

It continues tonight on the PBS program “Frontline,” which is presenting an updated version of a sometimes irresponsible BBC documentary already shown in England and four times this month on Lifetime cable. Airing at 9 on Channels 28 and 15, and 10 on Channel 50, it’s titled “Hilary in Hiding.”

The “Hilary” is 7-year-old Hilary Foretich, a victim if there ever was one. When it comes to media coverage, in fact, both she and her father are casualties.

Hilary’s divorced parents are plastic surgeon Elizabeth Morgan and oral surgeon Eric Foretich. Morgan was released last year after spending 25 months in a Washington, D.C., jail for hiding her daughter rather than obeying a judge’s order to allow Foretich unsupervised visits with Hilary.

Morgan claims that Foretich began sexually abusing Hilary when she was 2 1/2, a charge that Foretich strenuously denies and that no court has upheld. Foretich accuses his ex-wife of being insane and has claimed that she sexually abused Hilary.

In February, Hilary was discovered living with her maternal grandparents in Christchurch, New Zealand. Morgan has joined her there, and the case is now in New Zealand courts.

Foretich obtained an order from U.S. District Judge Stanley Sporkin on April 6 stopping Lifetime from showing the BBC program on grounds that portions would cause Hilary “irreparable harm.” But that order was overturned by a U.S. Court of Appeals, which ruled that the order would amount to “prior restraint” of media.

The BBC-produced program recounts the ugly battle over Hilary and, appallingly, includes footage of her at age 4, graphically using anatomically correct dolls in conversation with her mother (Morgan: “Tell me where he puts it”) to show how she was allegedly molested by her father (Hilary: “The daddy took off the pants . . .”).

In other words, what we have here, with the obvious blessing of her mother--who supplied the tape--is a child now presenting almost five minutes of TV show-and-tell about something so private that she insisted at the time (this is also on camera) that two therapists working on behalf of her mother leave the room.

Now, thanks to TV, the world is in the room.

After strenuous lobbying by Foretich’s attorney, Elaine J. Mittleman, executive producer David Fanning said Friday that “Frontline” would shorten the anatomical doll section and in some instances substitute paraphrasing for actual language. He added: “It’s a very hard decision to balance the evidence with the rights of the child.”

What evidence? A child saying things in a camera session arranged by her mother after Hilary had been mostly under Morgan’s control during a hateful custody battle is evidence?

Here’s another opinion: That Morgan would allow this tape to be released--and that the BBC, Lifetime and PBS would show any part of it--is a disgrace and an invasion of Hilary’s privacy, which even now at age 7 she is too young to comprehend. Just because her mother approved showing the tape to the world doesn’t make it right.

In granting the restraining order that was later reversed on a constitutional issue, Judge Sporkin used strong words, wondering why “something as private as this was turned over to the media.” Was it, he asked, “to make a circus of this thing?” You wonder.

Sporkin likened supplying Hilary’s footage to the media to the way a “child pornographer . . . goes out and abuses a little child.”

Something else about the footage--the BBC’s fuzzing over of Hilary’s face, as if her manipulation of the dolls were some kind of X-rated adult video--also understandably disturbed Sporkin.

Why else, but for titillation, is her face obscured? It can’t be to protect her, for her face is clearly shown elsewhere on the program, and a glossy photograph of her accompanies the “Hilary in Hiding” publicity packet sent to the press.

This is not the first time that a videotape of Hilary made by Morgan or her supporters--and obviously intended to damage Foretich--has surfaced on national TV.

On CBS not long ago, “Saturday Night With Connie Chung” aired a story about the case that included a 1986 home video of Hilary becoming hysterical when Foretich showed up for his court-authorized, unsupervised visitation.

After being barred from entering the house by Morgan and Morgan’s father, Foretich was shown angrily pushing his way in as Morgan--quite melodramatically and mindful of the camera, it seemed--continually implored him to leave for Hilary’s sake. He did leave--and without Hilary.

Although the footage made Hilary appear terrified of a ranting invader, it was evidence of nothing, for Hilary just as easily could have been reacting to something her mother told her about her father as to something he actually did.

TV brutalizes both Hilary and Foretich, although in different ways.

Coming May 20 is the CBS movie “In the Best Interest of the Child,” which is about a woman jailed after heroically fleeing with her small daughter and hiding her to save her from being molested by her ex-husband, who has been granted unsupervised visitation. Although the father is not portrayed as an ogre, the only logical conclusion from seeing the movie is that he molested his daughter.

Although its parallels to the Morgan-Foretich case are striking and the movie’s executive producer, Robert Papazian, met with Morgan while she was in jail, the story “is not based” on the Morgan-Foretich case, CBS and the producers insist.

Who are they kidding?

The CBS movie undoubtedly will be viewed as an endorsement of Morgan and an indictment of Foretich, as will another movie from ABC ratifying Morgan’s charge that Foretich raped Hilary.

Morgan sold her movie rights to producer Linda Otto. Otto, however, will make “The Elizabeth Morgan Story” for ABC “without Elizabeth’s participation,” the producer said Monday. “No. 1, she’s not here and, No. 2, she’s under a gag order in New Zealand.” She said that she was negotiating with a “secondary source” whom she declined to name.

Otto said that she is determined to protect Hilary. But won’t a movie rehashing the case ultimately cause the child more harm than good? “I don’t know the answer to that,” she said.

Despite Morgan being at least temporarily excluded, the movie will still tell “Elizabeth’s story” and give the impression that Foretich sexually abused the child without actually showing molestation, she said.

“Elizabeth and I spent a lot of time together, and I will honor what I believe to be our agreement,” she said. “But I will document everything. Nothing about this movie will be contestable.”

However, she has no plans to ask Foretich for his account. “I’ve been around this issue a number of years,” said Otto, a child-molestation victim herself who has focused her producing career on documentaries and stories about children as victims, including the influential NBC docudrama “Adam” and “Unspeakable Acts,” a recent CBS docudrama about a sexual-abuse scandal at a Florida day care center.

“There is a lot of evidence (against Foretich),” she said. “I am going to reveal the truth.”

Morgan’s “truth,” that is--the one that no court has accepted.

This is an old story for Foretich. Although no one knows which parent is telling the truth, it’s Morgan who has been portrayed in the media mostly as a courageous, suffering, Madonna-like heroine and Foretich mostly as villainous.

This is a case where the court of public opinion may also have been shaped by TV performance. Morgan is telegenic, usually appearing wounded, vulnerable and on the verge of motherly tears. Foretich, who says he began accepting TV interviews only in response to his ex-wife’s many interviews from her jail cell, is a disaster on camera, often tending to stutter and flash anger when goaded by the kind of aggressive questions that Morgan rarely seems to get.

Judged on their TV appearances alone, Morgan is the protective mother, Foretich the crazed father. But TV appearances may have no bearing on facts.