63 Responses to “Jennifer Collins: 'Glenn Sacks owes my family an apology' over Controversial Parental Alienation Case”

Note: The views expressed by readers in the reader comments do NOT necessarily reflect those of Glenn Sacks. The fact that the comment is posted on this blog does NOT signify that Glenn Sacks agrees with it. Posters' views are those of the posters alone--Glenn's views can ONLY be found in the blog post itself, not the comments.  

While blog commenters are given great freedom on this blog, there are some rules of moderation. To read those, click here.

1. Danny Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

   So she writes you a letter that basically says that you must admit that you were wrong based on nothing more than her own words? Yes Glenn you were wrong to ask if anyone wanted to investigate the situation and come back with hard evidence, no matter which way it fell. Yes Glenn you were wrong to give that "batterer" the benefit of the doubt and not instantly condemning him (again based on her words alone).

   And yes Glenn in the event that it does turn out that her father was abusive this one case alone TOTALLY destroys the concept of Parental Alienation.

   Plain and simple when all the public is given is the, "bad dad, bold self sacrificing mom, poor innocent children" routine we are supposed to lap it up no questions asked. But since you decided to ask questions you are the villain because to not automatically believe the bold self sacrificing mom and poor innocent chidren must mean that you support the bad dad.

2. Charlie Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm

   Collins continues to look for a life, and exploits the media in that quest. Another person not happy with her 15 minutes of fame.

3. TF Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm

   So, she is alienated from her father. What does she remember about her father that was not drilled into her by her mother? If she doesn't condemn her father, her mother will reject her. Abuse is a great word without any clear definition, so is anything which is unpleasant abuse?
   Look at any PA site and see that the daughter's reaction is typical of alienated children. Will the daughter talk to her father or hear what he has to say and offer; NO. Has the daughter talked to all the others who supported her father,NO. That is the Parental Alienation.
   Pure brainwashing; just as the North Koreans thank their Great Leader when foreign doctors come to North Korea to restore their lost eyesight. The alienated child praises the aliennator for her alienation.

4. Nelson Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 5:42 pm

   "Dear Mr. Sacks,

   I say it so it must be the truth, so there!"

   E-v-i-d-e-n-c-e, madam, e-v-i-d-e-n-c-e.

5. crljones Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 5:45 pm

   Glenn, You have the equanimity of a Saint. Your comments in video and on blog strive to be calm, sensitive and unbiased yet this is how this harpy responds. It says everything about her we need to know. The only burning question is how a court could not see the same thing.

6. David M Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 6:11 pm

   Of course no hard evidence. This poor girl doesn't realize that if she were told something since she was a small child and for many years (brainwashing) there is almost no way her mind could be objective.

   This happens with many muslim children. They are told at a very early age and for many years to hate the infidels (Christians and westerners). Is there any doubt why many hate us without ever having met us?

7. Danny Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 6:43 pm

   David M:
   This happens with many muslim children. They are told at a very early age and for many years to hate the infidels (Christians and westerners). Is there any doubt why many hate us without ever having met us?
   What I find shocking is that more than likely this woman is being supported by people who refuse to believe the possibility that she was brainwashed but will at the same time talk about how muslim women are drilled from a very early age with a belief of how they are "supposed to act" in relation to muslim men.

8. Sister Charity Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm

   This family is suffering and Jennifer has obviously been abused by one of her parents, but I am not sure that it is her father that was abusive to her. She sounds very much like other adults that I have spoken to when they are still under the control of an alienator. I pray that she is able to move on to have a healthy and truthful relationship with both of her parents.

   It has been my experience that the majority of people that attack PA/HAP have never lived with the pain of the targeted parent nor that of the alienated child. If someone really looks at the tatics used by a person using PA/HAP and the tatics used by a person that actually is abusive and guilty of DV they might be surprised to find out that it's the same hurt inflicted on the victims.

9. Infidel Says:
   December 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm

   I believe that Jennifer Collins was a victim of PAS based on her letter to Glenn. Whenever a women use the term "real man" to try and shame a man into doing something it raises flags. Maybe a poor little girl with no father had to come up with reasons in her 8 year old mind for the trauma she felt. "If he really loved me he'd cross the ocean and come get me", she may have told herself while crying herself to sleep over the pain in her heart. And the mother fed the dark hole by poisoning the memory of the man in a hundred ways overt and covert.

   Geraldo, Mr. Prompt, is such a piece of sycophant slime. Glenn, how you shared a stage with him like a gentleman shows a lot of intestinal fortitude and restraint!

10. Lisa KS Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 8:05 pm

    Okay, this is it. Eww! I'm sorry, Glenn, but this is so gross, I can't do this anymore. At all! You've printed many stories since I first started reading your blog about kids who talk about how their mother unfairly alienated them from their father, etc., and never once have you suggested that your readers investigate any of them to ascertain whether or not they were telling the "truth." And yes, Jennifer Collins has every right to be offended--you're running right over her by saying you have "no idea" what happened between her and her father, because she's clearly willing to say what did, and she is twenty-three years old...not three, not thirteen--twenty-three...and you are acting as if she doesn't exist--you pointedly did not contact her at all. You take the word of any other twenty-three-year-old...as long as that twenty-three-year-old is claiming that he or she was abused, abducted or kidnapped wrongly by his or her mother. And if the father is asking you to do this, you've been remarkably silent about that--it really appears that you personally just hate the existence of this story and are determined to crush it underfoot--putting up some diatribe from someone who is only willing to identify him or herself by initials who claims that during supervised visits, they got the real idea of what was going on..?

11. mjaybee Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm

    Well, Lisa:

    Since Jennifer Collins may have been on the receiving end of distorted information about her father and was abducted from him, don't you think that may make her an unreliable source of information?

    Isn't the search for objective information in cases like this more important than the he said/she said hearsay which so often sways judges in Family Court?

    For a biased, censorship-loving blogger who usually only tolerates one side of a story on your own blog, you sure have a lot of nerve criticizing Glenn for an open-minded search for objective information.

12. Dittohd Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm

    Sorry, when I listened to that girl on the video and she said her father was "always" abusive, I immediately stopped believing her. She didn't strike me as credible at all. She gave the impression that she came to that show ready for bear and just couldn't wait to heap on her father, and I'd bet she remembers of him only what her mother told her.

13. it's pat Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 8:39 pm

    Remember, Patty Hearst was 20 when she was abducted by the SLA and brainwashed by her captors into joining them.

    In feminist-land, if a writer in the media makes comments on a story in the media that haven't been passed by the PC police, it's "gross". Of course, it doesn't matter that the comments and criticism of the comments are open for all of the public to see- it's still "gross". As always, woman good: man bad.

14. Glenn Sacks Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 8:53 pm

    Lisa—I’m surprised by your comments, I thought I was being fair to Jennifer. This case isn't a reader's letter I've reprinted without a last name--Jennifer has chosen to make her case a media cause celebre. It seems fair enough for me to look into it (or have a volunteer look into it) before judging it. There are a few aspects of this which you’re probably not aware of which you may want to consider.

    In my blog post 'Glenn, I'd Like You to Publicize My Case' I wrote:

    “One common misunderstanding is that people think that I will cover a case from scratch. I do not do this for several reasons. For one, I do not know if what you are telling me is true. Yes, you will offer to send me your case file, or any documentation you have, and I am sure you are quite sincere in this offer. However it grinds up an enormous amount of time for me to do that research, and my time for large, unpaid projects is limited. However, if you already have an article on it from your local paper or TV station, I may consider your case to be publicly vetted. If you send me the link, I may well be able to write about it on my blog, or even in a newspaper column. But I will not write something based upon a case that has not already been vetted.”

    Here you’re essentially asking me to take Jennifer’s word for it, against the ruling of the court, and independent of any evidence except her and her mother’s claims. I think that’s asking a lot. And contrary to what you may believe, I generally don’t do that for fathers, either.

    Also, Jennifer was very young—seven years old or younger—when the alleged abuse happened. Given that children are sometimes programmed by an alienating parent to believe various things about the target parent, I think it’s fair of me to not simply take this as the gospel truth.

    Thirdly, time and again the Feminist Family Law Movement has foisted cases on the media—cases which I’ve investigated--which have turned out to not be at all what the FFLM claims. For example, the Sadia Loeliger case was publicized by the same people who are helping to publicize the Jennifer Collins case. The FFLM told us that Loeliger was a heroic mom who had lost custody of her daughter due to her ex-husband's family court machinations.

    In reality, Sadia Loeliger's loss of custody had nothing to do with her ex-husband--a California Juvenile Court had concluded that she had committed multiple acts of child abuse. The court moved to protect Sadia's then eight-year-old daughter Fatima by declaring her a dependent of the Juvenile Court and placing her with her father, physician Scott Loeliger, against whom there has never been any finding of wrongdoing.

    Documented evidence of Sadia's violence and abuse abounds. To pick one example of many, Doris Nava Arellano, Sadia's babysitter for 18 months, testified against her, noting in a court affidavit that "every child in the house is afraid" of Sadia. Arellano asserts that Sara, Sadia's then 15-year-old niece who was living with Sadia, "actually has scars on the back of her legs and on the left side of her head from Ms. Loeliger's attacks on her."

    I have good reason to be skeptical of FFLM claims about Parental Alienation cases, and will reserve judgment on the Collins case until I know more. If you would like to investigate the case—including looking at the father’s court filings to get his side of the story--I’d be happy to publish your findings here on this blog.--GS

15. StV Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 9:15 pm

    I was once in an academic presentation where a woman accused the male speaker of "raping" her - she meant it metaphorically because he was assertive in his position and did not allow her to share her "lived experience" and "other ways of knowing".

    The feminist movement has consistently promoted "emotional truth" over "rational truth". Emancipatory movements like to eschew objective (rational) truth as "socially constructed" and thus unreliable if not dangerous. In feminism, the patriarchy is the dominant social constructor (so to speak).

    Instead of "rational" truth, we now have "emotional truth" and the need to protect victims from emotional pain. Lisa's outburst is motivated by the desire to protect Jennifer from the emotional pain of her alleged abuse. It does not matter if the abuse "objectively" occurred. It is Jennifer's "lived experience" that the abuse did occur and thus Glenn is intentionally causing her pain by questioning the veracity of the claims.

    The feminst movement is conflict over whether men should be protected from emotional pain. One view is that they are the privileged ones and thus cannot be suffering on the same scale. Another view is that (some) men are also victims of the patriarchy and must be liberated from its tyranny.

    What then is the status of "rational" truth in this whole debate? What if Jennifer's father was not abusive? What if the whole set of allegations was made up and Jennifer suffers from Stockholm syndrome? What if the anonymous claims of the mother's behavior are correct? In a court of law, this would certainly raise reasonable doubt about the case - and apparently did because the Court did not issue a protection order against the father thus prompting the mother to flee the jurisdiction.

    Let's talk about emotional pain. Does anything trump Jennifer's right not to be exposed to more emotional pain? What about her father's emotional pain? What about the pain of all fathers who suffer the emotional pain of losing their children because the system believes that mothers generally do not lie about abuse? How about the pain of having your children abducted to another country? Oh, I forgot, men are privileged...and when they do display emotional pain they are wimps and beneath contempt. Sigh.

16. zammo Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 10:43 pm

    In the feminist world, certain "truths" always hold sway -

    1. Logic and reason are tools of the patriarchy.

    2. A female victim is automatically imbued with a special "truth" that trumps objective reality.

    3. The personal is the political.

    4. The stronger the emotion, the more "truth" is implied.

    5. Men are bad, women are good.

    6. A woman's words are automatically truthful in any court.

17. StV Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 10:51 pm

    Nice summary, zammo! ;-)

18. Celia Says:
    December 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pm

    StV said:

    “The feminist movement has consistently promoted "emotional truth" over "rational truth".”

    How true that is. It is, I suspect, the principal reason that I abandoned the title “feminist” many years ago. Opinions, especially those strongly-held and imbued with tug-at-the-heartstrings emotion (above all those none too subtly juxtaposed to hysteria) have greater cache than facts.

    If one can believe the story from The City Pages article Jennifer’s mother, Holly, was clearly a proponent (or perhaps a gifted exploiter of) of emotional truth – not only for herself but for her children as well. Her entire life appears to have been one big emotional roller coaster and she apparently (based on what has been published) reveled in it, but sadly and I believe reprehensibly, this meant the children were also mired in the irrationality (and the publicity) – to wit –

    ““All this was especially hard on Zachary. The eight-year-old would bang his head on the floor after getting off the phone with his father, Holly says.”

    Hmm, is it just me or is there some problem with parenting here? How on earth can a mother allow her son to bang his head on the floor – for any reason? Too much emotional truth I’d suggest. It is a completely inappropriate, pointless, physically and probably psychologically damaging emotional behavior that the mother clearly countenanced. This was not the only example of this sort of outrageous parental behavior cited (with apparent pride no less).

    Holly’s own mother strongly believed that Holly was not a fit mother – I wonder why? That was rhetorical, I know the answer – it lies in the realm objective truth, standing in stark contrast to the emotional.

19. zammo Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 12:54 am

    To maintain focus on the issue at hand, let's all remember that "emotional truth" is an oxymoron.

20. Norman L. Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 1:02 am

    "Medal of Courage by the California Protective Parents Association"

    The majority of these medals should of course to to fathers (whatever the status of a given marriage), as the father has traditionally been considered the protector of his children, and in fact is the protector against any excesses by the mother. (see Baskerville).

21. Norman L. Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 1:03 am

    the above should say the "The majority of these medals should of course go to fathers"

22. Ivo Vos Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 3:52 am

    One of the biggest problems with emotional truth, or ego-oriented truth, is that, based on that truth alone, we would never be able to rise out of our biological existence level. Luckily for the human kind, there exists something called the human male, normally called a man.

23. Bill Christen Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 6:13 am

    I have not read all the comments, but she really proves that Parental Alienation does exist. Her mother did exactly what PAS outlines, and that was ALIENATED her daughter from the father. Good job.

    Bill C

24. The Unredeemable Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 9:10 am

    My ma was a parental alienator (past tense since she has tried to make up for it).

    She had it easy since my dad never contested custody.

    Ask my sis and she'll tell you EVERY person (regardless of gender) my mother was ever involved with was an a$$hole (but my ma was/is so sweet).

    I believe the truth lies somewhere in between the two extremes and will risk alienation from my sisters cuz I dare suggest that the other party may not have been so bad after all.

    "Of course, so and so was a butthole, his dauther came to visit recently and she said he was a 'butthole'"

    Well, that is it for me, if a woman said he is a bad person, it must be so. No further proof will ever be needed after that testimony and no further proof could alter any perception if a grown woman said so......

    Men never good
    women never bad

    men never tell the truth
    and women never lie

    The sooner you folks get with the matriarchal program, the sooner you will stop grossing out poor Lisa who has had to put up with this men's rights crap for far too long.

25. Rubic Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 9:38 am

    StV said:

    What if the anonymous claims of the mother's behavior are correct? In a court of law, this would certainly raise reasonable doubt about the case - and apparently did because the Court did not issue a protection order against the father thus prompting the mother to flee the jurisdiction.
    =====================
    In this particular case, it helps to look at it from both sides. If what she said about the abuse was true, then it's as said already.

    If the abuse was a lie, then it's a lie her entire view on life and reality has been founded upon. For her to change her view or question it, would be for her to question everything she's ever known in her life, back to even before 7 years old, which has been molded by her mother. She'd have to question her foundation for understanding, her mother. She'd have to question the only parent she's known, and thus the majority of what she knows about herself.

    Few people would willingly put themselves through that much pain. At this point, it's easier for her to hurl accusations based on her mother's word than for her to investigate the matter herself, confront her father about the alleged (possibly true, possibly false) abuse.

26. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 9:49 am

    ““All this was especially hard on Zachary. The eight-year-old would bang his head on the floor after getting off the phone with his father, Holly says.”

    This reminds me of the odd things I used to do. I vaguely remember it, but my mother did tell me that I used to go behind the TV in the living room and cry for my father, and after several long spells of this after not being allowed to see my father for years she would break down and let me see him. I would say she was a fairly mild in her nagative talk about my father (meaning i only heard that he as a @#$% and many other things when I talked to him or when i visited him, but as long as i never brought him up I didn't hear any thing negative). Now that all changed when I got a little older and made the mistake of calling my father one night and crying to him on the phone because my mother left me alone and I was afraid. My father made the mistake of taking her to court and then lots and lots of negative things happened. Suddenly they were in court and suddenly there were odd questions of sexual activity at my fathers home (oddly enough I have a foggy memory of such an event which of course could not have happened in any sane world). I believe the memory was Placed in my head (maybe not even on purpose, but by constant questioning about it and so on). At some point it became real to me and now thinking back on it, it is cleary something that would not have happened. I later learned that my mother used this in court to destroy my father and keep him away for a good long time and take a good chunk of change more from him for his trouble.

27. Ivo Vos Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 10:19 am

    I looked up what the local media told about Holly Collins, living with ten children, seven children of her own and three adopted children, in the Netherlands. She was granted asylum on humanitarian grounds. No further evidence about the nature of the battering was made public, so we have to assume that it was a violent marriage, but the nature and background of the violence remains unknown. Jennifer did not want to elaborate on the nature of the violence she herself had to endure, when asked. However, in the Netherlands, the family then entered into some trouble with their neighbour and the mother supposedly put some of the movies she made of the resulting rows on the Internet thereby drawing some attention in the local media. The media merely painted the story as seen through the eyes of Holly so it was kind of one-sided.
    Interestingly enough, Jennifer accuses Glenn of sending his followers on a quest to dig up dirt when she herself is very busy to gain public attention. Well, actually there are four accusations in a row but never mind. This will probably strengthen her own beliefs as stated in her idea about ‘Glenn’s cause’ (whatever that might be), the implied notion that Glenn defends batterers (which I never witnessed in Glenn’s comments) and the idea that these batterers are known (although no evidence about the nature and the causes of the supposed battering are presented to us). So, she gives the impressions that the enemies in her world are already known. In my own experience, circling around in your own beliefs and thereby strengthening your own fears will not yield to better understanding of what happened between your mother and your father nor will it further the cause of Jennifer, I’m afraid. This kind of fear will normally act as a condition for more violence. I hope Jennifer will have a chance to hear her father’s side of the story, however painful that might be.

28. Pankaj Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 10:41 am

    Stockholm syndrome, maybe? Don't know, but over protectiveness towards the abuser is one of the traits of this syndrome. No one can disagree what Jennifer has been abused, even her mom claims so... seems plausible.

    Ms. Lisa, would you be Okay with Glenn's position if his volunteer contactor gave out her name and office she works for? Because I am sure, the feminist based bureaucracies never retaliates someone who exposes their true nature... You got to be kidding, if you think someone should take on the establishment by themselves, in the semi-socialist-fascist state of affairs in the USA. If Larry Summers, Walter Block and many others can get vehemently attacked for presenting data contrary to PC/feminist imaginations, what hope is there for someone who is simply happens to be working right in the middle of the big snake's pit?

29. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am

    http://americanchildrenunderground.blogspot.com/

    She's already posted in response to this and Glen is attacking her again. She also said the got a huge amount of threatening emails from Glen followers. I can not imagine anyone threatening her, nor do I even see a way to reach her or contact her.

30. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 10:58 am

    I noticed on that blog of hers she points out that many people are convicted DV abusers? I wasn't even aware of that. This is a lie?

31. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 11:21 am

    "In making his decision, Judge Davis put substantial weight on statements from the children's therapist in Minnesota, Dr. David Cline. "[He] is the only clinician involved in this case who has had extensive contact with both children, the parents, and the step-parent," Judge Davis wrote in his January 1993 amended order. While both children told Cline they were abused by their father, Cline told the court they were "skilled accusers" not to be believed"

    Anyone know how one would go about gettign in touch with this Dr. David Cline?.

32. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 11:22 am

    http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/med/fugitive.html

    This looks like a great site with piles of info about the this case.

33. John Boy Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm

    Women's identities in general and some in particular are much more heavely wrapped up in being a mother then men are as a fathers. For some women being a mother is their only area of prestige and status and the children are the only thing they have power over. Losing custody, even partial custody, can be absolutely devestating emotionally.

    In fairness, men's identities are sometimes too wrapped up in their work which is why too many of them go "postal" but we will save that for another day.

    This same underlying dynamic happens in many many divorces albeit they do not reach this level of conflict. This solipsistic behavior is what drives many women to fight without compunction for every penny and every minute extra of custody they can lay their hands on whether or not it is in their childs best interest or not. This is what makes divorces bitter and the healing process impossible. This women thinks she is a hero but is really a goat.

34. PolishKnight Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 1:34 pm

    Maybe she was better off with her dad after all...

    LisaKS, without even cracking open a single court document and merely looking at this woman's own blog, it's obvious that she suffers from paranoia, craves attention and validation from her mother, and childishly (literally) demonizes those who disagree with her. She continually portrays herself both as a child deserving of unconditional sympathy AND as an adult whose word about events as a child should be unquestioned. Ponder all that as you read on:

    Look at the picture drawn by her brother on the web site that portrays a girlfriend of her father as a demon. It's disturbing not for the reason that she is claiming (her father and all those who agree with him are evil!) but rather that the hostility directed at her father is seething rather than reactionary to anything he specifically did. This woman's crime was dating her father and for that she is labeled a monster. This attitude exists to the current day. This woman did NOTHING wrong to deserve such seething hatred!

    Glenn's picture is also unflattering. It's grainy and his face is puffy and his hand is shown in a menacing motion. This is an allegory for how she distorts those associated with her father, and opposing her mother, as warped and evil. At the same time, she knows to worship her mother because after seeing what happened to her father for getting on his bad side, it's best to not cross "mommy dearest."

    Her blog is vast but from what I went through, all the documented claims of her father's abuse are specious and based upon her emotional interpretation of what he said. If he admitted he was in the same room where an injury occurred, that's a confession of guilt. If he didn't use the exact same words to describe an event years later, that's a sign of him changing his story. She claims to have letters from Glenn's "followers" threatening her (you can almost see the tears as she looks for sympathy) but no examples or even snipets of such. Anyone disagreeing with her is "attacking" her.

    One thing is for sure: This is one messed up young woman.

35. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 2:12 pm

    " She claims to have letters from Glenn's "followers" threatening her (you can almost see the tears as she looks for sympathy) but no examples or even snipets of such. Anyone disagreeing with her is "attacking" her.

    One thing is for sure: This is one messed up young woman."

    I would agree with you here, although horrid abuse may have taken place, there sure seem to be some holes in there. That being said, both kids going to university and taking pyc scares me a little. Someone that unstable hopefully will not be able to play with peoples heads.

36. Burke Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    "Broken Nose:

    Court Transcripts: June 7 1989
    Mark Collins: “The two broken noses occurred when we were first married in my parents’ house, which was an accident, which many people roll about. I rolled over asleep in bed…

    Court transcripts: January 8 1991
    Mark Collins: “Her nose was broken maybe twice or three times... I don’t know exactly how many times, but it occurred when we were first married and I rolled over in the bed... and I hit her in the nose… each time that she was pregnant, she had this problem where she had red in her eyes, like her eyes were all bloodshot… I don’t think that she went to the obstetrician claiming that I had hit her.”

    Dislocated Shoulder:

    Court Transcripts: June 7 1989
    Mark Collins: "I don’t remember her having a concussion or a dislocated shoulder. If she did it wasn’t caused by me.”

    Court transcripts: January 8 1991
    Mark Collins: ”Her shoulder was dislocated just fooling around. I don’t know how to explain this.”
    Attorney: The dislocated shoulder was a wrestling episode? Was anybody else present during that, do you remember?
    Mark Collins: "Just the children. I don’t remember it specifically.

    His Own Words... What do you think now? "

    I didn't even catch that the first time i read the site. I have to admit that I have rolled over a few times and smacked my wife pretty good and she has done it to me too. I actually came close to rolling over with my arm once right after she had nose surgery which would have been incredibly damaging had my arm of landed Elbow to Nose. These transcripts are not an admision of physical abuse at all.

37. PolishKnight Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 2:31 pm

    Freud would feel proud...

    Burke says: "That being said, both kids going to university and taking pyc scares me a little. Someone that unstable hopefully will not be able to play with peoples heads."

    PK responds: That PROVES she's crazy. Someone responsible going into that field and playing with someone else's head would be sure to put their own house in order first. This woman's clearly is not.

    I remember dating some women psych majors and they generally were the most nuts. One such woman actually got turned on by my ignoring her and being a "bad boy." I stopped playing that game and she lost interest in me quickly.

    This woman is going to be carrying our her grudge against her father, and all estranged fathers, on any man unlucky enough to wander into her lair. Then again, since she's gone to such trouble to put all her emotional pain and demons (literally) out for the world to see, that will help these men's attorneys to discredit her. If only all such social workers were so open about their daddy issues!

38. Norman L. Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 2:42 pm

    Glenn says,

    "Lisa—I’m surprised by your comments.."

    I'm not.

39. PolishKnight Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 3:13 pm

    More Holes than Dunkin' Doughnuts

    Jennifer wrote:

    "-- Jeff won't even talk to his son on the phone. There is no way he can morally justify his actions. His misuse of the court system and disregard for a teenager will cause him to loose any chance of having a relationship with his son. It is really a shame.

    - Jeff has always had the option of coming to Holland to try to enforce the return of his son under the Hague treaty. He could have done that for the last two years and his position now is no stronger with the kangaroo court order."

    And from a previous entry:

    "All this was especially hard on Zachary. The eight-year-old would bang his head on the floor after getting off the phone with his father, Holly says. He felt the need to be the man of the house and wanted to protect his mother from Mark, but didn't know how"

    This is a CLASSIC example of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Run away from the father and deny contact claiming that contact harms the child and THEN turn around and accuse him of abandonment for not chasing after them all the way to Holland or calling anymore. If he had, you can be sure that the saintly Holly would then be crying that she doesn't feel safe with him around or "harassing" them by phone.

    Here's what I think: If she was my kid, I'd say good riddance. Yes, I know they're both brainwashed and as children, they are victims, but even as a child I knew the difference between right and wrong. I know plenty of children who did awful, terrible things due to peer pressure but I also know some who grew up and realized they had made a mistake and atoned for it. She's absolutely right: She's a grown woman today but she can't go running back to the playpen and cry she was abused as a child when confronted. Either be an adult OR a child! She had the opportunity to tell the truth as a child and she blew it. She has an opportunity to tell the truth today, and she's still blowing it.

40. tweesdad Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 3:33 pm

    Not much to learn from this case. Even if the father in this case was abusive...

    1. that does not invalidate the existence and widespread occurrence of PAS in other cases. Saying that "PAS didn't apply to me, so it must never be true for anyone and therefore is an abuser's strategy" is one heck of an extrapolation.

    2. it also does not absolve the mother in this case of "justified" PAS, i.e. continually forcing the kids to relive and recount the horrible things that happened to them as opposed to helping them heal and move on. (Not saying that the mother did that, but the daughter's constant anger and need for validation from everyone including Glenn would be consistent with that).

    There doesn't seem to be any value to publicizing this case or having others "investigate" it from the outside, since it would be impossible to draw general conclusions about the system, or about PAS, in either direction.

41. PolishKnight Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 3:52 pm

    Tweesdad, that's another "hole" that occurred to me:

    Why are there so many children's drawings of the "Bad Dad" and abuse? I've seen less paintings at an art show!

    It's as if the mother regularly had the children make the drawings and rewarded them for doing so. "Nice one there Zach of Daddy Destroying the World! Here's an ice cream for being a good boy!" What parent wants a child to make graphic pictures of abuse and puts them up on the refridgerator?

42. John Boy Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 4:40 pm

    I once watched a TV documentary program about Munchhausens by proxy. There were a number of parents who were suspected of smothering their children and subsequently reporting to medical authorities that their children were having trouble breathing and fainting in order to get attention. When the police and medical authorities became suspicious they set up a sting operation. They asked the parents to bring their children into the hospital for overnight observation but left the parents alone in the room with the children. There were video cameras recording everything (which is why it was fascinating TV) and a medical team ready in the next room in case something happened to the child. Needless to say the parents got caught.

    While there were parents of both sexes perpetrating the Munchhausens a very interesting phenomenom occured. When confronted with the evidence (video) of the parent putting their hand over the child's mouth the men usually fessed up right on the spot. It all came out. As abhorrent as their behavior was at least they could admit what they had done. Hopefully they went on from there. The women who were caught, almost to the one, simply would never confess that they had done something to their child. Even when shown the video tapes they could not bring themselves to admit what was obvious.

    This should be a clue to Holly's behavior. I do not know if this denial just stops with Munchhausens but it is absolutly fascinating and worth following up on. Inquiring minds want to know.

43. Pankaj Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Stockholm syndrome causes the victims to side with their abusers. Note that Jennifer is not as much attacking the father, but defending her mother. Hence I think it could be a case of stockholm syndrome happening here. Whatever it is, I sympathize with Jennifer - for one way or the other, she was abused by at least one of her parents - it does not matter which one, it still is sad.

44. Nelson Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 6:21 pm

    Whatever the truth is here, there's no doubt that Jennifer is either very dishonest or very irrational- either that or she thinks her readers are complete fools. At her site she posts as evidence for her claims things that actually contradict said claims. For example, she says her dad admitted to breaking her moms nose, yet in the transcript she gives us, he claims he did it, but by accident. Clearly this is not a confession of wrong doing.

    Under the heading of "PAS or PAE (Perpetrators’ Abuse Excuse)" she gives transcripts in which a "Susan DeVries – Family Court Services Custody Evaluator:" tells us that "My evaluation of these children strongly indicates to me that there has been interference in the relationship between Mr. Collins and the children…" which of course contradicts her claim that PAS is just an excuse. Also in the transcript offered by Jennifer herself...
    "Question: Is there any reason why she (Holy) is not going to continue her children’s alienation from the father?

    DeVries: There is certainly no guarantee that that won’t happen." In other words, by saying that it may continue DeVries is implying that it has already happened.

    It's a very weird site and if i were a shrink i would say that here is a young woman struggling desperately to believe things which deep down she knows are not true.

45. Anonymous Woman Says:
    December 30th, 2008 at 7:44 pm

    When we were kids, this nice, quiet lady my father used to work with would give my brother and I very expensive presents at Christmas. Later, I wondered why she did that...she was good friends with my father, but my brother and I didn't know her very well. Turns out she had two sons her ex-husband fled the country with. Much later, my father said the sons' father had brainwashed them to the extent they wanted nothing to do with their mother as adults.
    I have no doubt a woman is capable of doing this as well; a father taking off with his kids is automatically viewed as an evil abuser. I don't think it's too much to ask for hardcore proof that this woman was justified in fleeing the country.

    Nelson said,
    "It's a very weird site and if i were a shrink i would say that here is a young woman struggling desperately to believe things which deep down she knows are not true."

    I have to agree, I couldn't nail down anything in her site. She's all over the place. I especially loved the part where she accused Glenn of mobilizing 50,000 readers to discredit the word of an abused child.

46. Norman L. Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 2:18 am

    StV says,

    .."lived experience" and "other ways of knowing".

    LOL!!

    "men over-analyze things".."too linear"...Hah!! Thera-speak hijacked by feminists!

47. ManCan Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 4:46 am

    We need to be very skeptical of abuse claims. We know that feminists and other exploitive individuals and groups love to use them to advance their bizarre agendas and to make money.

48. PolishKnight Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 1:12 pm

    Kookoo for Cocoa Puffs

    Pankaj says: "Stockholm syndrome causes the victims to side with their abusers."

    PK responds: Consider how eerily that jibes with this entry: "All this was especially hard on Zachary. The eight-year-old would bang his head on the floor after getting off the phone with his father, Holly says. He felt the need to be the man of the house and wanted to protect his mother from Mark, but didn't know how."

    Think about that for a moment. The mother was expecting her _8 year old_ child to act as her defender when on the phone with his father. In addition, Jennifer wrote: "Our mother lived a horrible life as a victim of terrible violence: from severe beatings as a child, sexual abuse as a teenage girl and the systematic physical and emotional abuse of being a young, battered wife" and "As a child, Holly claims, her mother and her stepfather beat her up. "

    So this wasn't new for her. She claims to have been a victim of abuse not just from her ex, but since CHILDHOOD at the hands of her own parents. You know, those same grandparents Jennifer put up photos of herself happily hugging and said: "They are so proud of their daughter (my mother) for doing everything she could to protect their grandchildren. Its funny how after all these years, they are still my Grandpa & Grandma. " and also, "[Holly] wanted to go back home to Massachusetts. She planned to enroll in courses at Endicott College, live with her family to save money, and work at her father's real estate firm. "

    Yikes, what a mess!

    But wait, there's more! "The documents continue even after the couple separated. "It got to the point where every time he dropped off the kids [from visitation], he'd do something to me," Holly says. "Punch me in the face, push me into the wall."" As extreme as it was for her to run off to Amsterdam, wouldn't it have been easy for her to just have a neighbor as a witness to get this guy thrown into jail? Shouldn't they have a smoking gun? Especially if, as Jennifer claims: "As a university student, Holly lived off public assistance and financial aid after the divorce, working sporadic jobs as a lobbyist, activist, and daycare provider. " Activist?!?! Daycare provider?!?! She's an admittantly abused, traumatized woman unable to care for herself or her own children and she was an activist and daycare provider?!?!

    "While Jorgenson did not find evidence of major mental illness or maladjustment, the possibility exists that "this individual may experience delusional beliefs from time to time."
    DeVries testified that Holly "may suffer from Munchausen syndrome by proxy, a disorder in which a parent invents, induces, or exaggerates medical symptoms in a child," court documents note. In her evaluation, DeVries cited the children's numerous evaluations and visits with clinicians and Holly's anxious behavior regarding the children's heath."

    All of this was on Jennifer's own site. No need for Glenn to ask someone else to go through the files and draw a conclusion, the whole story sounds like something out of Lifetime TV or Sleeping With The Enemy. It just goes on and on. Here's another revealing segment:

    "According to bloggers, life there does not always seem to have been easy for them. There was still an FBI warrant out for Holly-Ann. A neighbor, Jaap Hogewoning,used the internet to discover the warrant and reported the refugees to the FBI. The same neighbor complained about them—too many children, and all were on welfare. The neighbor was even taken to court, accused of beating Holly-Ann."

    What a surpise, eh? Holly Ann who claims to have been going to university and working as an activist and with children has been on welfare for nearly her entire LIFE! And when a neighbor complains, he's accused of beating her. So many people who cross her and all of them accused of assaulting her.

    In closing, this particular segment was especially surreal:

    "One time he called and said that he was in Boston and that he was coming to get us," Jennifer remembers, who was six years old at the time. "I was petrified. I gave my mother the phone and she hung it up in a panic. My father told her that he was at the airport and he was going to kill her. We ran to the car and drove and drove... We kept asking our mother what we were going to do and she just kept telling us not to worry. We slept in the car by the side of the ocean. In the morning my mother decided to call my father in Minnesota. She hung up the phone when he answered. We were so relieved that it was just a threat. We were happy to go home."

49. Stan Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm

    The Feminists are afraid that if there is parental alienation then the woman will lose custody. As in things being swapped around such that she sees her kids just four days. As you can see "winning" a divorce is very important to some people. This makes the process very adversarial.

    If there was shared parenting this takes away the golden prize of full custody. And the kids benefit since the huge battle to win them as a prize won't take place.

    I divorced nearly 6 years ago. My exe has been trying to alienate and obstruct visitation for years. After a few years she succeeded. So my four days a month has been ZERO for nearly 20 months.

    I'm not trying to "win" custody. I can see that this would be a 2-3 year effort costing as much as a small house.

    Although it's inadequate for parenting, I'd be happy just to see my kid at all, whether that is four days a month or not. If I could have any custody form available I'd want shared parenting so that there was much reduced tension between my exe and I. A tie.

    So this is a case in point where a man who raised his son nearly solo..."lost' his divorce...had visitation obstructed and the child discouraged from contact with Dad...to the point that there is no longer any visitation...and I do not want to use parental alienation as a tool or lever to give me the full custody that my exe has.

    I just want to see my son and help raise him. Hopefully in a beneficial manner with enough time to bond and to parent.

50. Stan Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 2:36 pm

    ......I have no doubt a woman is capable of doing this as well; a father taking off with his kids is automatically viewed as an evil abuser........

    Yes that happens all the time but I mostly hear about the Mom taking off with the kids and cutting Dad off in all ways. It's not looked down on at all...if anything it is a positive you-go-girl thing.

    I don't think that anyone should be running off with anyone's kids and cutting off the other parent. Most of the time this happens it is a very selfish act and harms the children.

51. Norman L. Says:
    December 31st, 2008 at 5:35 pm

    Pankaj says,

    "Hence I think it could be a case of stockholm syndrome happening here. "

    I was thinking the same thing; though of course it's impossible to tell for certain based solely on what's been presented here.

52. Celia Says:
    January 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am

    PK said:

    “Yikes, what a mess!”

    Yes it would seem that way.

53. Crusaders Says:
    January 1st, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    I see, shes saying that the court - judge was alineated, and dont see the kids suffering

    Of course, since the court was alineated and dont see the evidences, she run away, and now she claims theres no PAlienation S.
    Confusing ? No. Just a feminist mind.

54. Jennifer Collins Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 7:59 am

    Dear Mr. Sacks,

    Are you forgetting that I am a 23 year old abuse victim?

    We were on a television show together. You could have asked me yourself to see the documentation. (I had it all with me.) Instead you sent a request to over 50,000 readers to investigate me.

    Why did you choose this forum? Now I have received intimidating, even abusive emails from abusive men. It is very frightening, especially since I have a history of being abused.

    Do you forget that I was a kid in the middle of this? Either way, I am the victim. Why are you so insensitive to what I experienced as a child?

    You appear to be so wrapped up in this “Father’s Rights Crusade” that you have lost touch with the most important issue – "Protecting Children!"

    This shouldn’t be about "Father’s Rights" or "Mother’s Rights!" It should be about children being protected from abuse from either parent!

    Let’s get back to the root of the problem… kids are being abused and “PAS” is being manipulated by abusers to conceal their own abuse to their child.

    We all know that Parental Alienation exists. (Shoot my own father told us that our mother didn’t want us anymore.) It just doesn’t really qualify as a syndrome – does it? I don’t understand why there is so much animosity between you and the battered women organizations.

    Maybe I should just ask you directly…

    Mr. Sacks, do you think it is okay for a man to beat his wife and children?
    If a man beats his wife and children and they are all afraid of him, does that constitute as PAS?

    I have to believe that there has to be a way for everyone to come together and find a way to protect children.

    Since you have asked for volunteers to dig up details about my life story, I shall give it to you myself.

    - My mom married my father when she was 17 years old to try to escape the abuse from her parents.
    - During the first month they were married my father beat up my mom severe enough to send her to the hospital 3 times. (She was 5 months pregnant.)
    - My father continued to beat my mom for years.
    - My father also abused me and my brother.
    - My father fractured the bones my brother’s skull by slamming him into the wall one night when my brother tried to stop him from beating our mom.
    - Child protection became involved and threatened my mom that if she did not leave my father(and get an Order for Protection) she would be charged with “failure to protect.”
    - As soon as my mom applied for the order, the case was remanded to family court.
    - My mom attained an Order for Protection, but my father was immediately granted(unsupervised) visitation 2x per week.
    - During visitation he abused us even more.
    - We told our mom that he was hurting us and we showed her the bruises. My father even beat up my mother regularly when he picked us up for visitation. (One of these visits she was hospitalized for a concussion.)
    - We begged our mom not to send us on visitation. I was so scared that I would cry so hard that I would throw up.
    - Eventually it got so bad that my mother couldn’t bear to send us on visitation against our will.
    - My father called the police. The police would pull us out from hiding underneath our beds and hand us over to our abuser.
    - My father used the police reports to launch his own “Parental Alienation Syndrome” campaign. - The family court found that there was domestic violence but concluded that my mother’s fear of my father was interfering with his relationship with his children.
    - The judge ordered a custody reversal and we weren’t allowed to have any contact with our mom at all with us for a few months so we could “adjust” to the change.
    - Eventually we were allowed to see our mom 2 hours a week during supervised visitation.
    - During visitation I lifted my shirt to show my mom the strap marks, welts and bruises on my back. I said to my mom “He’s still hurting us.” The visitation supervisor yelled at me “You know you are not allowed to talk about those kinds of things anymore.”
    - My brother and I started writing notes to our mom at our father’s house begging her to help us. We would slip the notes into her pockets during visitation.
    - After 18 months and 8 days of us living in hell and our mother trying every legal possibility to protect us, our mother ‘kidnapped’ us back. It was the happiest day of my life!
    - We fled the United States and were apprehended in the Netherlands. My mother didn’t know what else to do so she asked for asylum.
    - We lived in refugee camps while the Dutch government carried out an extensive investigation.(They were against giving asylum to an American.)
    - After 3 years of a scrutiny, the Netherlands Ministries of Justice granted us asylum based on humanitarian grounds. We were the first Americans to be granted asylum in Holland, perhaps the whole European Union!
    - After 12 years of living in secrecy in the Netherlands we were found by the FBI, who demanded our deportation.
    - The Dutch government asked the FBI to do an investigation to determine 1.) If there was abuse to us in the United States. 2.) If we were telling the truth about the severity of the abuse. 3.) If there was an indication that my mother honestly believed that this was her only option to protect her children.
    - The American authorities concluded that all 3 questions were true. (Of course they said that wasn’t reason enough to break the law.)
    - The Dutch government decided to stand behind their decision and granted us “Asylum
    Indefinitely!”
    - The United States eventually dropped all federal kidnapping charges against our mother.
    - The State of Minnesota also dropped all custodial interference charges against our mother. My mother was instructed to apologize to the judge for defying his order. She refused. Eventually my mother pleaded guilty to ‘contempt of court.” My mother said defiantly “I admit to having contempt for the court which failed to protect my children!”
    - During the court hearing my mother was allowed to make a closing statement. All she said was “I just want to say something to my children. Zachary and Jennifer I still, to this day, believe you!”

    Isn’t that what it is all about? Believing kids! Protecting kids! We should all on the same side!

    Sincerely,
    Jennifer

55. PolishKnight Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 11:16 am

    Grow up and support your case

    Jennifer Collins asks: "Are you forgetting that I am a 23 year old abuse victim?"

    PK answers: No, Jennifer, we haven't forgotten because you _aren't_ a 23 year old abuse victim. You read me right. You're a 23 year old woman who claims to have been abused by your father when you were a child. This alleged abuse happened more than a decade ago but you refer to it as if it was yesterday. If this discussion was only about you, personally, then we could allow room for compassion and handle you with kid gloves. But you seek to use your own personal situation as an example to set public policy which opens you, and your story, up for criticism and debate.

    You have now chosen to post a drect comment in Glenn's forum so your not an unwilling participant, at least here. Your claims of abusive emails from "abusive men" due to Glenn's article is a perfect allegory for your situation. Are you exaggerating what happened or do you have something to back it up? Post the worst 2 emails here, with headers and IP addresses, and we'll evaluate what happened. Otherwise, we don't know if you're crying wolf or not.

    That's the adult world.

56. Pankaj Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    Jennifer,
    What if - you don't know all the details? Besides, do you get objective truth from a coached witness or a traumatized human being? No. And that is why Glenn sought to get the complete story. He would have done it himself - but as he said, he was too busy with other things and someone to dig up all the woodchips .. so to speak. He never ever claimed that you were fake or that you were not abused.
    Besides, why should it bother you if someone sought to seek the entire story in your case? IF what you claim is true - then it will come out the exact same way. The only possible reason for you to be troubled by his investigation is - IF you knew that the whole story looks different than your story. I for one, was not decided on who to suspect of wrong doing - your mother or father. But thanks to your outrage at someone seeking to dig out the whole story has given me more reason to suspect that it was your mother.

    On the other hand, just being a victim does not make you an authority in reality and justice. Surely, most kids do not remember what they did when they were 6 - isn't it interesting that you know and remember details even before your birth? In your own interest, I recommend distancing yourself as an adult from either parents and then think about the situation - after 5 years or so. Also, seek some help - the physical abuse is easy to prove - interesting that your mother failed to prove that in courts here or in Netherlands.
    Mental abuse on the other hand is much harder to identify - mainly because a brain is not visible to the naked eye and it acts as a survivor - refusing to identify/recognize and hence admit things that are too painful to contemplate/remember.

    Just looking at your points I noticed this

    "he Dutch government asked the FBI to do an investigation to determine 1.) If there was abuse to us in the United States. "
    No mention of who the abuser was - the FBI already knew that your mother had kidnapped you - that in itself is abuse. Isn't it interesting that the FBI was not asked to identify the abuser? Smells rotten to me.

    2.) If we were telling the truth about the severity of the abuse.
    Of course you were telling the truth about the severity of the abuse - just not the kind and source.

    3.) If there was an indication that my mother honestly believed that this was her only option to protect her children.
    If your mother did not honestly believe - in her depreciated state of mind as the identified abuser by the FBI - why would she kidnap you? Of course she thought she was protecting you - but that does not mean that she actually WAS protecting you. Why is the question purposefully vague anyway? indicaiton, honestly, believed?

57. StV Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 12:19 pm

    Jennifer, thank you for taking the time to post your story on this forum.

    For the record (and anticipating Glenn's response):

    Do you think it is okay for a man to beat his wife and children?
    No.
    If a man beats his wife and children and they are all afraid of him, does that constitute PAS?
    No.

    Can you answer 2 questions for me?
    If one woman lies about rape does that mean that all women lie about rape?
    How does your answer to the first question relate to your position on PA(S)?

58. Ivo Vos Says:
    January 2nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Jennifer, thank for your time and effort to shed your light on the story.
    From what I’ve read, your younger brother seems to have been in a situation I have been in my youth when I at times collected the hits meant for my mother. I was usually the one that jumped between my father and my mother when they had a fight. Luckily, the worst thing that happened to me were black eyes and bruises and days in the cold, not fractures, although that could have happened since my father had been a national boxing champion for some years. I was rather good in dodging anyway. So, it is not out of imagination but out of recollection that I have read your story. When I was your age, and after having read different studies that proved a recurrent pattern in domestic violence between parents and their offspring I decided to get to the roots of the matter in order to have this pattern stopped at myself. During my student time I tried different kinds of ‘therapies’, which were interesting in order to learn something about the personalities and the worldviews of the therapists, but left me none the wiser. In order to stop the accumulated anger and aggression inside you have to unravel your own ideas about what happened and your own emotions that are bound to these ideas. One by one. From then on you can explore how the fighting between your father and mother evolved. Unfortunately, you cannot rely on what your mother told you. Her story is her truth, and it’s bound to her emotions. But your story is a different one, you can choose to live with a partial story, or choose to unravel the story as will be seen someday through your own eyes. It’s a long and tedious process, and it will require lots of patience. I’m speaking out of experience. In order to test your emerging theories about how emotion has lead to physical aggression in the situation of your parents you will have to know your father’s story as well. There is no other way as far as I know. Psychology may help a little, but at the moment it does not offer any insight into how your ideas and your emotions are bound for you personally. Psychology is heavily occupied by all sorts and sizes of rational explanations and except for a few, are not very good in understanding how emotions are part of an ongoing internal interpretation process, as far as I know. And the key in understanding aggression is not morality or rational theories, but understanding emotion. Your mothers interpretations are worse than useless in this particular case. They reinforce what you already know. I remembered a wall as high as a mountain when I first talked with my father after some years. Anyway, his stories completed my assumptions and made it possible for me to view both my parents as normal and loving human beings who happened to not have been able to work out their differences in a non-violent way. My personal interpretation of your story and the actions taken by you and, as far as I can see, inspired by others with their own agenda’s will, at most, reinforce your idea’s about how bad your father, and thereby probably all men, really are. It comes across as a personal crusade. It might enhance your personal moral ideas about the world, but the costs are high. As long as you believe in your own morality, your anger and fears will be enhanced with it too, as part of the same morality. And when you let yourself be used by others with their personal agenda’s, you will be part of inducing more aggression into others as well, whether you like it or not. Worse, I think it will set you back another couple of years on top of the existing disadvantage, compared with other more lucky humans. Worst case, you may never have the time in your life to come to any real understanding. In your story you ask for approval of your moral standpoints, but whether I would approve it or not is not going to help you in any way. It would still leave you with the most important question, why this has happened in the first place. And my guess is that your aim ultimately will be to stop aggression against children, if possible. I can assure you that you can stop the aggression if you will. It’s up to you to make the right decisions.
    And, as an aside, I can assure you that PAS is a good description of conditions that will alienate children from one of their parents, whether these conditions were intentionally forced or not. I was an eye witness.

59. Andre Lieven Says:
    January 8th, 2009 at 1:13 am

    Folks, lets not play Jennifer's Straw Woman games. Yes, committing abuse of anyone Is Bad. One doesn't have to be 50 or 23 or even 10 to have that truth figured out.
    But, *its not at all relevent* to the issue of what are the FACTS in this case.
    Jennifer made *specific claims* about the people here. Yet, she offers NOT one shred of supporting evidence in support of such an inflammatory claim.
    As such, its reasonable to conclude that Jennifer IS a False Accuser. The apple falls not far from the Mommy Tree...

60. David Perry Davis, Esq Says:
    January 27th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

    Ms Collins

    I had never heard of your case until I read Glenn's story. I'm an attorney and took the time to read the documents that he posted. I have to say I'm convinced at this point that Glenn is correct. There are too many separate people coming up with the same conclusion (judges, psychologists, friends, family, etc) for me to discount it all.

    But, I'll make you an offer. I will swear to have an open mind and to reconsider - if you'll do likewise. Are you open to even the possibility that your memories and perceptions have been greatly influenced by your mom? Are you willing to look deeper?

    I'll listen to whatever you have. I'd wager that Glenn would post any documents you have in rebuttal. This is what I'd ask you in reference to your post:

    First - why do you know so much about your parents divorce and their history? That, to me, is a first indicator that you've been put into the middle of something by a parent trying to "win you over."

    "My mom married my father when she was 17 years old to try to escape the abuse from her parents."
    Her parents disagree, and Glenn has documents showing your mother (YEARS before she met your father) was convicted of domestic violence against her sister.

    " - During the first month they were married my father beat up my mom severe enough to send her to the hospital 3 times. (She was 5 months pregnant.)"
    Glenn's documents dispute this. If she was in the hospital and there was even a suspicion that it was DV related, it would be in the records.

    " - My father fractured the bones my brother's skull by slamming him into the wall one night when my brother tried to stop him from beating our mom."
    Again, Glenn's documents very clearly dispute this - they show the source of the injury to have been an amusement park ride, and documents show your mother sued over it.

    " - Child protection became involved and threatened my mom that if she did not leave my father(and get an Order for Protection) she would be charged with "failure to protect.""
    Ms. Collins, if you're willing to entertain the possibility that your memories and mind has been influenced, this is a key -- show us those documents. If they don't exist, you need to accept that you may have been influenced / brainwashed.

    " - As soon as my mom applied for the order, the case was remanded to family court."
    Documents? Are you saying CPS didn't act?

    " - My mom attained an Order for Protection, but my father was immediately granted(unsupervised) visitation 2x per week. "
    Ms. Collins - a woman in Arizona got a TEMPORARY order of protection against comedian David Letterman, claiming he was sending her signals through the TV. It was, obviously, dismissed at the hearing. TEMPORARY orders of protection are given based on one person's testimony alone (ex parte).
    Glenn's documents show that your mom never had an Order that was validated. Every time she applied for one, she was found to have lied to get the temporary. Every time. By 7 judges, both male and female, in 2 states.

    " - We told our mom that he was hurting us and we showed her the bruises. My father even beat up my mother regularly when he picked us up for visitation. (One of these visits she was hospitalized for a concussion.) "
    Ms. Collins, this is directly addressed in Glenn's points (see point #10)

    " - We begged our mom not to send us on visitation. I was so scared that I would cry so hard that I would throw up."
    I believe you. And I believe you're stating things you remember. The question is whether those feelings and those memories were based on alienation or on reality.

    " - My father used the police reports to launch his own "Parental Alienation Syndrome" campaign. - The family court found that there was domestic violence but concluded that my mother's fear of my father was interfering with his relationship with his children."
    Read the documents. Stop reading the documents that contain what your mother CLAIMED (or even what your father CLAIMED) - read what the judges, psychologists, court workers, and others FOUND TO BE TRUE.

    " - During visitation I lifted my shirt to show my mom the strap marks, welts and bruises on my back. I said to my mom "He's still hurting us." The visitation supervisor yelled at me "You know you are not allowed to talk about those kinds of things anymore.""
    Again, I ask you to question this - if you showed marks from abuse, there would be records. Go get the supervised visitation logs and records and see whether you actually had marks from abuse. If you didn't, accept the possibility that you've been manipulated. THINK.

    " - ... FBI ....concluded that all 3 questions were true. (Of course they said that wasn't reason enough to break the law.)"
    Ms. Collins - I again ask you to get the records. Not the allegations of your parents, not what someone is claiming, but the findings - in this case of the FBI.
    What you're claiming simply isn't true - neither the FBI nor any other US govt body even concluded that what your mother said was true. No professional, no government body, and no judge (with the exception of one psychologist who refused to speak with your dad or look at his documents) has ever believed that your mother is telling the truth.

    Jennifer, I have seen people your age who overcame parental alienation and began to ask real questions. It is very, very hard. But it can be done. Forget what you owe your dad - you owe it to yourself to review the documents and accept that what you honestly believe to be true may not be. I hope you have the strength to look.

61. J Olsen Says:
    February 2nd, 2009 at 3:07 am

    I, along with others here, believe this story needs all the attention the media can muster. I don’t think there’s a better case that illustrates Parental Alienation. As Jennifer keeps stating (almost mantra like) the truth is finally coming out.

    That fact is in a criminal case you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This case is a civil matter so the threshold is by the preponderance of evidence, a much lower threshold. Every judge she came before ruled she hadn’t met that bar.

    If you read Glenn’s original story and the 2 additional follow-up stories and put them up against Jennifer’s (Holly’s) several responses on her website, the one thing, and the most important thing, is that Jennifer has provided absolutely no independent evidence that supports the astonishing number of claims these women make. It seems Jennifer (Holly) believe that making increasingly bizarre accusations supplements a lack of evidence.

    Jennifer seems to think posting x-rays of two visits to the emergency room is proof positive that Mark Collins abused his kids. Nothing indicated any kind of abuse. As someone else has mentioned, there would be something. In fact these x-rays only raise further questions. Jennifer’s heading on one post is “Holly Collins Proof that Son’s Skull was fractured in 1987” is a great example of the above.

    One puzzling issue is the 1st x-ray of Zachary’s skull from Boston Children’s. It’s addressed to a doctor in San Antonio, apparently Zachary’s patient. What’s up with this? Also, this Program Note isn’t signed; who was this physician and where’s the rest of the documents; it mentions Cranial Nerve exams 2 through 12?

    To add to another commenter here are a couple of oddities from the MN ER report;

    1. Depressed skull fracture secondary to recent neurological trauma.
    2. No evidence of intracranial injury.

    That the skull fracture is secondary at this time and no injury of intracranial injury it appears the skull fracture happened sometime between the kiddy park accident and this visit to the ER.

    3. Possible leptomenigeal cyst.
    4. Past history of post-concussion syndrome.

    Sorry to be technical but I suspect Holly counts on others not to dig deeper;

    Leptomenigeal is technically the Meninges and in this case the Arachnoid Mater, which can (and is suspected to) lead to an Arachnoid Cyst.

    Here’s the definition of Arachnoid Cyst;
    Arachnoid cysts are cerebrospinal fluid covered by arachnoidal cells and collagen[1] that may develop between the surface of the brain and the cranial base or on the arachnoid membrane, one of the three membranes that cover the brain and the spinal cord.[2] Arachnoid cysts are a congenital disorder,[3] and most cases begin during infancy; however, onset may be delayed until adolescence.[2]
    Note: Congenital Disorder and may be delayed.

    Next, Post Concussion Syndrome is;

    The condition can cause a variety of symptoms: physical, such as headaches (this is why Holly brought him to Boston Children’s), cognitive, such as difficulty concentrating; and emotional and behavioral, such as irritability. As many of the symptoms in PCS are common to, or exacerbated by, other disorders, there is a risk of misdiagnosis. Though there is no treatment for PCS itself, symptoms can be treated; medications and physical and behavioral therapy may be used, and patients can be educated about symptoms and their usual prognosis.

    Remember Zachary’s reported suicidal behavior (emotional and behavioral) e.g. banging his head on the floor/wall. Holly herself stated he began banging his head against the floor after talking with Mark and why she brought him to the ER in the first place. According to sworn testimony this behavior stopped after custody was switched to Mark.

    Now how hard would it be for a (manipulative) mother, diagnosed with Munchausen, to plant and continually reinforce false memories. As an adult Zachary has yet to make a public statement supporting either Holly or Jennifer Again, Jennifer posts a letter supposedly written by Zachary on her website as “proof”. I can’t help but wonder if Zachary fully understands his diagnosis from when he was 4.

62. K Schroetter Says:
    February 14th, 2009 at 9:41 am

    I just read the emails from Jeff Imm to Christoper. Why does Jennifer still head up the website as "Jeff Imm is trying to take him away from his family and doesn't care about his rights? The emails clearly state that Jeff does NOT want to take him away from his mother AND Christopher should talk to his own lawyer about the matter.
    What is wrong with this woman? Now Jennifer is alienating her little brother to perpetuate
    the madness. Jeff says he will no longer contact the boy as it causes him so much pain.
    Christopher write over and over, "leave me alone", "I hate you", then he writes in the same email", why won't you call me or take my calls?" I really don't think this is written entirely by Christopher, sounds too much like Jennifer's ranting.

63. Kay Says:
    February 15th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    To answer a couple of J Olson's questions. He/she wrote :That the skull fracture is secondary at this time and no injury of intracranial injury it appears the skull fracture happened sometime between the kiddy park accident and this visit to the ER.

    He/she thought that #1 below meant that the condition was a secondary condition. The medical provider meant "Depressed skull fracture - (due to) - recent neruological trauma." Secondary means due to, that's just medical-ese.

    1. Depressed skull fracture secondary to recent neurological trauma.
    2. No evidence of intracranial injury.

    J Olson felt that : "That the skull fracture is secondary at this time and no injury of intracranial injury it appears the skull fracture happened sometime between the kiddy park accident and this visit to the ER."

    I don't have the time line in front of me, but the skull fracture was recent at that point, and that is all that the document is relaying as far as item #1.

    Also, "cranial nerve exams 1-12" means that there was testing done in which each part of the exam is numbered as in each "slice" of an MRI.

    Otherwise, JOlson is right on with the questions. There are no answers to be found in Holly/Jennifer/Christopher's website.

    K. Schroetter does bring to light a very important issue. Jeff Imm's emails state that he does not want to take Christopher away. Jennifer/Holly/Christopher's site is based upon the premise that Jeff wants to take him away.

    Now what can the title of the website be?
    How about:
    Oops, I guess I was mistaken, but someone still owes me some sort of an apology for something that happened sometime. ?

Leave a Comment