Holly Collins Responds
January 27th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesBackground: The Holly Collins custody/parental abduction case is perhaps the most prominent custody case in the media at this moment. Holly Collins and her supporters among domestic violence and feminist advocates assert that the case demonstrates that family courts are biased against battered women and favor abusive men.
Holly and Jennifer Collins, her now 23-year-old daughter who was kidnapped from her father's custody while a young child, have presented Holly's side of the story in the national media, including a Fox News TV show and Inside Edition.
Despite the fact that Holly Collins' claims are disputed by her own mother, grandmother, sister, brother, former in-laws, her ex-husband and his wife, numerous doctors, Guardians ad Litem, social workers, mental health professionals and all seven judges who have heard this case, over the past year Holly Collins has been able to disseminate her side of the case to the media unfettered. There has been little or no effort to look into the other side of the case.
I have done so. The closer one looks at Holly Collins' version of events, the more problems one finds. My findings about the case can be found here.
Below Holly Collins responds to my findings--My comments on her statement are below it.
Is the Truth Enough? Holly Collins Responds to Glenn Sacks Accusations
Dear Advocates,
Jennifer just called me to tell me that Glenn Sacks just published an attack against our family. I think it is really sad that she is so upset. What do I do? Jennifer can’t just leave it because she says that he makes us look untrustworthy. I can prove everything, but I am so tired. Of course I will do anything for my daughter if you think it is helpful.
Jennifer asked: Why would Glenn Sacks do this?” It’s obvious by his opening line. “The Holly Collins custody/parental abduction case is perhaps the most prominent custody case in the media at this moment.” Glenn Sacks is an opportunist. He wants the fame and fortune and he has found another way to try to thrust him self into the spotlight.
I feel like I am being pulled back into my past. It seemed like every time I turned around Mark started another lie to cover up his abuse and my biological mother, step father and even some court personnel did everything to try discredit me. They had money, power and fancy lawyers. All I had was the truth on my side. I have to be honest… the truth is so ugly I’d rather be lying or crazy!
I would really appreciate your advice.
Sincerely,
Holly
A few comments:
1) Holly says that her ex-husband Mark Collins and his allies "had money, power and fancy lawyers. All I had was the truth on my side." In reality, during both the custody trial and the subsequent appeal it was Mark who was litigating pro se, while Holly had an attorney each time. To view both court documents, click here and here.
2) As for me allegedly investigating the case in order to get media attention, there are far, far easier ways for me to get media than plowing through Holly Collins' absolutely endless case file. I investigated the case because misguided and misled domestic violence and feminist advocates are citing it to support the family law changes they seek. These changes will unwittingly make it easier for women (or men) to employ false accusations of abuse against their spouses or former spouses in order to win custody, and will make it even harder for fathers (and mothers) to fight parental alienation.
3) Holly complains that I am "pull[ing] her back into [her] past." However, it was Holly and Jennifer who decided to discuss the details of Holly's case on national television, where they used it to promote their views on family law. Also, the record of the case which I've examined is public.
[A note on blog comments--please keep your comments on topic and respectful. Off-topic personal insults directed at Holly and Jennifer Collins will be deleted without notice, and I've already edited out or deleted several. If you see a comment which is inappropriate, please let me know at glenn@glennsacks.com.--GS]
"));
19 queries. 0.524 seconds.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:21 am
So I notice Holly didn't dispute *any* of the points stated in Glenn's report. Her defense consists totally of:
1. I'm right and everyone else is wrong, so there.
2. Your criticism is hurting me! Waaaaaah!
January 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am
It's amazing to me the way women try to gain credibility by claiming they are in "fear" and cooking up allegations of everything and anything to get what they want. I agree with cousin dave.... she didn't even try, because SHE CAN"T.
I'm just glad the courts saw through it.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:34 am
What the hell was that?
Is this supposed to be an answer?
On a side note: she really does appear deranged to me (and no, I don't mean it as an insult, I really think she has some mental issues, and needs some kind of help or therapy).
January 27th, 2009 at 9:44 am
It's a bit much for Collins to claim this was "an attack against our family" when "[her] claims are disputed by her own mother, grandmother, sister, brother, former in-laws, her ex-husband and his wife,"
(Second quote from Glenn)
January 27th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Back to playing the victim. This is trip around her Karpman Drama Triangle, where Holly now is back to victim.
A Karpman Drama Triangle has three roles all played by the same actor.(victim, persecutor, rescuer)
She trumps truth with her emotional truth and the emotional truth and outrage of her supporters.
She emanates sound and fury from her empty barrel of her soul.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:19 am
As usual with the Collins gals, they offer no actual rebuttal, just an objection. I notice she has nothing to say about the mountain of documentation Glenn cites. Indeed, given all these documents i think her ex should sue her and her daughter for defamation or similar.
Kent Brockman on TV -"Hurricane Barbara is coming. And if you think it's sexist to name something so destructive after a woman you haven't seen the girls at the mid year sales."
Marge, watching at home- "It's true...but he shouldnt say it!"
January 27th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Glenn Sacks is not an opportunist. He is the leading fathers' rights advocate in America. He dug into this matter because it has become an issue that affects millions of innocent men who find themselves in custody disputes.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:32 am
I think readers should understand that in girl speak, "dragging me back into my past" means, making me have to explain myself.
"Attack against our family" means, please help, someone is asking uncomfortable questions about the lies I have told and I dont know which lie to tell next.
"All I had was the truth on my side", means, No one is believing my lies.
No one particularly cares for criticism but certainly one cant expect to abduct a child, make horrendous accusations of DV and think no one is going to ask questions, this in itself draw my attention towards her ability to rationalize fact from fiction.
If its one thing I have learned about women, if they tell enough people the lie, it then becomes truth,,,,,, right? This is why when men and women break up, women go running for a support group and all the family friends to make sure they get their story out first. This is ruse as they can in the future say "but remember when I came to you upset, it has to be true,,,,,,,,right?
Irregardless, even if they catch her in her lies, which I am sure they already have and chose to ignore, nothing will happen to her and the accused will have to jump thru some hoops to make her feel better.
The revolution will not be televised
January 27th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I think she is saying I'm a victim evidence be damned.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Ms. Collins, if it is advice you are seeking mine would be to provide us with your evidence.
Mr. Sachs has obviously gone to a great deal of time and effort to provide evidence. This evidence, by objective standards, discredits you.
Your repsonse to this accumulation of information is to say you are tired and say that the 'truth' is on your side. That is, to be polite, a weak effort and only serves to further the view that the evidence is against you. You also attack Mr. Sachs as seeking fame instead of answering his arguments. That action indicates a weak position and furthers the view that the evidence is against you.
Ms. Collins, you would be wise to provide evidence or to provide silence.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:49 am
I have not seen the TV interviews showing ONE side of the case...but I have the feeling that it would upset me. Since reading Glenn's information one can see that this is an inappropriate case upon which to revise Family Laws to further favor women over men and children.
Where are the real JOURNALISTS? It's seem that the media is all about agendas and that the "news" is more like the opinion page.
The trouble is that these editorials presenting ONE side of an important issue are not called editorials.
Instead they are presented as fully researched pieces that were summarized in a fair manner for our information.
January 27th, 2009 at 10:56 am
I can prove everything, but I am so tired.
Does that mean when she is rested she will proceed to present this proof? (And I'm serious. If she has evidence that she thinks will prove her case then by all means she should have a fair chance to present it.)
Glenn Sacks is an opportunist. He wants the fame and fortune and he has found another way to try to thrust him self into the spotlight.
Glenn goes through the trouble to present evidence that opposes her own in order to generate fame and fortune for himself? Yeah...
Question: She keeps going on and on about her and her family but the only other family that seems to be on her side is Jennifer. At the very least where is Zachary?
January 27th, 2009 at 11:17 am
Holly wrote: I have to be honest… the truth is so ugly I’d rather be lying or crazy!
I think that we have the answer to that, presented in a rather clear and convincing way. I think it's unreasonable to expect someone who so vehemently believes their lies and embellishments to come clean in the face of the mountains of evidence presented.
It's safer to just keep denying reality.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Holly and/or Jennifer:
If the proof is there, present it. Then you can rest your case and yourself. You chose your path, perhaps unwisely. Now you can traverse this rough road or change your path. The choice is yours but you may not chose wisely this time either.
Obviously there is no proof and I suppose until the cards are held close to the chest the mystery proof can be debated. I think it's a bluff, the tactic being to deflect attention and gain further sympathy.
Lewis articulated a very earnest and concise synopsis!
Attila
January 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
Maybe she is nuts, or maybe he hit her. Nobody really knows except her and her ex. Just because she is ultra sensitive to abuse doesn't "prove" that he didn't hit her. My ex put my head through a wall, told me if I ever told anyone that he hit me that he'd leave, (and oh how desperately did I love him back then) and then told our marriage counselor that I was the one who put my own head through the wall. He hit my daughter (his stepdaughter) numerous times during our 4 yr relationship to the point that I would not allow her to be alone with him. I also wouldn't allow him to be alone with our baby. When I finally had enough and told him I was filing for divorce if he ever hit any of us again, he called in a suicide attempt accusation on me. His claim is that I am crazy. Well, not as crazy as you think Holly is. After he left I followed criminal procedure and filed charges for the most recent of his abuse, to which the municiple court judge said the abuse was petty and the repercussion was too severe (loss of any custodial rights) so found him "not-guilty", even though there was a police report that supported my claim. Just because he wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't happen. My point is that unless you where there, you don't really know.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:40 am
I refuse to believe Holly's or Jennifer's claims until they can provide conclusive proof that what they say is correct.
For the record, conclusive proof isn't "I already told you it happened." The reason is, I could tell you that the sky was suddenly transformed into vanilla pudding, but that doesn't mean it's true. You can look outside and see that it's false; for us, though, we have mountains of as-of-yet conclusive evidence that contradicts those claims made against the father.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:44 am
Great work Glenn. I was had some of this knowledge 20 years ago about BPD.
As for 'is the truth enough ?', yes I would say the truth in this case is more than sufficient in exposing a rather severe continuing case of child abuse being perpetrated against Jennifer by her 'mother' through alienation of anyone close to them and steadfastly clinging to a perverse reality created out of thin air that only the truly mad can perceive to be accurate and truthful - 7 Judges, a whole host of evaluators, psychologists, lawyers, social workers, Court staff, Mark the rightful parent Collins, Glenn Sacks, the police, Interpol, etc ... all evil, crazy liars - But not her she has 'truth' and taxpayer funded militant feminist lawyers very much contrary to another of her statements, ‘Mark Collins and his allies "had money, power and fancy lawyers".
Interesting lines 'attack against our family', 'I think it is really sad that she is so upset', 'Of course I will do anything for my daughter if you think it is helpful.' - Seemingly reasonable statements unless of course, one has first hand knowledge of the background and then it is crystal clear the statements are carefully crafted to deceive anyone without forehand knowledge. In other words, they are lies of the highest order because they actually accuse others of what they are actually doing. So for example if the source - in this instance Holly Collins is accusing someone of vicious abuse - then you know it is she who is the vicious abuser.
Clearly some one with public relations and media savvy carefully crafted her statements - probably a pair of fancy pants feminist lawyers from a hifalutin New York public relations firm'. I do not think Holly wrote her response to the January 26th 2009 article because the vocabulary and syntax are different to what I expect from her. Just another lie.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Susan said:
... even though there was a police report that supported my claim. Just because he wasn't charged doesn't mean it didn't happen. My point is that unless you where there, you don't really know.
====================
This would be an example of "conclusive evidence." A police report (preferably one that hasn't been or can't be refuted). Though police reports can be falsified, or based on false charges
January 27th, 2009 at 11:53 am
i personally believe that Jennifer and maybe even Holly truely believe some of these things. When a parent puts things in a kids head, they are real to the child. I myself had something very particular put into my head that is a real memory to me now. The only reason I know it's false, is
1.) it doesn't make any sense (so what was being put in my head was not understood by me)
2.) it was used in court against my father.
January 27th, 2009 at 11:58 am
@15 and 18. A Police report is not conclusive proof of anything. If I accused you of a crime, the Police Report should include that I accused you of a crime; but that is not conclusive of anything. Obviously, in Susan's case, the Police did not find probable case to make an arrest; therefore the Police Report only documents your charge being made and not it's validity.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
@20,
Sorry about that, though a police report can be traced to its conclusion, and evaluated.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Glenn
Admit it, you're just in this for the fame and fortune. You're rolling in the dough..LOL!!
January 27th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
@21 Did you believe the Police report in the Nifong case? Did you note no arrest was made because the Police did not find probable cause? In other words, the Police didn't find sufficient evidence that the crime occurred. This is neither proof that the crime didn't occur, nor proof that it did; therefore it is not conclusive. Probable cause is not proof in our courts, it is beyond a reasonable doubt. .
January 27th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
And the moral of the story? Just say no to marriage/relationships.
It won't completely eliminate the chance of something like this happening, but it'll greatly reduce it.
January 27th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Dan Major in Toronto, Ontario had his children abducted by his insane ex-wife not to be found for 6 years. Prior to absconding with the children, she had faked having a cancerous tumour in her abdomen, that Dan explained to me was actually a baby as she was pregnant. She made it on the front page of the Toronto Star and people actually donated money to help her. When she had the baby she poisoned the baby for about 7 months to fake the child's illness as a side effect to her fake cancer treatment.
The mother while raising the children got the kids to believe that an amulet she was wearing on her neck contained the ash remains of a sibling that the father had killed. When 6 years later the children were reunited with the father the 6 and a half year old little girl was angry with her dad saying you killed my sister (could be brother, not sure of gender) and I know because my mom caries her ashes on her neck.
When only one side of a story is told to a child about the other parent, it is very easy to alienate a child from that other parent and create a falsehood in that child's mind. The truth often hurts and for people who are not forthright the truth is unbearable. Luckily my children have seen through their mother's lies as she attempted to paint a picture of me being an evil man, which was a clear vexatious lie based on no facts, only hearsay.
Children are vary capable to see through lies provided they have access to both parents keeping in mind their loyalty may rest with the wrong parent if that is that hand that feeds them!
Attila
January 27th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Probable cause is not proof in our courts, it is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Precisely. A police report is probable cause. Probable cause basically means, "There might be something here. Let's check it out." No more no less.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
The basic truth of this matter can be summarised thusly:
"What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Christopher Hitchens.
Holly Collins offers NO evidence in support of her delusions. In fact, many of her claims to Mr. Sacks are directly refuted by the evidence that Mr. Sacks has written about.
Thus, it is reasonable to believe the evidence and to discount claims that are refuted by the evidence.
Perhaps Holly believes her lies/delusions. That doesn't make them any less untruthful or delusional.
January 27th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I have read with great interest some of the preceding comments. Some spared no quarter in opinion and were mostly respectfull. Some were objective and some undeservingly so given what was written by the original storyline. Even though it is difficult to ascertain who is telling the correct version of what there is bound to be criticism about something about anything in all matters. Why should the female Collins be any different from any other ciitzen subject to public revalation. I wouldn't be spared from criticism and revelation why should you?
Get ready to delete the following comments Glenn. They're going to curl the socks of the most vulnerable.
As mentioned above why should the Collins female be exempt from attention from anybody, outside of the paid cheerleading squad called the women's advocates? In this case the attention happens to be from Glenn Sacks. Those who are regular readers to this blog and have seen the live feeds of airwave media comments and interviews featuring Glenn have painfully observed how consiliatory and fair he is. To cast Glenn in
an oppressor category is without merit. You can make the accusation, Holly, but that is all it is.Your thread of accusations cannot stitch a garment of deception in this case. The man would be on your side if he felt and thought it so.
Why, Holly, are you receiving instant media attention to only your version of the saga between you and Mark? I've been observing over the years how easy it is for any female to have HER story heard by her instant admirers, regardless of accuracy, and the one she accuses has no say whatsoever and is even maligned even further? I have nothing but questions and I know that no answer, outside of some pre-arranged rhetoric from the bogus 'equality' movement advocates, will be properly forthcoming. If I want honesty and integrity from observers of the politics of gender I will look to this blog site and its regular contributors. Not every individual always makes an accurate analysis with every contribution but they have the integrity to accept criticism, mend their ways, be forgiven and move on to write another day.
It is truly a sickening sight to observe how thousands of women across N.America get such an easy ride and done within the guise of feminist defined criteria of 'equality.' But that is coming to an end because men are having to organize their concerns to bring them to public awareness. My compassion will have to be summoned for the practioners of organized deception.
It is truly sad to observe yet another divorce proceeding and all the more saddening to have the media project themselves into the whole affair. Like a virus invading a living organism this culture needs to be purged from the sickness of such a contrived acrimony that is effecting the very core of society.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
Susan O'Connor says - "We don't know", and I have to agree. Let's look at what we do know. The kids, according to the courts, were healthier and safer in the care of thier father. The kids were kidnapped and taken out of the country. The kidnapper was not punished. The father lost 15 years to a lifetime of contact with his children. This loss of contact is not considered "abuse".
We don't know if these individuals hit each other or the children. If we "don't know" why is the intitial reaction, or at least the desired reaction by so many, to believe the woman and forgive her for her crimes?
Would people be as willing to forgive fathers fleeing the country with thier children when they lose custody? If so, I see a huge business oportunity in a halfway house in english speaking countries to help fathers with families settle in and find work.
I think that is the one argument that upsets me the most..."we don't know so..." and then the person goes on to choose a side. We don't know so you should see it my way...yeah, that makes sense.
January 27th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Keep up the Good Work Glenn, Keep bringing to light these cases that damage fathers and their rights to be parents. What this case brings to light is the real issue of mentally disturbed women and their uncontested behavior to manipulate the system into believing that women are always the victims of abuse. The real loosers are the children in this case.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Okay, Holly. Show me what proof you have. Both you and your daughter speak of the proof you have, so show it. Refute Glenn with your proof.
All you two have done so far is bleat on about how you're the victims, Mark was horrible etc etc.
If there's some proof that didn't make it to the courts, show it.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Glenn,
Did I read Holly's response correctly that Holly's mom and step-dad sided with Mark Holly? If ***HER*** parents sided with the man supposedly abusing their children that's very very telling.
Just that one fact alone tells me precisely WHO the liar in all of this is.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Sorry, should have been Mark Collins. Not Mark Holly-typing too fast.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
#
15
Susan O'Connor Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
My point is that unless you where there, you don't really know.
----------------
You're right. But we can make an educated guess. And here is a laundry list of bullet points that could lead you to an educated guess that Holly was lying:
A) HER relatives (mother,sister,grandmother) refuted her claims of abuse
B) forensic and child psychologists investigated and said she was a danger to her children and claims of abuse were unfounded
C) directly observable facts, such as the child psychologists stating that the children were much happier in Mark's custody than previously with Hollly
In cases where "nobody's in the room but him & her" we do have the science and technology to make a very strong case for knowing proving/disclaiming what happens. In this case the overwhelming evidence (and testimony) shows that Holly is a pathological liar in need of help.
Your "you don't know" excuse is just that: excuses. Shame on you.
January 27th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I think even Gov Blagoyovich has more credibility at this point.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
@Susan O'Conner
The point in *this* case is that Holly Collins makes abuse allegation after allegation, and every concern she's raised has been investigated, not only those made against her husband, but aparently anyone who's ever told her no or stood in the way of what she wanted. Dispite that, the court system and every other professional involved found that not only were the allegations consistenly unfounded, but that, instead the children were in more danger being with their mother.
All of the concerns she raised were studied after they lived with their father. For example - the allergies she claimed the children had, did not manifest in his care.
It seems greatly more likely, that Mark Collins is being consistenly truthful and acting in good faith than Holly Collins, and he didn't commit crime after crime in the progress, and mount a campaign to smear his ex-spouse when things didn't go his way.
Mark Collins is consistently held to task for what's said by either party. Holly Collins enjoys both an uncontested forum to present her claims, and has had the legal system seriously and systematically address the claims that she's made. In the same systematic fashion, they've shown that she's both a liar and a menace to her kids.
In *this* forum, instead of just taking Mark Collin's side, the facts in evidence in the case have been examined. It's not just one or two incidents, or something casually issued "to err on the side of caution" until a later hearing, but time and time again the same conclusion is reached - Holly Collins is lying, and doing so to destroy the relationship between Mark Collins and his children.
Nothing that I've read that Holly Collins has produced stands up to any scrutiny.
This is *not* a he-said-she-said case, and has not been so in a long time. It's been a "Holly Collins says:" vs. "EVERYBODY else says:" case, with only one side able to show a preponderance of details consistently.
January 27th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
Susan O'Conner's...
"My point is that unless you where there, you don't really know."
...can be said of just about any situation but is usually used only by those without the weight of evidence behind them. Does Susan believe that Mike Tyson didnt rape that woman? After all, Susan "wasn't there so she doesn't really know." Sure, Tyson was found guilty by the authorities, but then, as the documentation shows, Holly Collins has also had certain judgments passed against her by the authorities, but you see, Tyson is a gander, and Holly is a goose, and therein lies all the difference.
January 27th, 2009 at 6:37 pm
This type of stunt was easier to pull off 20 years ago then it is today and I think that the past is catching up with Holly and Jennifer.
Thanks to other brazen women who have tried to pull this and got caught we no longer have to take their word at face value. This is true in the court of law as well as the court of public opinion.
In most parential alienation cases the truth usually catches up when the son or daughter becomes a teenager and can think for themselves. I am afraid for Mark Collins that his daughter is lost for ever.
January 27th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
IF truth is to be redefined as my version of events, then I have already proved everything I think... haven't I?
Ms. Collins, If there was a case settled against a park for cracking your son's skull, how do you explain blaming.. no no... ACCUSING the kid's father of hurting the kid? And if this one thing breaks and I now have reason to believe that it does.. how do you explain your daughter remembering a "modified" version of events?
Right now it does not look good for your story right now. Do bring in some evidence and help yourself out of this. BTW, posting a few document references is much easier than become a poster family for a feminist cause and appearing in 15 different places and repeating the unsupported story. So what is your excuse for your other tireless activities, but when it comes to questioning your story causes you to be "tired"?
January 27th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
Agree what Norman said at #22, Yeah Glenn, you should really drop your pursuit, (wait make that better) blind pursuit of fame and fortune. You see first, you should stop appearing on TV and become the poster "person" for a cause. And then pursuit of fortune? That is just evil - in fact, it should be illegal!
January 27th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
It is people like Holly that non custodial parents, who mostly are men, have had enough, and are demanding changes.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
A short note about munchausen by proxy
http://boysite.info/blog/?p=56
January 27th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Here's the text at my link above. There are a few links to supporting arguments.
munchausen by proxy…almost always involves a mother abusing her child by seeking unneeded medical attention for him or her. It is rare and poorly understood. The cause is unknown.
What if your kid is sick because you’re making him sick?
Perpetrators of Munchousen by Proxy, aka Fabricated or Induced Illnesses are largely women. These types include the Beverly Allitts of the world, and the Angels of Death.
This lends a lot of support to Glenn Sacks’ argument (#6) that females are harder to detect.
Female killers like to use poisons rather than external weapons.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:57 pm
susan, jennifer, holly .... The verbage sounds all too familiar ..... she's crazy, she delusional, she's lying, she's an opportunist, and the list goes on ....
but, in this instance, who holds all the power?
Follow the money.
January 27th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Susan O'Connor Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
"My point is that unless you where there, you don't really know."
In which case, YOU don't know, either. Also, that means that on ANY and EVERY other divorce, case of DV, etc., YOU don't know anything about them, either.
Would that such excuse-mongers for women ONLY ever applied Equality to such issues, in giving MEN the Equal Benefit Of The Doubt...
Oh, and the ex husband DOES know, as does EVERY professional who worked this case of willful PAS mommyhood...
January 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
sonja, as a woman, I find your 31 very disturbing.
Also, someone made the comment, "Unless you were there, you don't know" ....
If I knew how to illuminate this statement on every neon sign in the world, i would do just that.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Georgia Girl Says:
"susan, jennifer, holly .... The verbage sounds all too familiar ..... she's crazy, she delusional, she's lying, she's an opportunist, and the list goes on ...."
So, when a court makes this finding about a WOMAN, its awful, but when courts find such about a MAN, you're fine with that ?
Thats sexist bigotry; yours.
"but, in this instance, who holds all the power?"
Indeed. Note that, for the things that she has done, like STEALING the kids to another nation, most MEN doing such would be convicted of a crime and be jailed.
Holly is clearly MS-ing that Equality.
"Follow the money."
Yes, theres SO much pro men money... Like under VAWA.
Oh, the 'W' in VAWA stands for: WOMAN.
Theres your money trail right there.
http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/myfox/pages/News/Detail?contentId=7497927&version=3&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=3.2.1
Parental Abduction Charges Against Holly Collins Dropped in 14-Year Case
Collins pleaded guilty to contempt of court in 14-year case
Holly Collins walked out with her daughter to what amounted to a hero's welcome. Among her supporters were domestic abuse advocates who began a petition on her behalf.
-----
What sex were those "domestic abuse advocates" and whats the source of THEIR $$$ ?
January 27th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Andre, no, the VAWA is no match when it comes to privately retained lawyers, which is the reality in this case.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
glenn states:
"Despite the fact that Holly Collins' claims are disputed by her own mother, grandmother, sister, brother, former in-laws, her ex-husband and his wife, numerous doctors, Guardians ad Litem, social workers, mental health professionals and all seven judges who have heard this case, over the past year Holly Collins has been able to disseminate her side of the case to the media unfettered. There has been little or no effort to look into the other side of the case."
EXACTLY ... this can easily happen ..... when the husband has the POWER.
Strategically, he diminishes the woman's lifeline (her emotional support), and then he sits back and watches her struggle to survive. This is not a rare phenomenon.
Stuff like this goes on all the time .... regardless of gender.
January 27th, 2009 at 9:52 pm
GG @49
EXACTLY ... this can easily happen ..... when the husband has the POWER.
===================
This can also easily happen when the wife is certifiably unfit. So, Okahm's(sp?) Razor, what is more likely? A massive male-oriented conspiracy, which still was unable to hold a woman accountable for, at the very least, kidnapping and violation of court orders, or that an unfit parent kidnapped their own children and ran to another country when things didn't go their way, throwing out spurious accusations the whole time?
January 27th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
so with what criteria did the judge in this case deem her certifiably "unfit"?
Like whose attorney provided the solid, indisputable evidence to declare her "unfit"?
Whenever the reverse happens, you guys seethe, and cry FOUL ... so why are you not open to a dialogue that just might "favor" this woman's plight?
January 27th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Guys cry FOUL when judges ignore evidence in favor of "emotional truth".
January 27th, 2009 at 11:30 pm
"Andre, no, the VAWA is no match when it comes to privately retained lawyers, which is the reality in this case."
Why is there so much hate for the word private? Privately retained lawyers are not MONEY, but rather are the reverse of money, they are VERY EXPENSIVE. Retain them long enough and you will go bankrupt. But that does not matter, now does it? What money was to be made of off a woman who claims to be penniless anyway? As for VAWA, what bottom is there to the money hole? What pain goes into getting the money for VAWA anyway? (In my dreams, I see these "domestic violence activists" earning their own upkeep for a change to gain enough money, unlike sitting on their bee-hinds all day long whinning.) But in a "democracy", why work, when you can rob?
GG, do you even realize that if you follow the money, the bloody trail ends at the doors of the those "domestic violence activist groups" that supported and are now being championed by Holly Collins? Yes, indeed follow the money. Dad lost, mommy helped the robbers. You see, through VAWA, one can spend (read pay cronies and self) thousands of dollars per case, no matter how worthless the case is - or how badly you ruined things for your "clients". Can these "privately retained lawyers" afford that?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:16 am
You can boil the response down to 1 line.
"she says that he makes us look untrustworthy"
Good job Glenn.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:27 am
Georgia Girl bloviates:
"so with what criteria did the judge in this case deem her certifiably "unfit"?"
The ones detailed in Mr. Sack's work. Try reading it...
"Like whose attorney provided the solid, indisputable evidence to declare her "unfit"?"
Fallacy Of ASSuming Whats NOT In Evidence. Given the testimony of the whole range of even her own family, and the evidence of her frequent and utterly unfounded claims against her ex husband, thats a pretty good start.
"Whenever the reverse happens, you guys seethe, and cry FOUL ..."
Because, UNLIKE with so many cases of disenfranchised fathers, the kkkourt, this time, actually looked at the actual evidence.
"so why are you not open to a dialogue that just might "favor" this woman's plight?"
Evidence; It means more than "she said it".
January 28th, 2009 at 1:08 am
GG,
GS researches both sides claims and you are upset that he gives any credence to the man?
Obviously, Glenn is more open to dialogue than you or her (I took a whole 3 credit graduate class on dialogue, I am fairly well acquainted with the process). And personally, I have found very FEW feminists ever willing or able to dialogue since they were never able to withhold judgement of the other that is ESSENTIAL to understanding the other person point of view.
Dialogue REQUIRES empathy for those you dialogue with and very FEW feminists have ever demonstrated the ability to empathize with men. MOST feminists are perfectly capable of having empathy for women, just not for men.
GG: Need a babysitter? This woman would be great to take care of your kids.
EXCELLENT research GS
January 28th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Georgia, we werent at that Georgia Tech frat house either so i guess i'll have to take your claims about that frat less seriously. Oh wait, i forgot, you're a goose...
This one is over- put a fork in Holly, she's done.
January 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
GG, surely if the man had the power this frankly stupid case would have been thrown out by now? Or the rest of the media would have been showing Mark in the favourable light? Or he would have got custody in the first place, so the kids could have been in what seems the better home for them?
Or, god forbid, he might have been listened to by someone who isn't a mens rights activist, like a newspaper or television news show?
January 28th, 2009 at 8:28 am
I'm half way through glenn's research material, and when I finish, I'll read it a second time. So far, it appears the evidence is stacked against Holly, but a couple things jumped out at me.
Re Holly's suicidal attempts:
"In her early teens Holly Collins attempted suicide by overdosing on sleeping pills, and told court services personnel that she tried to kill herself by slitting her wrists. According to a 1983 report concerning her parents' custody case as a teenager, the Guardian ad Litem wrote "her attempts [at suicide] were little more than attention getting devices, and that there was no intention of actually taking her life...Holly candidly admitted to being jealous of the preferential treatment that was received by her sister Michelle as a result of Michelle's handicap.""
My understanding is that whenever a person threatens suicide, s/he should be taken seriously because it is a cry for help, and the odds are it'll happen again. However, in this case, the Guardian ad Litem attributed holly's claims of suicidal attempts as "attention getting" devices. Okay, so holly admitted being jealous of her sister. You mean that's it? No further investigation into why holly was neglected as a child ... to the point of creating attention seeking devices?
The other pint made throughout glenn's research is Michelle's loyalty to her mother [holly]. Doesn't that strike you guys as *odd*, since michelle was raised in her father's custody?
January 28th, 2009 at 8:39 am
"No further investigation into why holly was neglected as a child ... to the point of creating attention seeking devices? "
Clearly she had mental issues when young too and couldn't handle not getting her way or having lots of attention. This only supports that she would do what ever it takes for attention at a very young age in my opinion.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:51 am
uh oh, I meant "Jennifer" -- not michelle -- sorry
January 28th, 2009 at 9:54 am
so has anyone sent alnog this story with the research to someone like Dr Phil? From the looks of things this woman abused these children, warped their minds and they have no idea.
It would be interesting to see a show like his on it (as his shows lean so far towards fem)
January 28th, 2009 at 10:02 am
GG, your comments here give the impression that you didn't read what Glenn wrote before commenting. Did you miss the bit about Mark Collins representing himself in court? He didn't have an attorney, private or otherwise. Holly Collins, on the other hand, had backing from the feminist organizations in the area, and she had multiple attorneys.
As for Holly's suicide attempts: Were you not ever a teenager? I was, and I know good and darn well that teenagers will at times do absolutely anything for attention. A person who is actually determined to kill themselves will get the job done on the first or second try at most, no matter how much intervention occurs (remember Kurt Cobain?). The article stated that Holly had made "repeated" attempts, by which I assume at least three, which demonstrates that she wasn't actually serious about taking her life. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that it was merely an attention-getting device.
From reading the material, Holly Collins appears to exhibit the symptoms of either sociopathy or malignant narcissism, I'm not sure which. I'm not a therapist, and obviously I haven't examined her, but some of the red flags are visible in Glenn's writeup: the shotgunned accusations, the constantly changing stories, the blatant disregard for law and social order, and the willingness to use her own children as tools. I'll grant this much: We don't really know what the story was in the household in Holly's pre-teen years, and there are certain disorders that can happen to healthy children who grow up with siblings who have incapacitating diseases. However, those children generally make themselves miserable enough that they are driven to seek help. Holly, on the other hand, skipped out on court-ordered therapy as documented in Glenn's report, and she doesn't appear to think that there is anything wrong with her. That's the other side of this coin: sociopaths and malignant narcissists usually exhibit symptoms in very early childhood, and there are hints in Glenn's report that this may have been the case with Holly. The fact that several family members have sought restraining orders aginst Holly tends to support this conclusion. I hold it as inarguable that both sociopathy and malignant narcissism disqualify any person as a parent.
I hope Jennifer will seek some help someday (assuming that she didn't inherit her mother's disorder). From what I've read, children of narcissists often don't realize what has been done to them until they reach their forties.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:23 am
45
Andre Lieven Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Susan O'Connor Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 11:38 am
"My point is that unless you where there, you don't really know."
In which case, YOU don't know, either. Also, that means that on ANY and EVERY other divorce, case of DV, etc., YOU don't know anything about them, either.
----------
Or particularly about rape either. I appreciate Susan & Georgia Girl's similar cool-headed, conservative "you don't know" judgements about the Duke 3, or Kobe Bryant (snort laugh).
January 28th, 2009 at 10:29 am
Offended Dad:
You summed everything up excellently in your post #36.
EVERYBODY disagrees with Holly (except for DV advocates who never bothered to investigate anything), including court-appointed child experts, (neutral) guardian ad litems. Person after person who have NO STAKE OF ANY KIND ON THE OUTCOME (like the experts) and even members of Holly's OWN FAMILY say she is lying. So is it more likely that EVERY EXPERT IS LYING (for no personal gain) and HER FAMILY IS LYING (for actual negative gain since Mark may not have let them see the children when he received custody), or is 100's of thousands times more likely that Holly is the liar?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:36 am
GG:
so with what criteria did the judge in this case deem her certifiably "unfit"?
Like whose attorney provided the solid, indisputable evidence to declare her "unfit"?
Whenever the reverse happens, you guys seethe, and cry FOUL ... so why are you not open to a dialogue that just might "favor" this woman's plight?
At first I wanted to say something like, "Go to some feminsit sites and ask why there was no dialogue in favor of Matthew Winkler's plight." but I'll go with this instead:
When is the last time you've see the people here seethe and "cry foul" over how a man was treated by the court system with there was ACTUAL EVIDENCE against him? And no his (ex)wife claiming he abused her is not actual evidence. (Enough to prompt an investigation for actual evidence but not actual evidence in and of itself.) I'm talking stuff like testimony from doctor and workers who spoke with the children, discrepincies over the children's health (like a fake food allergy if you will), and having one's own "evidence" proven wrong?
January 28th, 2009 at 10:43 am
#
47
Andre Lieven Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Holly Collins walked out with her daughter to what amounted to a hero's welcome. Among her supporters were domestic abuse advocates who began a petition on her behalf.
-----
What sex were those "domestic abuse advocates" and whats the source of THEIR $$$ ?
------
Exactly Andre, VAWA is supported by taxes primarily paid by men. Then these DV shelters / associations use their government funded dollars to try to alter precedent-setting cases AGAINST MEN. As in the La Musga move-away case where mom wanted to move the kids from Cali to Maine. Some 30-odd DV organizations signed a petition urging the judge not to review "the destruction of the father child bond" in his decision about the move-away.
Government gives money to female supremacists/fascists, who then take that money (and instead of helping abused women--the stated purpose of the fund) and lobby government to screw men even more. All with tax money paid mostly by men!
There should be a law that any organization that receives tax-free rating or government subsidies cannot use money or literature to influence any court or legislature meeting in any way. Because it's government supported advocacy.
Just as it's a huge conflict of interest (and morally bankrupt) for congress to give subsidies to coal companies, then the coal companies pad the senators/representatives campaign funds and LO AND BEHOLD, no environmental or safety experts are allowed in the next mining committee meeting on mining rules!
It's greed and corruption. Organizations/companies that get money should not be able to take part in any court action or legislation interaction of any kind.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Additionally, no claim of violence was ever laid at anybody's feet in the La Musga vs La Musga case. That displays the true misandry of these "concerned" DV advocates.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:47 am
#
46
Georgia Girl Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 9:05 pm
sonja, as a woman, I find your 31 very disturbing.
------
As a human concerned with equal rights AND RESPONSIBLITIES for both genders, I find almost every single post of yours DEEPLY DISTURBING.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:49 am
#
48
Georgia Girl Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Andre, no, the VAWA is no match when it comes to privately retained lawyers, which is the reality in this case.
-------
REally???? Because Mark went Pro Se. Holly is the one who had her own high-priced attorney. And even the NEUTRAL COURT-APPOINTED EXPERTS (with no financial stake in the outcome of the case) said Holly was "Therapist shopping" trying to find one with few enough morals to embrace her version regardless of the facts.
There goes your argument!
January 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am
#
49
Georgia Girl Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
glenn states:
"Despite the fact that Holly Collins' claims are disputed by her own mother, grandmother, sister, brother, former in-laws, her ex-husband and his wife, numerous doctors, Guardians ad Litem, social workers, mental health professionals and all seven judges who have heard this case, over the past year Holly Collins has been able to disseminate her side of the case to the media unfettered. There has been little or no effort to look into the other side of the case."
EXACTLY ... this can easily happen ..... when the husband has the POWER.
Strategically, he diminishes the woman's lifeline (her emotional support), and then he sits back and watches her struggle to survive. This is not a rare phenomenon.
Stuff like this goes on all the time .... regardless of gender.
---------
Wow, truly the stuff of a delusional mind.
Glenn just listed a laundry list of A) an army of neutral-court appointed (i.e. not hired by Mark) experts (who have no stake in the outcome) and B) HOLLY'S FAMILY that all say she was lying, and you STILL want to believe Holly is innocent of wrong-doing DESPITE you said "you weren't there, you don't know."
You went from being neutral (a debatable stance) to ADVOCATING her innocence? You are delusional and obviously get down on your knees every 1/2hour to pray to the "men bad, women good" holy scripture tapestry you have hung on your wall, because you have wandered so far off the reservation, that it's going to take you 30years to find your way out of kooksville.
January 28th, 2009 at 10:58 am
51
Georgia Girl Says:
January 27th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
so with what criteria did the judge in this case deem her certifiably "unfit"?
---------
Correction! SEVEN JUDGES!
January 28th, 2009 at 11:04 am
57
The Dapper Swindler Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
GG, surely if the man had the power this frankly stupid case would have been thrown out by now? Or the rest of the media would have been showing Mark in the favourable light? Or he would have got custody in the first place, so the kids could have been in what seems the better home for them?
--------
Exactly, if one parent had all the power it wouldn't be a war, but rather a massacre! If one parent had all the power, Holly's claims would have been dismissed on the first hearing by the first judge.
Instead what you have is the proper due diligence by everybody, dragging this case through 7 judges. And in the end when all the experts, all the testimony (including Holly's own relatives) show that Holly most likely did some very terrible things simply because she wanted to, the end result is she gets even less than a slap on the wrist.
If anything this shows a female-friendly court system. A man would never be able to lay dozens of false claims, then steal the children when he lost anyway and get a slap on the wrist as punishment.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
GG:
sonja, as a woman, I find your 31 very disturbing.
Also, someone made the comment, "Unless you were there, you don't know" ....
If I knew how to illuminate this statement on every neon sign in the world, i would do just that.
So sonja said back in 31:
Okay, Holly. Show me what proof you have. Both you and your daughter speak of the proof you have, so show it. Refute Glenn with your proof.
All you two have done so far is bleat on about how you're the victims, Mark was horrible etc etc.
If there's some proof that didn't make it to the courts, show it.
1. Why is it disturbing to ask someone for proof?
2. What does gender have to do with asking for proof? Are you trying to say that since Holly is a woman we should just believe her at her word alone? Are you trying to say that a woman (sonja) asking another woman for proof is disturbing? Are you trying to say that in relation to you being a woman you find it disturbing that someone (or a woman specifically) would ask a woman for proof?
January 28th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Just a quick note to say I'm so relieved this case is finally being discussed by people who rely on facts and evidence.
There are so many holes in Holly and Jennifer's statements it's hard to keep track...just ask Glenn!
Ah, but there is so much more...have a seat everyone, I'd say you can't even make this stuff up, but then again...'someone' has.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:23 am
Let's not forget Holly took 3 children when she left and immediately had 4 more within 4 years after getting to the Netherlands. Must have been a dilema for the Dutch government to deport a women who has 4 Dutch citizens.
Another note: The reason this became news in the first place (April 4, 2008) is because Holly filed charges against her neighbor in the Netherlands for guess what...that's right; assault. The Dutch news story says the heighborhood didn't like having a foreigner with 7 children living off welfare from day one who just happened to be wanted by the FBI.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:54 am
7 children on welfare? Is that true?
Wow, someone had no problems with ethics or morality! When you are running from the law, you start having kids now isn't that a regular pattern? Because 7 tickets off Netherlands are cheaper than 4. Some commentators here think this anti-male attitude lives only in the USA. They can add Netherlands to their list of nations not respecting the law when the violator is a woman.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:44 pm
If I were the judge in this case, I too would have awarded the father custody. Reason being, the extent of the allegations, and the past abuse the mom went through. I read the court transcripts. Looking at this case, I'd agree the mother has her own traumatic issues she needs to overcome.
Also, when someone asked, what grounds the court has? The number one issue in most courts is the willingness of the custodial parent to foster a relationship between the noncustodial parent and the child. Divorce, custody etc. are difficult for judges as well. We wouldn't have these custody issues, if people would raise their children with the same inspiration they had while in the process of making the child.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
#
73
Danny Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 11:11 am
1. Why is it disturbing to ask someone for proof?
2. What does gender have to do with asking for proof? Are you trying to say that since Holly is a woman we should just believe her at her word alone? Are you trying to say that a woman (sonja) asking another woman for proof is disturbing? Are you trying to say that in relation to you being a woman you find it disturbing that someone (or a woman specifically) would ask a woman for proof?
--------------
Apparently women are supposed to be believed (particularly by other women "go sister!") at face value no matter how incredulous the claims.
The social worker who got "fooled" 80 times in the investigation of cruelty to Baby P must have been GG's british cousin.
January 28th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Pankaj,did you read Jennifer's website/blog? It's written in a breathless, hyper emotional mode almost as if she drank a six pack of red bull. It's a masterpiece to madness and I snickered when I read her praise her stepfather (or mother's boyfriend) as someone who taught her what a "REAL [emphasis hers] father is like." Yet, the mother has been on welfare for years?!?! Where's this guy's support? Why did she live basically as a refugee during all this time?
January 28th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Sorry
Glenn, I didn't mean to make a personal attack on Jennifer by saying her site was madness but, at the same time, it is important to note that Holly and Jennifer are adults who have not been in their father's presence for some time so it's worth noting why their tone is so pressing and urgent and emotive.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
The partial copy of the ER report Jennifer has posted, says nothing about abuse. All it says is the boy was seen for a head injury, and noted the past head trauma (her Canobie Park lawsuit).
I's like to see the entire report, especially anything that would indicate Mark did this...say a police report?
ER doctors are very keen to recognize suspected abuse...like the Drs at Boston Childrens when they called Family Services because of Holly's numerous ER visits.
Jennifer claims today;
"My father put my mother in the hospital so many times. We have at least 14 separate medical records."
I'd like to see them, showing the injuries were from DV of course, and one of the 10 allegations that was thrown out.
January 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
GG said: "sonja, as a woman, I find your 31 very disturbing.
Also, someone made the comment, "Unless you were there, you don't know" ....
If I knew how to illuminate this statement on every neon sign in the world, i would do just that."
Really, is it because I asked her for the proof they keep bleating on about?
January 28th, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Jennifer's website;
"In January 1992 Zachary started banging his head when he got off the phone with my father. My mother brought him to a crisis center, the North Shore Emergency Services."
This occurred in MASS while the kids lived with Holly. Then, numerous reports were made that Zachary's suicidal behavior stopped once custody was changed to Mark later that year.
If an 8 yr old child was exhibiting suicidal behavior would it be due to the parent he lived with, or a parent who didn't have custody and was 100s of miles away and had not had visitation because the mother would not comply?
January 28th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Sonja - you may be able to say "if you were not there you do not know" for some of that stuff, but you certainly can't for everything as it's plain and simple that she is caught in her lies.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:25 pm
Burke, I think that's what sonja meant. There's a bit of a quote mixup there. I'm pretty sure only the last sentence is her own words; the rest is quotes that she's responding to. What she's trying to say is that her reasonable requests to see evidence are being met with charges of disloyalty to Teh Sisturhud.
January 28th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
To Gig's Up (or ANYbody) ... can you link me to Jennifer Collins site? I can't find it. Color me dumb, but give it to me anyhow?
January 28th, 2009 at 6:10 pm
Burke, it was susan (not sonja) who said, "If you were not there, you do not know" ...
Then i'm the one who said *put that statement on neon signs everywhere*
So, just to clarify, Sonja is in complete agreement with you guys.
January 28th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
PK,
After this "Well at least Mr. Sacks has stopped posting threats of rape and abuse to women!"
I can hardly find fault in categorizing the blog the way you did. It is pretty clear. From the conversations posted on their blog, but she does not need to fault "Mr. Sacks" for making her look less credible. The transcripts and stuff she posted on her blog itself does the job very well. Jennifer needs care and help. I am getting more and more convinced that she maybe suffering from Stockholm syndrome. I hope she considers therapy - and not from counselors picked by mom.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
1. Why is it disturbing to ask someone for proof?
Because then women will be deprived of their God given right to lie about men.
January 28th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
Glenn Sacks is an opportunist. He wants the fame and fortune and he has found another way to try to thrust him self into the spotlight.
Oh yeah right, Glenn is making so much money for posting this. And he isn't attracting any negative attention from psychotic feminists for it, either.
January 28th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
Glen
You should read this article about a mum who has adducted her children
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/734919/group-help-sweden-mum-hide-aussie-sons
January 28th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Beste: That's awful.
Have you also seen this from today? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tot-thrown-off-bridge-dies/2009/01/29/1232818610425.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
To quote part of the article:
"A member of the court's staff said the man was crying and looked like "he'd had enough".
He had two other children, aged 6 and 8, with him and witnesses said he begged security guards to "take my kids".
One of the witnesses said the man was shaking uncontrollably and looked like he was "about to have a nervous breakdown"."
Maybe he WAS having a nervous breakdown, or a psychotic episode and needs help. I doubt he'll get it, though.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:42 am
GG asked:
“so with what criteria did the judge in this case deem her certifiably "unfit"?
Well, let’s see - based on the findings, that were nothing short of exhaustively documented and multiply determined, she was deemed to be physically and emotionally damaging her children. She was also diagnosed as suffering from a personality disorder. She was determined to be a danger to the physical and emotional health of her children by myriad experts - and the court found the evidence persuasive. It is kind of a Duh thing – to wit:
The Appellate Court agreed with, “the lower court's finding that Holly Collins' care "endangered [the children's] physical and emotional health" was "supported by evidence in the record”.” That could easily have read – “exhaustive evidence”.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:49 am
@Beste...
I wrote to Glenn about that case in mid December after seeing this article...
Father pleads for help to find abducted sons
I'm pleased George Pesor is still able to garner media interest.
January 29th, 2009 at 5:25 am
Georgia Girl:
I must say I don't understand your questing of Glenn's fact, which he has all links to, if you haven't read anything from Jennifer's side yet (?), never the less...
americanchildrenunderground
January 29th, 2009 at 5:26 am
oops, questioning
January 29th, 2009 at 5:31 am
I see Jennifer has posted more of the x-ray doc, most likely from questions here, but unless I'm reading it wrong (always possible) it states the actual fracture is "secondary" to this ER visit??
January 29th, 2009 at 11:14 am
Gigs Up,
The documents posted there show that the boy suffered head injuries - NOT how he got them. You see half truths are the most deceptive, because they are believable and easily distract a skeptic.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
93
sonja Says:
January 28th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
Beste: That's awful.
Have you also seen this from today? http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tot-thrown-off-bridge-dies/2009/01/29/1232818610425.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
In Jeanna and GG's logic, that man only killed his youngest child because he spent so many hours more than the mother child-minding.
This absurd excuse for why women kill their own children more often doesn't take into susceptibility. Some people would never kill their child(even if they only slept 4hours/day, didn't eat, and child-minded 20hours/day) while others obviously have mental issues.
The number 1 reason that mothers kill their children more often obviously is because family courts drive loving concerned functional dads out of the childs(rens) life at the say-so of a dysfunctional mom. In other words the "believe the mom-why would she lie" myth in family court is removing children's first (and only) line of defense against a dysfunctional mother: the dad.
To put it another way, here is how child custody after divorce works:
A) Mom & dad fully functional: mom is awarded custody & can interfere with dad's parenting time at will.
B) Mom is functional & dad is dysfunctional: mom is awarded custody & can interfere with dad's parenting time at will.
C) Mom is dysfunctional & dad is functional: slightly higher chance that dad will get custody (from standard 4%) if he documents all of mom's irrational behavior, but may take years and children will still be abused and dad can be blamed for kid's adverse reaction to mom's abuse (so if kid is alcoholic at 20, dad's years 13-19 will be blamed instead of mom's years 0-12) and still a very large chance that mom is awarded custody & can interfere with dad's parenting time at will.
D) mom & dad are both dysfunctional: mom is awarded custody & can interfere with dad's parenting time at will.
Here you see precisely why the "yeah mom" concepts in family courts are actually harming children. If feminists really cared about children, they would let go of their hate and end the goody grab for women called feminism.
In the story above, once in a great great while things will work out in reverse so that a dysfunctional dad kills the kids. Even a blind squirrel will find a nut every once in a while.
January 29th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Pankaj says: "I can hardly find fault in categorizing the blog the way you did. It is pretty clear. From the conversations posted on their blog, but she does not need to fault "Mr. Sacks" for making her look less credible. The transcripts and stuff she posted on her blog itself does the job very well. Jennifer needs care and help. I am getting more and more convinced that she maybe suffering from Stockholm syndrome. I hope she considers therapy - and not from counselors picked by mom."
PK responds: I hate to go into this as a mere "attack" or hypothesis as to Jennifer's mental state with respect for Glenn's request. I will generalize and say that I know women like this, who have lived for years under a controlling mother, and they have this umbilical cord with the mother. What "justice" does Jennifer really want? She's now generalizing that all men in custody battles are abusers and is engaged in a media campaign to demonize them.
These women live in a drama filled world like a Lifetime TV program and they deliberately create situations in their own personal life to keep them going. I really feel for her father. He married his girlfriend because she got pregnant and even had a few more kids and give them a stable life and look what happened. These children are now getting a college degree (probably at taxpayer expense as refugees or something) and they want to go work in social services to ruin other lives.
The only good thing I can see about this is that I can think of no better place to have to deal with their day-to-day dramas they're going to bring than the social services dept. Pankaj, would you want to be Jennifer's supervisor for her weekly soap operas of bad boyfriends, abusive neighbors, and ex-boyfriends she claims stalks her? Hmm, I think a reality tv show would probably be cool!
January 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Gigs-up says: "I see Jennifer has posted more of the x-ray doc, most likely from questions here, but unless I'm reading it wrong (always possible) it states the actual fracture is "secondary" to this ER visit??"
PK responds: I was thinking of this cute Tom Hank's story he told David Letterman.
He was in Israel and was stopped by a traffic cop. The traffic cop asked him for his driver's license and he didn't have one for Israel. He tried showing his passport. The cop said in broken English: "This isn't a driver's license! This is a passport! Show me driver's license!" He showed him his wife's driver's license. The cop replied: "This is your wife's driver's license! Show me YOUR driver's license!" Finally, Hanks broke down and cried: "I'm the man!" and the cop replied "Oh! OK! You drive!" and walked away.
We're asking her to produce X-rays that showed that the head trauma wasn't connected to the accident. I don't see a specific date on the X-rays indicating it's not. She then cites the father's denials of hurting the son, in two specific cases using different language, as "proof" of him confessing his guilt.
Jennifer is clearly engaging in sophistry and deceit. This is not an accident, pardon the pun, she really is editing the facts and events to suit an interepretation to please her mother. Even if you held up evidence showing that the mother had hurt the son, she'd just ignore it and talk about something else that suits her cause. She sees what she wants to see.
The narrative that Jennifer doesn't want to face is that instead of her father, and everyone else, being monsters that she was manipulated and controlled for most of her life by her mother. It moves the burden of guilt for her situation from external sources more closely to herself. She's not indicting her father. She's defending herself from her own conscience.
January 29th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
PK says: These women live in a drama filled world like a Lifetime TV program and they deliberately create situations in their own personal life to keep them going.
____________________________
PK, you hit on something with that comment. I believe lots of women do this...perhaps the majority of young women today do this. I don't think they create drama in their personal lives "to keep them going" but rather for the excitement and thrill it gives them along with the sympathy and pity such drama tends to generate from society in general. IOW women get *rewards* for screwing up their lives. Many women are hooked on Victimhood like an alcoholic is hooked on whiskey.
The "answer" for alcoholics is to "hit bottom" and rebuild their *own* lives. Perhaps this is the same "medicine" that should be prescribed by society for women hooked on victimhood.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Thanks Perspicacious. You suggested: "The "answer" for alcoholics is to "hit bottom" and rebuild their *own* lives. Perhaps this is the same "medicine" that should be prescribed by society for women hooked on victimhood."
I disagree with that scenario because I think that these women, like alcoholics, sometimes develop a comfortable relationship with being "at the bottom." In addition, as I said before in another thread perhaps, such people often become MORE close to their addictions because it's all that they have left. It's the one constant in their lives. And as you know, they looove to drag children down with them.
I remember a hilarious episode of COPS where a policeman decided, out of the blue, to follow his instinct and chase after a woman walking across the street. She struggled with him and threw a vial of crack on the ground. She then had the nerve to file a formal complaint with the seargent that his wrestling may have hurt her unborn child (she didn't appear pregnant.) When the seargent got called out and ordered her to go to the hospital for a full evaluation, she quickly asked to drop the matter (too late). Then he advised her that maybe if she's worried about her unborn baby, she shouldn't do crack.
January 29th, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Also, perspicacious, I don't think sympathy from society is necessary. I think that maybe these women enjoy the drama and excitement because it's lacking in their lives or they feel a need to have it. It's so much around them that it feels normal and just going to work and picking up the groceries is "boring."
Whenever I see the checkout stand pictures, I wonder: Don't you remember when hollywood stars were supposed to be GLAMOROUS? Now they're regularly on Celebrity Rehab. Feminism sold women a bill of goods that they could "Have it all" and this meant life being playtime and fun. Being a victim with a drama isn't fun, but it is exciting and maybe they confuse the two.
January 29th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
PK,
I would like to help, however, in the current situation, I am too far gone to help anyone. But if things get better, I would like to help this tortured soul out of her guilt.
Mothers have a tremendous influence on children as do fathers. The only thing I would suggest to Jennifer and Zachary is - Move out of your mother's home, like all kids do here. Start your own lives and you can see to this issue a few years from now.
January 30th, 2009 at 7:01 am
This case just seems to get stranger with every Google. In the news article that appeared in the Netherlands, Holly claims Steny Hoyer asked her to speak in front of congress! Maybe it’s just the translation software I found, but it seems to me to be pretty incredible.
Glenn, did you see that in your research? Here’s where Jennifer is right…this would be black and white.
This woman gives all women such a bad name! One site that came up was StopViolence.org (or something like it). They had taken up her cause, yet they seem to be awfully quiet these days. I wouldn’t hold my breathe for a public apology though…when they realize they’ve been scammed they’ll just move on to the next crusade.
January 31st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I just read jennifer's site.
Both children recall their father's abuse.
Kids don't make this stuff up.
I believe they and their mother are victims of abuse.
Many of you accuse ME of lying about my own situation.
What gives?
January 31st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
108
Georgia Girl Says:
January 31st, 2009 at 6:50 pm
I just read jennifer's site.
Both children recall their father's abuse.
Kids don't make this stuff up.
____________________
Ever hear of the McMartin Preschool case? Kids (like all people) do not come in a One Size Fits All personality scheme. Some kids DO make things up. Some kids are more creative and have bigger imaginations than others. Some kids lie more than others. Some kids are more easily manipulated by mothers and DA's than others. Some kids are telling the truth.
But to grant ALL kids a Free Pass because *some* kids are not lying is every bit as dangerous as ignoring ALL kids claims because *some* kids lie. The wise thing is to evaluate EACH claim on its own merits (or lack thereof) and nothing more or less.
January 31st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Perspi, wouldn't you think, that in this case, you would have to talk with each of the children in person in order to get a real sense of the truth? Granted, kids can be brainwashed. But BOTH of them? And so adamantly? I don't know.
The case you cited ... McMartin Preschool case ... As I remember, these kids were all toddlers ..... wasn't this in calif? But, Holly's children were not toddlers at the time of the alleged abuse. So how could her children, Jennifer and Zach, have been so violently brainwashed?
February 1st, 2009 at 3:12 pm
"But BOTH of them? And so adamantly?"
Yep, there was an article linked here that states it's easier for kids around their age at the time to be influenced this way because they can believe that mum/dad is bad if the other one says so.
Have a read of this: http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2006/07/18/1688712.htm?site=science&topic=latest
Now, if you can brainwash a full adult, what chance does a child (whose brain is still developing) have?
February 1st, 2009 at 3:37 pm
[...] to read, and I'm a fast reader), it's well worth your time to look at. You can also see Holly Collins's response, and Sacks's response to Holly's [...]
February 1st, 2009 at 9:08 pm
Have a look at the Wenatchee Washington scandal that took place in 1994 and 1995 In this utterly shocking case of “abuse hysteria” police and state social workers managed to dream up and carry out what can only be described as a truly bizarre, pyramidal-hysteria-induced witch-hunt of a child sex-abuse investigation. It was truly Kafkaesque - forty-three adults were arrested on 29,726 charges of child sex abuse involving 60 children. How the hell could they make 29,726 CHARGES!!! All based on children (lots of them) telling little white lies hmmm - surely two children wouldn't make something up now would they?
If anyone is unfamiliar with this it is well worth a read. It also give measurable insight in to the workings of 1) those who want to see sex abuse under every stone, 2) the manner in which the media eats this stuff up and, perhaps worst of all, 3) the gross misuse of police and prosecutorial powers (29,726 charges on 43 people!). The following URL gives a reasonable account (nb you will have to paste it into your browser – every time I post it here it gets caught up in the filter) -
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=7065
February 1st, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Talk about false memories – a UK study has shown that a high percentage of individuals can be susceptible to suggestion that eventually becomes a “memory”. A study carried out in the UK by Dr James Ost found the following –
“He gave questionnaires to 150 British students and 150 Swedish students on what they remembered of the Tavistock Square bomb three months after the attacks. None had seen the bomb first hand. He asked the students what they remembered about TV footage of the aftermath of the bomb and about CCTV images of the bus exploding and a computer reconstruction of the event.
Neither the CCTV or the computer reconstruction existed, but 40% and 28% of British respondents claimed to remember seeing them. The equivalent figures of the Swedish participants were 16% and 6%.”
According to the article:
“The study shows how prone people are to "false memories", which the researchers say police and social workers must take into account when evaluating witness testimony or "recovered" memories of childhood abuse.”
The story is here -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/sep/10/humanbehaviour.july7
February 2nd, 2009 at 3:05 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.
February 2nd, 2009 at 1:39 pm
She reads this blog
Jennifer is making new entries in her blog in answer to Glenn's (and our) questions even as she claims she isn't reading our responses anymore. She reposted the same half-page from Zachery's head X-ray report from 1987 and added a page claiming her mother has a 3 cm (1 inch) "knife" scar from 1992 (after the divorce) and a warped child's drawing showing her parent's fighting (probably drawn at the urging of her mother.) That's "proof" in Jennifer's eyes that Mark abused her mother.
Balderdash.
The ONLY cases where we KNOW that Zachey injured his head were in the presence of HIS MOTHER. By Jennifer's own reporting, Zachery intentionally banged his head on the floor in his mother's presence and was injured in an amusement park, once again, in his mother's presence. Both were frontal head injuries. Holly is obsessed with her children's health(or lack of it) yet she tolerated her son smashing his own head, one that had been injured earlier, as a protest act against talking to his father on the phone?
For all we know, the weak, "shy", Holly had been playing games to get her son to injure himself for years.
In addition, Jennifer relently attacks her father's new wife's character by claiming she was arrested for DUI twice. From what I read on her blog, this step-mother did nothing personally against Jennifer other than marry her father so why the massive hostility? DUI's are bad, granted, but in many states they can happen for taking merely 2 glasses of wine and hitting the road. They are not proof of a substance abuse problem in the context of harming children outside of driving. She's picking at hairs to attack a woman by association even as she complains that so many "attack" her mother simply by disagreeing with her.
Jennifer is on a high speed one way ride towards a nervous breakdown.
February 2nd, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Polish Knight...my thoughts exactly.
Jennifer's outbursts display such increasing anxiety, you have to wonder how hard her mother will push her before she breaks. I can’t imagine any (sane) mother who would encourage her grown daughter to go through such public pain and humiliation just to maintain her own bizarre fantasies.
Jennifer’s desperation to mold each and every facet of this case knows no bounds. Now she’s listing a bunch of Holly’s prescriptions (for nothing more than Tylenol) as proof of abuse! Nothing short of unbelievable.
What’s so glaring is that all these actually support the court’s findings as well as Glenn’s evidence. One talks about Holly hurting her wrist (boy, no one but an abuse victim would have one of those!) and most of the rest are just follow ups to that. How interesting that the one about her shoulder she herself says this happened exactly as Mark said; wrestling.
This ‘To Whom It May Concern’ document got me back to thinking about the official statements in the trial that Holly ADMITTEDLY tried to commit suicide 3 times and one way was…slitting her wrist. Too bad she blacked out the portion that would tell us what this was really talking about. It was also written in 1992, during the custody trial. I can’t figure out why a doctor would write such a thing as ‘To Whom It May Concern’ unless it was written on a general request and most likely not even in the court documents. This is not even close to any kind of ‘severe sexual abuse’. If so would the doctor close with ‘if you have any questions, please do not…’ What, no hospital records, no police reports? Even if she had lied when she was seen, you cannot hide a knife wound to the genitals.
This may be by far the most damning piece of evidence against her claims.
Maybe I’m just having trouble following Jennifer’s erratic responses, but isn’t that weird drawing by Zachary, the one she says he drew after a beating episode in her latest post, the same one that’s on the left side of the sight with his age at 11?? And how come one has text and the other (same picture) doesn’t?? All this tells us is that she’s good at doctoring pictures.
I remember in an article somewhere the reporter said the kids drew pictures while in therapy, but that was when they were younger than the ages on the website. So many lies, too little time…maybe someone else can fill me in.
Frankly what’s disturbing is that all these drawings (except one) were done when they were 9 and 11, probably after she abducted them and probably in her presence, the very definition of coaching.
Her attacks against her mother and step-father now just don’t add up to the letters she wrote to her step-father before all this started, which Glenn so graciously provided. It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when Jennifer asks her mother what the next ‘story’ should be. Once again, just plug your ears, keep screaming “Neenew, Neenew”.
Here’s some sound advice Jennifer, get some distance (hopefully a lot) from your mother, get a psychiatrist who specializes in abuse as well as false memories, go visit all those horrible people your mother demonizes, and decide for yourself. Unfortunately, this journey will take a few years.
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Gigs up, after reading what you said, for fun I clicked on a link titled "December 21 1990: Rena Peters (Collins) was [sic] hit Holly with her car (in front of children.)" That sounded pretty severe so I clicked on the link. It's an emergency department report that merely says Holly SAYS a car "glanced" off of her knee.
That's an accusation of hit-and-run auto yet Jennifer doesn't produce a police report perhaps because Holly didn't want to risk getting charged with filing a false police report herself on the matter (which would be almost as serious as a hit-and-run since the police take traffic reports and accidents very very seriously.) This is no case of the poor, helpless, "shy" Holly unable to call the police because she's ignorant and scared. By then, she had a lawyer and women's shelters at her beck and call.
I do notice that the doctor CC'd on the report was our old friend, Dr. Kearns whose name appears on Zachary's report!
GigsUp, Jennifer is claiming to be disgusted that her father posted such material (nevermind she herself doing it with glee) which makes me wonder where it is posted and we can see it. Is should be very illuminating... Can you find it? I'm going to google.
February 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 pm
More stuff!
Oh, My, God! Apparently, Jennifer and Holly are fighting ANOTHER poor father! Holly Collins had another child with another man after divorcing Mark Collins (I was aware of this, but didn't know the details) and I stumbled onto another hatchet job blog from Jennifer dedicated to... attacking another man and simultaneously demanding (among other things)
1) The Father stay away from his son that Holly took to Amsterdam.
2) Demand "child support" from him even though Holly was a fugitive at the time.
3) Claim the father is "greedy" for only wanting money by asking for custody of his son.
4) Attack the father for not wanting to see the son (see #1)
Holly really gets around, doesn't she?
The blog is monstrously HUGE and no doubt as interesting as the one dedicated to bashing Mark Collins.
Here it is:
whoismyrealdad.blogspot.com/
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:08 pm
My god, these kids have all been horribly brainwashed by this clearly vindictive, lying woman.
One day, they'll have breakdowns and realise the truth.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Okay. My last post was too harsh. (deleted) But the women who pull this stuff really get to me. Mostly because it is the kids who are damaged the most. Kids deserve so much better than that and if people can't be good parents, then wait to have kids until you are ready to take on that huge and most important endeavor.
But also because the Hollys of the world out there do so much damage to the legitimate organizations out there whose goal is to eliminate all violence in families. Every ounce of attention, every dollar, every hour worked on Ms Collins's case is one less directed towards helping someone in real need.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:11 pm
[...] am I not surprised By Meaghan According to comments from readers of Glenn Sacks's website, Holly Collins (reference my earlier post), is making [...]
February 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Gig's Up Says: can’t figure out why a doctor would write such a thing as ‘To Whom It May Concern’ unless it was written on a general request and most likely not even in the court documents.
______________________
I haven't been following this closely but the "To Whom It May Concern" jumped off the computer screen and slapped me in the face.
What doctor would write such a thing? How about a female feminist "psycho-therapist" working in a "women's center" of a hospital for the FREE benefit of any vicious mommy involved in a custody case?
My husband's ex-wife produced just such a document...even headed "To Whom It May Concern" verbatim back in 1987 courtesy of just such a female feminist psycho-therapist.
I have never seen anyone before now produce another similar document of this ilk. Apparently it is NOT as rare as hen's teeth after all but may be a feminist's and a vicious mommy's best kept dirty little secret in custody battles.
I say this because my husband only got a hold of his ex's "To Whom It May Concern" pack of lies about fabricated emotional abuse by accident. A third party in the case who was provided with this pack of lies apparently didn't know it was supposed to be kept from my husband At ALL Costs and as such provided my husband with a copy of the fallacious diatribe. It was produced in court by my husband's attorney and immediately squelched on the record by the judge after he called it unsubstantiated garbage.
Unfortunately prior to that event, the vicious ex-wife had already provided a copy of her "To Whom It May Concern" feminist psycho-therapist's Pack of Lies to the kids' school, their individual teachers, coaches, dentist, doctors, family and friends, my husband's employer and God Only Knows Who Else.
Yes, the judge shot it down BUT he didn't sanction the b*tch for concocting it with her feminist psycho-therapist. And as we all know, you cannot unring a bell. Those who got a copy of that fallacious piece of crap believed it and probably some still do believe it.