'No Way Out But One' to Unveil at MIT

A compelling new documentary debuts in Boston this week that will open your eyes to a stunning injustice. No Way Out But One was co-written and directed by Emmy award winning television producer Garland Waller, currently a professor at Boston University. Waller, a friend and former colleague of mine at WBZ-TV, asked me to go to San Diego in August to critique the unfinished doc at a conference on domestic violence.

The film follows a case that gained international attention 10 years ago when a divorced mother made the FBI’s Most Wanted List for kidnapping her children from their father and escaping overseas.

Holly Collins, a battered wife living in Minnesota, divorced her husband but lost custody of her kids when the family court deemed she was so traumatized by the abuse that her parenting skills were questionable. The court also ignored evidence her ex-husband severely beat the children, even cracking his young son’s skull. In interviews with the children, now young adults, we hear about the emotional and physical cruelty they endured while living with their father. Collins took her kids and ran.

The film details their harrowing escape, how Collins eluded security at the airport pre-9/11, and how she and her children eventually became the first Americans ever granted asylum in the Netherlands.

But Collins is one of the lucky ones. She and her family (including her daughter, Jennifer, who’s director of the Courage Kids Network, which helps abused children) are now back in the U.S. and plan to attend the screening at 7 p.m. Thursday on MIT campus, room 6-120. Co-producers Waller and Barry Nolan will also be there. (Full disclosure: Nolan is a Boston Daily blogger.) Waller says she is thrilled the film was picked to lead off the new Chicks Make Flicks series, sponsored by Women in Film & Video/New England.

“I know it’s not a pleasant subject, talking about child abuse and having to acknowledge that the American family court system isn’t protecting abused children, but perhaps once people realize what is happening they can initiate change,” Holly Collins said.

It takes courage to put the spotlight on an issue that a flawed system would prefer be left in the shadows. No Way Out But One persuasively makes the case for much-needed change.

  • http://www.nowayoutbutone.com Garland

    Thanks, Sara, for this writeup. It’s wonderful to have you back in town, so to speak, writing about things were are doing here. The indie doc community thanks you, too.

  • D. Dickerman

    It sounds like an amazing film; wish I could attend the screening. Thank you, Sara, for sharing this post with us.

  • Joan Meier

    I have not yet seen the film although I am sure it will be powerful. The story Waller is telling is one which is replayed tragically in courtrooms across America every day. It is a completely unknown disaster which American courts are inflicting on children and their loving parents. I hope this film, and the growing publicity for the issue, will wake America up and force the courts to change how they do business.

  • Debbie Danielpour

    Thank you, Sara, for pointing out the courage Waller and Nolan have shown in exposing the severely flawed and damaging family court system. Having seen the long trailer for this groundbreaking documentary, I can say that the facts and stories in this film will shock any viewer. If you want to be informed about this dirty little secret, NO WAY OUT BUT ONE is a film not to be missed!

  • ChrisQ

    Sara,
    Thanks for the enticing review – very difficult subject matter but an area on which more light must be shined. Good luck to Garland!

  • Sally Shelton

    As a counselor that works at a Texas MHMR, I know that abuse is far more rampant than is recorded. The damage this does to all involved has far reaching consequences. So glad this film with such an unpleasant topic was actually made. Hats off to you Garland.

  • Steve Aveson

    A perfect example of how strong documentary storytelling will find a way to not only survive but thrive in the new communication revolution. Thanks for the spotlight on this powerfully important work.

  • JR

    The Holly Collins case has been completely discredited, and Holly Collins has been proven to be a liar and parental kidnapper without just cause.

    Everybody who has looked closely at this case — including the family court judge and members of Collins’s own family, have been outspoken in their belief that Holly Collins is an abusive liar.

    She is a false accuser of the worst kind. If you attend, do so as a sidewalk protester against Collins and against REAL child abuse that Collins perpetrates against her own children.

    Boston Magazine’s positive portrayal of this film is shocking.

    • AJ

      JR , you should listen to what her, now adult , children are saying.
      That’s what it’s all about !.
      Don’t keep repeating someone else’s nonsense !

  • Matt

    Before you judge read up on the case. Seven judges and many family members along with social service people disagree with this lady. I can agree family courts do need reformed but the facts surrounding this case do not support what this film says.

    • Sara Edwards

      Matt,
      The film shows FBI documents, doctor’s documenting evidence of abuse by the father against the kids, and the fact that the FBI has now dropped all charges against Holly Collins which is why she is back in the United States. The filmmakers should weigh in on this one but wanted to respond.

      • MD

        Sara, a good journalist does their homework before printing a story. Simply watching the documentary is not research. BU should be ashamed to be associated with this film. The legal system is flawed when a mother can use the courts to emotionally abuse her children and destroy a father’s life.

        Read this: http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267 and show us the evidence if this is all false.

        • JB

          Great link – It really looks like these folks were completely duped by one heck of a con artist, and worse her children have been Brain washed (i can’t think of any other word for it) into believing it.

          All those resources that could have went to real cases of abuse. No doubt because of this one mother’s abuse of the system and abuse of her children, many other children were also abused while she kept social works, judges and doctors busy dealing with her lies.

          • JB

            I’d also like to say that the author if that article in the link above
            http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267

            should get some sort of award. That is one of the most informative investigative reports i have read. I love how it has most of the documents to prove the statements right in the write up. VERY impressive 🙂

          • AJ

            For the last time :
            Prince , JB , Glenn Sags and cohort:
            By the comments you make, you clearly say you don’t know anything about this case.
            Whatever you think is a ground for you comments , is IN FACT , a blown out of proportion, not wanting to understand fabrication of this Glenn saggs spineless character.

            Just stop these useless comments, while everybody knows the truth !

        • prince

          This film is a shameful piece of propaganda promoting a false accuser’s fraud.

          Shame on this rag for giving a second’s thought to this kind of rubbish.

        • Fathers Need Fair Hearings

          MD, JR, Matt, Prince, SRM, Mike, Kevin, Rafael, Brad,

          Any interest in signing this? What’s your take on it? If the courts are crooked like you say, what makes you think the Collins case is different? Have you researched the funding to the nonprofits affilliated with this case? Did David Levy’s CRC own the visitation center [which oh so many fathers are unjustly forced to use, no?]

          Holly Collin’s case is a classic Fathers and Families cash cow which they often promote to stir up angry unsuspecting supporters who do not understand that Fathers and Families is making a profit off the family court extortion racket holding them hostage.

          If what you say about corruption is true, until we have an unbiased juror to decide the case, you cannot say whether the judges in the collins case “discredited” anyone. Did Fathers and Families train the child support staff like they do many other places around the country? Does fathers and families have conferences in various parts of the country which train child support agencies and family courts how to cash in on IV-D money by creating high-conflict cases that go on forever and extort fathers?

          Your alternative being to admit that the courts are not biased. Because you can’t depend on the statistics regarding the merits of awarding custody one way or the other put out by the courts, then say they are all unreliable and corrupt.

          I will look for your signatures on the petition, a copy of which is automatically sent to the Deficit Reduction Committee, as well as the budget committee and various members of congress to let them know that poaching fathers through the family courts is not ok, and to choke off the funding to the organizations doing it.

          http://www.change.org/petitions/cut-tanf-title-iv-d-programs-which-represent-4billion-of-waste

    • Mrs. Burns

      Matt and JR,

      I was there. Were you? I saw the bruises. Did you? I had to walk those children out to their “father” on Christmas in front of my home and heard his hateful tone to them…saw the fear on their faces. Did you? I watched Zachary draw pictures of what had happened to him…uncoaxed, unguided…from his pain he drew them. Did you see? I spoke to the reporters in Mpls that commented on their shock of Mark Collins not wanting any publicity on his children’s “kidnapping”. What father doesn’t want his children’s disappearance to be publicized? The kind that doesn’t want his dairty laundry aired…that’s what kind.

      Are there SOME parental kidnappings that really ARE “kidnapping”? yes. Case in point is that poor father who had his son taken to Brazil. That was a tragedy. THAT is a case for “father’s rights” groups. THIS is NOT that type of case.

      THIS is a case of children that were terribly abused by a sub-par specimen of the human race. THIS is a case of judicial miscounduct. Judges that may have sided with Judge Porter are no different than those that side with judges found to be taking bribes or ignoring evidence rules. Its a club. Sometimes they stick up for each other when they shouldn’t in order to protect the reputation of their profession. As in any profession, there are the good and there are the bad. This is an example of the horrible.

      Save your commentary on the inequity of the justice system for a case to which it applies.

      THIS is not such a case. Shame on you for making such thoughtless and biased comments towords a family that has suffered more than any of you could ever concieve of enduring. After your comments, you should be crossing your fingers that “karma” doesn’t really exist.

      Your posts are no different than if you were to lambast a rape or murder victim for “deserving it.” You are woefully misinformed.

      IF this is simply Mark, Jeff or their spouses hiding behind an assumed name as you have done so very many times in an effort to try and disguise your crimes through misinformation….I remember exactly who you are and exactly what you did. So do thousands of others. You are pathetic, weak and loathsome.

      Holly & Family: if you read this…I applaud your courage in telling your story.

      Garland and Barry: Thank you for getting their story out in such a professional, moving and public way.

      • JR

        Mrs. Burns,

        The reactions you purport to have observed in the children are consistent with children who have been subjected to PAS.

        Also, one of the most frightening aspects of false allegation cases (particularly when Munchhausen is a factor) is that the false accuser will stop at nothing to fabricate evidence to support their lies — up to and including causing corroborating injuries to the children. I believe evidence has shown that the injuries to the children occurred while they were in the care of Holly Collins.

        Regarding the suffering this family is enduring, I can conceive of it — trust me.

        • Mrs. Burns

          JR, with all due respect, you are a fool. I saw the bruises that appeared AFTER seeing their father that were NOT there before they saw him. The children had no time with their Mother before I witnessed this. There is no way thsope injuries occured anywhere or anyway but at Mark’s hands. Clearly you ahve had personal issues with PAS. I sympathize. My husband as dealt with this as well with his ex. However, because it happened to you does not mean it happened here. It didn’t happen here. This is not a case of MBP. This is not a case of PAs. perhaps you should consider that calling every case PAS actually detracts fom people taking PAS as acredible situation in cases where it actually *does* apply. Consider that your comments on this and many other articles actually work against your agenda.

          JR, a question: Have there been cases where sexual harassmet has been incorrectly used against someone? Does that mean that no sexual harassment has ever occured? have there been innocent people convicted of murder? Doe that mean that everyone convicted of murder is innocent? have there been lies told in family court regarding abuse in order to gain custody? Does that mean every case of abuse is a lie?

  • SRM

    This film is a shocker – in how far the portrayal of a lie can go to score political points. This story has been discredited time and time again. The reality is that abusers do NOT get custody. In fact, mothers RULE the family courts and my personal experience is a testimony to that, as a MALE that has NO SAY in the life of his own child – and NEVER ONCE committed and act which would even hint at less than stellar parenting – a professional MALE with a substantial career who can see his daughter 31 hours per month. Yes, the courts are BIASED, UNJUST, and without CREDIBILITY – not in the way you were thinking.

    • Sara Edwards

      It’s not surprising to hear the vitrol pouring out. Father’s are often outraged that this issue comes up I was told by the filmmakers. The film stands as it stands. I hope those who choose to see it will wait and make a judgement call. All of the questions and opinions will make a great forum when it airs at MIT. It is an issue that clearly needs more light shed on it. Keep the dialogue going.

      • JR

        Sara, the vitriol you are witnessing in the comments is addressed at “the issue” of manipulative/vindictive mothers abusing the court system via false allegations to wrest children away from a loving fathers, and then using the children as pawns in that game to further their agenda. I’ve been on the receiving end of serious false allegations motivated by nothing more than a vindictive need to “win” custody — best interest of the kids be damned.

        The link at fathersandfamilies.org lists just a few of the glaring lies and abuses perpetrated by Collins, who has offered no credible rebuttal to any of them, her only response to hurl yet more false allegations of abuse at those who dare question her account.

        This film will no doubt be like “Breaking the Silence,” the PBS production that cited cases that were later fully discredited, resulting in an apology from PBS. Anybody can make a documentary supporting their ideology. The truth lies not in the film, but in the court files and transcripts that document what really happened.

      • Brad B

        @Sara Edwards

        I have several issues with your article and I would appreciate it if you would address them as going by your bio it appears you are a well regarded reporter who is interested in presenting the facts of a story.

        You said: “divorced her husband but lost custody of her kids when the family court deemed she was so traumatized by the abuse that her parenting skills were questionable.”

        Can you point to the specific documentation that refers to this specific court decision that supports this conclusion?

        You also wrote: ” The court also ignored evidence her ex-husband severely beat the children, even cracking his young son’s skull. ”

        There’s a major problem with what you wrote. The head injuries happened in 1987. It’s been discussed about the causes of the head injuries and the lawsuit against an amusment park for one of the injuries. Yet, Ms Collins nor the kids ever brought up the fact about the head injuries being caused by the father while the custody was being determined in 1991 and 1992. Dad cracking his son’s skull was a fact brought about after Ms Collins lost the original custody case.

        Can you please explain to your readers why you left this fact out of your article?

  • rafael

    Wow. I can’t believe Holly Collins’ story is being promoted uncritically in Boston Magazine. Her version of events is at odds with what 7 judges, and her own family have said. This is completely irresponsible. Does Boston Magazine do any research before publishing something? I feel sorry for her children.

  • David

    Wow, amazing that an entire documentary can be made on misrepresentations. I am pleased that the feminist misinformation machine has selected such a strawman as its poster child. A woman who has been found culpable by seven judges!? Her own mother and other family attests to her mental illness?! More than anything else this is testimony to one woman’s repugnant disregard of the truth and the power of mental illness to influence the attitudes who have greater regard for political concerns than for the truth.

  • Kevin McGoldrick

    This story sounds like another cash cow. And a farce.
    This woman tells a story about one judge may or may not have done in Minnesota almost twenty years ago.
    Show me the cases where alleged batterers are given custody. Show me. Show the public. Show a recent case where this has happened in Massachusetts.
    I can show you volumes of cases where fathers are removed from their childrens’ lives. Look at all of the “moveaway cases” in Mass. See if you notice any trend there.

  • mike

    This story, a big, fully discredited overexageration (lie) in reality is exposing the extreme bias in our family court systems toward mothers and how vindictive or crazed mothers can manipulate the system to their advantage.

  • Steve Carter

    Please check the facts before promoting this one-sided collection of false allegations.

    Please see for the true story behind this movie, as seen through the eyes of all this women’s family, her ex-husbands and their partners, the judges and guardian ad litems involved, etc.
    I am shocked that these baseless allegations are being given the applause and support that they do not deserve.

  • Barry

    Dear JR et al,

    As co-producer of No Way Out But One, I would like to address your suggestions that the facts in our film have not been properly vetted concerning the Holly Collins story.

    In fact, we have had access to and have relied upon voluminous un-edited court transcripts, legal correspondence, medical records, contemporaneous unpublished diaries, interviews with eye witnesses, sworn affidavits by eye witnesses to abuse, interviews with medical experts, interviews with legal experts, peer reviewed research and, through a Freedom of Information Act request, obtained some 600 pages of previously unseen FBi files.

    You refer to an account of the case by Glenn Sacks. Mr. Sacks is in the unfortunate position of having been fed cherry picked information by someone with an agenda all their own. That, along with Mr. Sack’s own pre-exisitng biases that fathers are always the victims, has led him to make allegations that are clearly and demonstrably wrong.

    One small example: Mr. Sacks claims that Zachary did not suffer a fractured skull at the hands of his father – and that the fracture noted in the x-ray was merely a pre-existing injury from an earlier accident at Canobie Lake Park.

    I have reviewed the medical records from both injuries. They occurred one year apart. The Canobie Lake injury was a closed skull injury, with no skull fracture, just a concussion.

    The injury at the hands of his father was a depressed skull fracture, confirmed both by an x-ray and a CAT scan. Evidence of that same skull fracture was again confirmed years later by an x-ray in the Netherlands. Mr Sacks clearly did not have access to this evidence when he wrote his highly slanted account.

    Mr. Sacks also failed to note that in his sworn testimony, Holly’s ex-husband gave least three different explanations for Holly’s broken nose, and two different explanations for Holly’s dislocated shoulder. Medical records substantiate both injuries. Mr. Sacks also fails to note that In the final custody hearing, court evaluator Susan Devries clearly states – that she believes abuse has occurred and that the judge acknowledges this fact in his ruling. Mr. Sacks did not see fit to mention any of that.

    In making its claims of bias in the family courts, No Way Out But One relies on published peer reviewed research in reputable professional journals, not anecdotes, or ideology. The evidence from large-scale studies and meta-studies in support of our claims is quite substantial, while the evidence to support a claim of wide spread “Parental Alienation” directed against fathers is, as one study found, nil.

    In a letter to Mr. Sacks, I have challenged him to address these issues and more – and have not heard a word from him. If you gentlemen could arrange a debate, I would be very happy to engage in one because I am quite confident of the factual accuracy of our film.

    Sincerely,

    Barry Nolan

    • JR

      Barry, multiple family court judges have also vetted the facts in this case, and found Holly Collins to be an unfit parent. Her own family has stated she is a liar. She has leveled ludicrous accusations against all who dare question her. How many times does she need to cry wolf before you will begin to question her motivations and credibility?

      Manipulators like Collins are all too familiar to any man who has ever had the misfortune to find himself in family court. Fortunately for Collins’ children the court did the right thing in her case and removed the children from her custody. But not before she succeeded in alienating several innocent children from their fathers. Tragic.

      JR

    • The Truth

      from http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267 (Problem, #3):

      Holly Collins has repeatedly accused Mark Collins of fracturing their son Zachary’s skull in a violent rage. At the Battered Mothers Custody Conference in January, 2011 she said that Zachary got the skull fracture while trying to protect her from Mark Collins’ attacks.

      This is fictitious. The principal skull injury sustained by Zachary was when he fell forward on a ride in an amusement park. Holly Collins took legal action against the amusement park for the injury and obtained a $50,000 settlement from the park on Zachary’s behalf.

      The following year Zachary re-injured his head when he fell out of a shopping cart, as documented by the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology.

      The “skull fracture”claims against Mark are a relatively recent invention–Holly did not make this accusation of abuse in her court filings during the custody dispute in 1991 & 1992, several years after the alleged incident.

      Holly Collins accused ex-husband Mark Collins of having fractured their son Zachary’s skull in 1987, both in her bid for refugee status in Holland in 1994 and numerous times since.

      Zachary sustained a head injury during an accident at Canobie Lake Park in New Hampshire in 1986. The legal settlement between the Park and Holly over Zachary’s injury states:

      “[O]n or about May 10, 1986, the plaintiff Holly Collins and her minor child Zachary were at the Canobie Lake amusement park…Zachary Collins was injured while riding on a ‘kiddie ride’ identified as the ‘junior turnpikes sports car’ ride.

      “As the ride came to halt, the minor child fell forward hitting his head on the inside of the car in which he was riding. Plaintiff Zachary Collins suffered an acute head trauma resulting in severe headaches, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, blackouts.”

      To see the legal settlement between the Park and Holly over Zachary’s injury, see document #1 here and document #2 here. According to the court document, “total payments to be made [to Zachary for the injury] equals $50,000.00.”

      Holly and Jennifer have posted selected parts of an apparent 1987 medical report on Zachary’s injury on the Internet. There are several problems with Holly’s version of these events:

      a) In a September 9, 1987 letter, Reno E. Backus, M.D. of the Minneapolis Clinic of Neurology explains “the present complaints relate to the accident that occurred…at Canobe Lake Park, rather than the head injury that occurred in July, 1987, when he fell from a shopping cart, even though he apparently suffered a skull fracture with this secondary injury.” Backus’ letter is document # 32 here.

      b) Holly Collins says Mark Collins fractured Zachary’s skull in 1987, but Holly Collins does not make this claim in her June, 1991 legal petition to move the children’s residence to from Minnesota to Massachusetts. Instead, she only alleges that Mark has ignored the children’s medical needs, a claim which was later discredited. To read this court order, see document #27 here (see finding #7).

      c) There is no evidence that Holly made this claim during Mark Collins’ request for a custody change in early 1992. In her February 28, 1992 court order, the only reference Referee Marybeth Dorn makes to allegations of abuse regards alleged medical neglect–”The respondent [Holly Collins] continues to make allegations that the petitioner [Mark Collins] provides a dangerous environment for the children during periods of visitation. All of the respondent’s current representations have been repeatedly addressed by this Court on numerous occasions. It appears in the children experience significant medical difficulties when they are in the respondent’s care, not the petitioner’s.” To read this court order, see document #28 here.

      d) During the five-day custody trial before Minnesota Family Court Judge Michael J. Davis there was no reference or record of Holly Collins alleging that Mark Collins fractured Zachary’s skull. To read the Court’s ruling, see document #12 here.

      e) There is no record of any of the doctors who saw Zachary Collins for his 1987 skull injury reporting it to Child Protective Services, even though all physicians in this situation were mandated reporters.

    • http://www.reddit.com/r/mensrights bobsutan

      “In making its claims of bias in the family courts, No Way Out But One relies on published peer reviewed research in reputable professional journals”

      Such as?

      “The evidence from large-scale studies and meta-studies in support of our claims is quite substantial”

      Which large-scale studies?

      “the evidence to support a claim of wide spread “Parental Alienation” directed against fathers is, as one study found, nil.”

      What evidence?

      You’ve made the claims, the onus is on you to back them up with facts.

    • Lexie

      Barry, as the wife of someone dealing with not one, but two, delusional ex-wives, both brainwashing their children against their father, I find your comment irritating and disgusting. Maybe you don’t know what it’s like to be in my husband’s situation, so it’s easy for you to ignore the issue of parental alienation. When his children tell him how much they hate him and blame him for everything when he has absolutely no control over the situation, it makes me cry, and they’re not even my kids. I just feel so sorry for him because we have a daughter. I can’t even imagine her saying words like that to me. Nothing would hurt me more. What they are doing to those children is a form of abuse, believe it or not. Making someone believe what you want them to believe and act the way you want them to is abuse. It is mental abuse. Should I say it again so that it sinks in? Holly should be ashamed of herself because she is a terrible mother for abusing her children, children she carried inside her for nine months. She’s too psychotic to see past her own selfish desires to have her children to herself though. That’s quite often the reason for this type of abuse.

      Don’t get your wires crossed. I’m not a feminist, but I know that men are just as capable of alienating their children from their mothers. The real issue is that women are largely granted custody, even when they have been proven to be abusive. Maybe you should have considered that issue for a documentary. You can look at the figures yourself, in fact. I didn’t read statistics. I looked at the census myself. Take a look at how many children are living with their mothers (with or without a stepparent) and compare them to those living with their fathers (again, with or without a stepparent). It’s not even a matter of interpretation when you look at the data yourself. It’s a matter of knowing basic math. So let’s not pretend there is ANY court bias against mothers. That’s baloney, and if you did real research, your own research, you would know that. Please inform yourself.

      With more than 80% of mothers having primary/sole custody of their children, when alienation does occur, it’s logical to see more mothers committing this abuse than fathers. Speaking up against parental alienation then appears to be an anti-mother issue, but only because you’re missing the point and not getting beyond the very surface of the issue. Look deeper. If family courts awarded custody differently, alienation would still occur, of course, but the figures could potentially become balanced. Again, it’s simple math.

      So everyone crying sexism and bias, stop and really think about the issues at hand. Forget about people’s comments and see the issues for what they are. Look up the numbers yourself. Form your own conclusions. Don’t simply repeat what the person next to you is saying.

      For the record, I’ve never once seen Glenn Sacks say anything about favoring fathers. He has talked about being aware of bias against fathers and that is definitely not unfounded, but when he talks about issues in the family courts that affect both genders, he expresses his awareness of that too. He never claims that anything affects only fathers except for the obvious bias against them. Don’t slander someone without the proof to back it up. It makes you look bad.

    • The Truth

      Re: the shoulder and nose injuries, this is Problem #15 at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267

      Problem #15–Holly Collins has made numerous accusations of abuse against ex-husband Mark Collins, and these accusations have been continually rejected by courts, child protective agencies, custody evaluators, and the mental health professionals involved in the case. However, the trial court did find domestic violence due to a legal error by Mark Collins, who was litigating pro se.

      The Court of Appeal concluded that “it cannot be said that the District Court clearly erred finding that domestic abuse occurred between the parties.” This was a result of a critical legal mistake made by Mark Collins when he was litigating pro se. The incident in question occurred at Mark Collins’ parents’ home. Holly and Mark were play wrestling as they often did because Mark, even though small in stature, had been a successful wrestler.

      Holly did suffer a nose injury from play wrestling with Mark in 1982. Because Mark made a pro se legal mistake and did not refute Holly’s allegations many years later that it was a deliberate act, the District Court had to find domestic abuse, and for technical reasons the Appellate Court could not reverse the lower court’s decision.

      This version of events is supported by Holly’s mother Eleanor Gallagher and Holly’s grandmother Mary Therien, as well as Gerald and Nancy Ann Collins, Mark Collins’ parents, in a notarized affidavit submitted to the Fourth Judicial Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. They wrote:

      Holly received a contusion of the nose in 1982 while in family play with Mark, which was not intentional but solely an accident. Gerald and Nancy Collins and Mark’s sister were present in the home when the incident occurred.

      To read this notarized affidavit, see document #4 here.

      During the custody trial, Holly Collins accused Mark Collins of dislocating her shoulder. However, family members assert that while growing up, Holly had a shoulder that would periodically pop out of joint.

  • prince

    Shame on Boston Daily for uncritically promoting this rubbish. A mentally ill false accuser got a few film makers to portray her as a martyr. Don’t let her take you for a ride too. 7 judges, a host of professionals, and the false accuser’s own family call her a liar. Check your facts Boston Daily.

  • Eric

    I remember when Documentary Journalism was thought-provoking as well as well researched and fact-checked. And I’m only 38. Edward R. Murrow this isn’t.

  • Keen Grant

    And yet again we find Boston Magazine perpetuating myths known to be fundamentally untrue about domestic violence and the awarding of child custody. When will it end?

    In December of last year my partner declared in open court in Newton she was ‘in the habit of throwing plates at (me)” just moments before being awarded full custody without any conditions whatsoever.

    This upon the basis of perjury, lies told under oath that she was finally made to walk back one month ago when she was finally found to have lied by a jury and was found not credible–and I was found Not Guilty–after ten months of having been deprived of our infant daughter.

    We are a literary couple, she with a Ph.D from Harvard and a history of having stabbed her partner with her former fiancee’s daughter in the apartment behind them. That case the Massachusetts DA declined to prosecute, much as they did the charges of Assault and Battery of me she had confessed to under oath before the Newton Clerk Magistrate last April.

    At what point does Boston Magazine review studies born out by the CDC, the NIH and the social science literature that correctly find that HALF of domestic violence originates with women? From there the natural conclusion is to revise and reassess the automatic, and shameful, intellectual beat-down of men.

    Alas, that would require true grit.

    • Keen Grant

      It takes courage for Boston Magazine to overcome the fatwa against presenting clear and compelling evidence that a full HALF of domestic violence and intimate partner terrorism originates with men. It takes true grit–substantially lacking in a society that rewards those who take few risks at all while selectively prosecuting men though exempting women from confessed crimes…as is routinely done by the Commonwealth’s Office of the District Attorney.

      Reply to Ms. MacNamara’s selective reading of the incidence of d/v in last month’s article, and the ongoing intellectual WHITEWASH:

      “While the trial is over though custody issues remain, it did not provide me comfort while mounting my defense to learn too late that
      the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had declined to prosecute my former partner–by whom I have an infant daughter–when she admitted to Watertown police on Christmas Eve, 2007 that she had thrown heavy drinking glasses, a dish, a coffee mug, and then stabbed her former boyfriend with his then eight year old daughter in the apartment behind them. This due to her stated anger (in the police Narrative) over “being stuck with (his daughter) again on Christmas Eve.”

      • Keen Grant

        The above, as is obvious, should read ‘women’ rather than men. Where’s my editor. Now for breakfast!

  • Mad at Misandry

    “Violence Against Women” is the credo of scoundresl who seek to overloook, condone or otherwise encourage women’s violence against elders, children, disabled, animals, and men (not that we should be concerned an iota about men who obviously deserve all the derision and violence that they get at the hands of women who are just as capable of good as men, but so much superior to men that they never make the same mistakes as men).
    The patriarchy was bad becuase it suggested that men were superior to women. The matriarchy is also bad as its supporters suggest not that women are superior, but that men are inferior.

  • Seth

    DON’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU SEE. Take this documentary for what it is…one person’s point of view. For decades, Holly Collins has made false accusations of abuse against a wide variety of people, including her mother, stepfather, both of the fathers of her children, both of the subsequent wives of the fathers of her children, as well as former landlords and neighbors.

  • Michael Hunter

    Please read more about this story by appropriately copying and pasting the following link:

    “http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267”

  • Barry

    Dear JR et al,
    Below you will find some of the research that has been referenced in the film. I would also point out that the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Psychiatric Association have all found that the concept of a “Parental Alienation Syndrome” is not supported by peer reviewed research or scientific evidence and is not worthy of belief.

    Despite heavy lobbying by its supporters, PAS is not included in the most recent DSM – the bible for diagnostics.

    The claims made by Mr. Sacks that have been reprinted here about the injuries sustained by Zachary are proven false by the medical records. His injury at Canobie Lake was a closed skull injury in the front of the head. His injury at the hands of his father – occurring a year later – was a depressed skull fracture on the side of his head. I have reviewed the medical records myself and they are quite clear and beyond dispute on this point.

    And surely you are aware of the copious literature on the fact that victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse often give innocent sounding explanations for injuries at the time they happen. I invite you to re-read press accounts of the sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. Those victims have been found to be telling the truth beyond any doubt – even though some of their accusations surfaced decades after the trauma.

    As to the date of Holly’s first allegations of abuse – in the film we reference the sworn court testimony of Father Eugene Corica, Holly and her husband’s former priest. Father Corica refers to marital counseling that he performed in 1987 and says: ”Mark was abusing Holly. And I believe one of the children at least…The first thing I told Holly, she never has to remain in that situation…You don’t have to stay when you’re being battered”.

    The claims of abuse made by Holly and her children were all found to be highly credible by a team of highly trained, experienced professionals from a variety of disciplines at Boston Children’s Hospital. You may see the interviews in the film, along with contemporaneous medical records of therapy sessions with the children that took place without the mother present.

    As to the suggestions that women are just as prone to commit intimate partner violence as men, I refer you to this article [ http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/02/07/us-violence-domestic-usa-idUSN0737896320080207 ] on CDC findings that state: 23.6 percent of women and 11.5 percent of men reported being a victim of what it called “intimate partner violence” at some time in their lives.

    Here is some of the research the film drew upon:
    Gender Bias in the Family Court System
    Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts 
Report of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court 
New England Law Review, Vol. 24, Spring 1990; pg. 745.

    Highlights:
    Fathers obtained custody 70% of the time:
“We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. “
 p. 748

    Domestic violence is not always seen as “relevant”:
“The presumption in favor of shared legal custody that is currently held by many family service officers can result in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. We also found that abuse targeted at the mother is not always seen as relevant to custody and visitation decisions. Our research indicates that witnessing, as well as personally experiencing, abuse within the family causes serious harm to children.”

    Executive Summary

    False Allegations by Custodial Mothers Are Rare
    False allegations of abuse and neglect when parents separate 
Child Abuse & Neglect, 29(12), 1333–1345. (As excerpted by Leadership Council.org)

    Highlights:
    This is the first national study:
“The first national study to document the rate of intentionally false allegations of abuse and neglect investigated by child welfare services in Canada.

    There is low rate of false allegations:
“Data indicate that more than one-third of maltreatment investigations are unsubstantiated, but only 4% of all cases are considered to be intentionally fabricated. Within the subsample of cases wherein a custody or access dispute has occurred, the rate of intentionally false allegations is higher: 12%.”

    Most false allegations made by fathers:
“While anonymous reporters and noncustodial parents (usually fathers) most frequently make intentionally false reports.”

    Children and mothers least likely to make false allegations:
“Of the intentionally false allegations of maltreatment tracked by the CIS-98, custodial parents (usually mothers) and children were least likely to fabricate reports of abuse or neglect.”

    The System is Broken
    A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations 
Psychological Science in the Public Interest – Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2007) pages 1-29

    Highlights:
    Testing and expert’s claims don’t stand up to scrutiny:
“Sadly, we find that (a) tests specifically developed to assess questions relevant to custody are completely inadequate on scientific grounds; (b) the claims of some anointed experts about their favorite constructs (e.g., ‘‘parent alienation syndrome’’) are equally hollow when subjected to scientific scrutiny.”
    
Intro

    PAS has no scientific basis:
“the scientific status of PAS is, to be blunt, nil. As Gardner (2004) himself noted in a recent posthumous publication, only one study of parent alienation ever attempted a statistical analysis: his own.”
    Use of PAS is blatantly misleading:
“We believe that it is blatantly misleading to call parental al- ienation a scientifically based ‘syndrome’”

    p. 10

    Use of PAS should be prohibited in courts:
One of their recommendations is: “prohibit testimony about PAS or any other ‘‘syndrome’’ that lacks scientific support.”
    
p. 23

    The System Doesn’t Want to Hear About Your “Abuse”
    Child Custody Mediation and Domestic Violence
National Institute of Justice Journal Saccuzzo, D. P., & Johnson, N. E. (2004). 251, p. 21-23.

    Highlights:
    The odds seem stacked against the mothers:
“Attorneys who represented mothers at these proceedings said that they often advised their clients not to tell the mediator about domestic abuse. After looking at the results of such mediations, the researchers determined that the attorneys’ advice may well be justified; women who informed custody mediators that they were victims of domestic violence often received less favorable custody awards.”

    p. 21

    Domestic Violence does not matter to 50% of mediators:
When domestic violence was expressly alleged on the pre-screening form, mediators directly addressed the issue less than half the time.

    p. 21

    Issues of domestic violence don’t matter in deciding custody:
“Joint legal custody awards were the norm in both the DV and non-DV groups. (Joint legal custody was awarded about 90 percent of the time.)”

    p. 21

    In fact, allegations of domestic violence tend to mitigate against women:
“Only 35 percent of the mothers who alleged domestic abuse got primary custody, compared to 42 percent in the non-DV group.”
    p. 22

    Being accused of DV gives father a slight edge:
“Fathers who were accused of DV were given primary custody in 10 percent of cases; non-DV fathers got primary custody 9 percent of the time.”
    
p. 22

    A counterintuitive outcome for DV allegations:
Alleging domestic abuse also appeared to negatively affect the chances of receiving the kinds of protections such allegations would warrant, such as supervised visitations with the alleged battering spouse and protected child exchanges

    P. 22

    • The Truth

      Yes, Barry, Zachary had two head injuries, one from the amusement park ride, in which there was a successful legal action against the park, and another from falling out of a shopping cart. But while you talk around the issue by citing “medical records,” etc, you have never provided any evidence that the either incident had anything to do with the father, and Holly Collins herself did not make this claim during her divorce/custody battle.

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “The claims of abuse made by Holly and her children were all found to be highly credible by a team of highly trained, experienced professionals from a variety of disciplines at Boston Children’s Hospital.”

      This is debunked at Probelm #22, http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267. Barry refers to Dr. Eli Newberger, a pediatrician formerly of Boston Children’s Hospital, who is one of the few professionals who believed that Holly Collins’ claims had some validity. However, Dr. Newberger has been widely criticized for uncritically validating abuse charges.

      • Barry

        Dear “Truth”,

        There are only four people on this planet who know with total certainty exactly how Zachary sustained his skull fracture. That would be the people who were there when it occurred. Three of them say that it occurred at the hands of Zach’s father. Zach’s father says otherwise. But at least I am glad to see that you seem to implicitly acknowledge that there are medical records substantiating the fact the skull fracture injury was distinctly different from his accident at Canobie Lake.

        As to your “debunking” of Dr. Neuberger, he is a graduate of the Yale Medical school, a fellow in the American Academy of Pediatrics, a member of the Advisory Committee for the Model Child Abuse Reporting Law Project of the American Bar Association, the author of 28 peer reviewed articles, was the Keynote speaker at the Fathers and Families Network event in Worcester in 2006, and a reviewer for the New England Journal of Medicine. Based on his CV alone, I would tend to take his word over that of Glenn Sacks.

        But it was not just Dr. Neuberger who believed Holly and the children. The children were seen by an entire interdisciplinary team – other Psychiatrists – psychologists and social workers. And there was total agreement that abuse occurred as Holly and the children described it. We have the medical records and the contemporaneous correspondence.

        In addition, there were many other professionals who disagreed in the strongest terms with the finding of the court evaluator – including the Children’s Marblehead based Pediatrician who wrote a letter complaining that the court evaluator had badly mischaracterized his findings. We also have letters from professionals who treated the children complaining that Holly’s mother had quite inappropriately been hectoring them in an effort to convince them that Holly was crazy. Not just once – and not just one doctor.

        Poor Mr. Sacks was fed selective documents – and from those documents he carefully selected evidence to support his foregone conclusion. He does not mention that the deciding judge – Judge Porter – clearly stated in his order to change custody that there had been abuse. That counts as a judicial finding of fact.

        In addition, we have the FBI files – including the FBI interview with Holly’s ex husband, who had had custody of the children for a year and a half at the time of the abduction. The FBI reports the Holly’s ex told them that the children would prefer to be with Holly -that they probably went with her willingly. This is after one and a half years of his total control and supervision of the children.

        When the full record and complete record is reviewed – including all the medical records – there is simply no question that Holly and the Children were telling the truth – and Mr. Sacks – is guilty of a perverse Javert-like vendetta against the victims of grievous violence.

        Barry Nolan

        Barry Nolan

        • The Truth

          Barry writes “There are only four people on this planet who know with total certainty exactly how Zachary sustained his skull fracture. That would be the people who were there when it occurred. Three of them say that it occurred at the hands of Zach’s father.”

          Barry–shouldn’t you at least mention that the three witnesses you refer to are Holly, her then 2-year-old daughter Jennifer, and her then four-year-old son Zachary? Is it any surprise that, having been kidnapped as children and fed only their mother’s falsehoods, that many years later they would agree that the father had done it? This isn’t evidence of anything, and Holly didn’t even make these claims during her divorce and custody proceedings.

        • The Truth

          Barry writes “Mr. Sacks…does not mention that the deciding judge – Judge Porter – clearly stated in his order to change custody that there had been abuse. That counts as a judicial finding of fact.”

          Actually, this has been on our website for almost three years–it’s Problem #15 at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax.
          Problem #15–Holly Collins has made numerous accusations of abuse against ex-husband Mark Collins, and these accusations have been continually rejected by courts, child protective agencies, custody evaluators, and the mental health professionals involved in the case. However, the trial court did find domestic violence due to a legal error by Mark Collins, who was litigating pro se.

          The Court of Appeal concluded that “it cannot be said that the District Court clearly erred finding that domestic abuse occurred between the parties.” This was a result of a critical legal mistake made by Mark Collins when he was litigating pro se. The incident in question occurred at Mark Collins’ parents’ home. Holly and Mark were play wrestling as they often did because Mark, even though small in stature, had been a successful wrestler.

          Holly did suffer a nose injury from play wrestling with Mark in 1982. Because Mark made a pro se legal mistake and did not refute Holly’s allegations many years later that it was a deliberate act, the District Court had to find domestic abuse, and for technical reasons the Appellate Court could not reverse the lower court’s decision.

          This version of events is supported by Holly’s mother Eleanor Gallagher and Holly’s grandmother Mary Therien, as well as Gerald and Nancy Ann Collins, Mark Collins’ parents, in a notarized affidavit submitted to the Fourth Judicial Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. They wrote:

          Holly received a contusion of the nose in 1982 while in family play with Mark, which was not intentional but solely an accident. Gerald and Nancy Collins and Mark’s sister were present in the home when the incident occurred.

          To read this notarized affidavit, see document #4 here.

          During the custody trial, Holly Collins accused Mark Collins of dislocating her shoulder. However, family members assert that while growing up, Holly had a shoulder that would periodically pop out of joint.

  • Barry

    We have just received the following letter from Justice for Children – she asked us to post it for her:

    Sara – thanks for your great review and kudos to Garland Waller, Barry Nolan
    and their team for this extraordinarily moving documentary! I so wish that I
    could be at MIT for the premier tonight.

    I had the pleasure of seeing NWOBO when Professor Waller previewed the film
    at the International Violence Abuse and Trauma Conference in San Diego this
    September where it was exceptionally well-received.

    We were delighted to help with this documentary and are proud that Gregory
    Jacob, an attorney who has devoted ten years of pro bono legal work for abused
    children in JFC cases, gives such a clear picture of the legal hurdles faced by
    protective parents.

    The furious attack letters in response to Sara’s article give a good idea of what batterers
    tell their victims:

    — It never happened – you are a liar.
    — No one will ever believe you.
    — It was an accident when your nose was broken, your shoulder was dislocated,
    your son’s skull was fractured. I certainly didn’t do those things; you did them to
    yourself.
    — Who are you going to believe? Me or your own lying eyes?
    — I (the batterer) am the real victim, not you! You are the abuser!

    And we wonder why women don’t leave and why children stay silent. Look at
    the fury directed at them when they break their silence or someone finally gives
    them a voice!

    This strategy works well in the courtroom: the combination of aggressive attacks,
    superior financial resources and faux-victimhood have fooled many a judge, custody
    evaluator and child’s attorney. I know: my organization – Justice for Children – is
    overwhelmed by protective parents – mostly mothers – asking for help after the alleged
    child abuser is demanding or has been given physical custody of the child. I sit for
    hours in many courts, watching the same scenario play out time and again, only the
    actors are different.

    Yes: women can be violent, women can kill. And I have worked with a number of
    fathers who are protective parents.

    But do what I have done and set up a daily news alert for murder-suicide and see the
    ratio of male to female perpetrators of familicide. Here’s one of today’s alerts:
    http://skokie.patch.com/articles/woman-girl-victim-in-doublie-homicide-in-skokie?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl2%7Csec3_lnk3%7C107802

    And check out this article by the National Institute of Justice on Murder-Suicide in
    Families:
    http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/intimate-partner-violence/murder-suicide.htm

    Garland Waller and Barry Nolan have given us an extraordinary film about true heroism in
    the face of overwhelming odds. Thank you and my heartfelt thanks to the Collins Family
    for their courage in sharing their long odyssey for safety and justice.

    (Spoiler alert: there will be a post attacking me and my organization. This happens whenever
    our names are in the press or we comment on a message board. Be assured that we have
    checked the court documents: JFC’s concern for the safety of the child was justified.)

    Eileen King
    Regional Director
    Justice For Children – DC

  • Justice

    Having gone through the family court in Minnesota, I can safely say that Holly’s accusations, when viewed by seven judges were unfounded. After doing research on the subject, it was clear that Holly falsely accused almost everyone in her life of abusing her and not one judge was convinced along the way. This story exposes how easy it is to claim domestic violence in order to get a desired result. Before you buy into this story, do some research on it and you’ll find that this particular story is false, made into a dramatic film to show something that doesn’t happen. Just look at the percentages of cases that go through the court and custody issues, and you’ll find that almost without fail, the mother will be given custody of the child(ren). If a mother doesn’t, it is NOT a travesty. In fact, if courts were truly unbiased, you’d think that the percentages would be more equal than they are. It’s actually a bit comical to see how slanted the system is in “awarding” the children to the mother, taking them from the father, who in 70% of the cases didn’t file for the divorce and was NOT abusive…but suddenly, when you have a claim of abuse, and even after research shows there was none, people are up in arms about the mother not getting custody. This film will be based on false testimony and lies that were intended to gain custody. It didn’t work, the system DID. But don’t take my word on it… LOOK at the court documents. LOOK at the research that was done on the case. Do NOT just take a MOVIE as an objective news report. This film has a purpose and it is NOT to promote justice.

    • Manus

      Well said, Justice.

  • Barry

    Dear “Justice,”

    Let me state once again – that both the court evaluator – and Judge Porter – who made the final ruling taking custody away from Holly found that abuse had occurred. You seem to be having a hard time grasping that fact. The Judge himself stated that abuse had occurred in his final ruling. Fact. It is in the court record. But that was not mentioned by Mr. Sacks was it?

    And in fact there is a large volume of peer reviewed evidence that shows that your claim about false allegations – is in fact false. You can see some of it on our web site at NoWayOutButOne.com

    In fact – peer reviewed published research – as well as interviews with legal experts across the country – shows that claiming domestic abuse or child abuse typically works against a woman – and many attorneys will advise their clients not to raise the issue even if there is clear evidence that abuse occurred. Again – you can find links to some of that research on our web site.

    In addition – neither you nor Mr. Sacks – (author of the screed against Holly) – have had access to the children’s and Holly’s medical records – or to eye witness testimony concerning the abuse. We have.

    I can sympathize if you had a terrible experience in family court. Many people do. It has evolved into a process that is not evidence based, does not have rigorous standards for admitting expert testimony and lacks rigorous standards for those involved who must make decisions that would be difficult for Solomon himself. This is what needs to change – for the sake of all – most especially for the children

    Barry

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “The Judge himself stated that abuse had occurred in his final ruling. Fact. It is in the court record. But that was not mentioned by Mr. Sacks was it?”

      Actually, it’s covered at Problem #15 at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267

      Problem #15–Holly Collins has made numerous accusations of abuse against ex-husband Mark Collins, and these accusations have been continually rejected by courts, child protective agencies, custody evaluators, and the mental health professionals involved in the case. However, the trial court did find domestic violence due to a legal error by Mark Collins, who was litigating pro se.

      The Court of Appeal concluded that “it cannot be said that the District Court clearly erred finding that domestic abuse occurred between the parties.” This was a result of a critical legal mistake made by Mark Collins when he was litigating pro se. The incident in question occurred at Mark Collins’ parents’ home. Holly and Mark were play wrestling as they often did because Mark, even though small in stature, had been a successful wrestler.

      Holly did suffer a nose injury from play wrestling with Mark in 1982. Because Mark made a pro se legal mistake and did not refute Holly’s allegations many years later that it was a deliberate act, the District Court had to find domestic abuse, and for technical reasons the Appellate Court could not reverse the lower court’s decision.

      This version of events is supported by Holly’s mother Eleanor Gallagher and Holly’s grandmother Mary Therien, as well as Gerald and Nancy Ann Collins, Mark Collins’ parents, in a notarized affidavit submitted to the Fourth Judicial Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota. They wrote:

      “Holly received a contusion of the nose in 1982 while in family play with Mark, which was not intentional but solely an accident. Gerald and Nancy Collins and Mark’s sister were present in the home when the incident occurred.”

    • The Truth

      Barry, you repeatedly refer to documents claiming various things to support Holly’s view of events, but whereas the Fathers and Families website has dozens of the case documents posted and accessible at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267, including all of the major rulings, we don’t see any of yours. Why aren’t they posted?

      Sorry, but your claims are starting to sound like Senator Joseph McCarthy, who always claimed to have “lists of hundreds of known communists who have infiltrated the US government in my briefcase,” but never seemed to be bale to produce them.

  • Barry

    Dear “The Truth” –
    The documents can be seen in the film – but you bring up a good suggestion – we have been flat out getting the film finished – and it would be good idea when we have some time in the near future to upload some of the documents to the No Way Out But One web site.

    But we have them and you can see them in the film – you can see the interviews with people that were eyewitnesses – you can see the interviews with the now grown children – who have never wavered in their claims – you can see the drawings that they made in therapy all those years ago – showing scenes of domestic violence – you can hear the testimony read aloud verbatim from the court transcript – including the finding that domestic violence occured. Unfortunately – this comments section does not offer a way to post a PDF copy –

    Regards and thanks for a good suggestion,

    Barry Nolan

    • The Truth

      The children were kidnapped at a young age and exposed only to Holly’s version of events for nearly two decades–of course they echo what their mother told them. Re: the drawings, at the time, as the court found, Holly was feeding them wild tales about how their dad was a monster, so it’s not hard to see why impressionable young children would make such drawings, particularly when their mother clearly encouraged and wanted them to do so. The DV finding is spurious, and is explained in previous comments.

      As for posting the documents, you can just put them as pdfs on a website and post the URLs here.

    • JR

      “you can see the interviews with the now grown children – who have never wavered in their claims – you can see the drawings that they made in therapy all those years ago – showing scenes of domestic violence”

      This is merely proof that the Collins’s campaign of parental alienation and brainwashing of her children was thoroughly effective and, sadly, permanent.

      You lose all credibility with when you deny the existence of PAS and point to an alienated child’s statements as proof of an allegation that has already been proven false. Statements from the alienate children prove abuse, but not the abuse you so want to believe in.

      To say that the evidence against Collins is overwhelming is understating things.

  • Barry

    Dear JR and “Truth” –
    The children – now grown – have been saying to the courts – to the guardian ad litem – to the therapists – the same thing from the time that the abuse occurred. They lived full time with the father for over a year and a half – and continued to maintain steadfastly that they had been abused. In one of their therapy sessions – mentioned in the court proceedings – they asked their therapist to be allowed to read aloud in their father’s presence accounts of their abuse and their feelings about it – Mr. Sacks failed to mention that didn’t he?

    As to PAS – the scientific consensus on that matter is quite clear – there is no scientific evidence – there is no peer reviewed research – it is not accepted by the American Medical Assoc., the American Psychological Assoc, the American Psychiatric Association and it has been repeatedly rejected for inclusion in the DMV.

    On our web site there are links to peer reviewed studies that basically call it junk science. There is an interview with the creator of PAS – Dr. Richard Gardner in the film – one of the last known TV interviews to take place before he killed himself by cutting his own throat. If you want want to suggest that junk science is proof of anything – that is certainly your right. But the film is based on actual science – on peer reviewed studies – on eye witness accounts – on medical records – and on sworn testimony. We think that’s a better way to sort out the truth.

    • JR

      I hope that you and your children never have to experience the hell that is parental alienation, or worse, PAS. If you do, you will know beyond doubt that it is real.

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “They lived full time with the father for over a year and a half – and continued to maintain steadfastly that they had been abused.”

      This is also false, and is discussed in Problem #4 and #5 at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267. Dr. David W. Cline, M.D. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who is Board Certified in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, was Zachary and Jennifer Collins’ psychiatrist during the latter part of the Collins’ marriage. The children resumed their therapy with Dr. Cline in 1992 until they were kidnapped by Holly Collins in 1994. Cline’s findings in the case contradict Holly Collins’ version of events on a wide range of issues. According to Dr. Cline:

      “After Judge Davis made the decision to put legal and physical custody with Mark Collins… the children were seen regularly [by me] with Mark and Rena Collins. They rapidly accepted this decision and engaged in building of a relationship that was harmonious, joyous, and health producing. The particulars of this relationship as it further developed in 1993 are documented in my progress notes. The children’s behavior in school continues to improve and they finished the school year missing very few days and with good marks in contrast to frequently missing school because of alleged illnesses [while living with Holly Collins] prior to the change of custody.”

      “During the course of 1993 and 1994 Holly Collins made frequent accusations that the children were being maltreated. Investigation of these items by me and others found them to be false…”

      “[Zachary and Jennifer Collins] remain happy and well-adjusted in the care of Mark and Rena Collins and especially enjoyed the relationship with their grandmother, Eleanor Gallagher, who they saw frequently.”

      After the custody switch, Guardian ad Litem Michael J. London extensively investigated the children’s situation, interviewing a wide variety of concerned parties, including the children’s allergist, pediatrician, and other doctors, the children’s schoolteachers, the mother of one of Zachary’s friends, and court services and child protection. London’s investigation found “happy children who have adjusted very well to the change in custody.” While Holly Collins has repeatedly accused both Mark Collins and Rena Collins of being cruel and abusive to Zachary and Jennifer, London found a warm, loving relationship between the children and their father and stepmother.

  • Barry

    Dear Mr Sacks (“The Truth)
    From the film –
    Interview with Dr. Neuberger:
    Eli: …..So if you ask me two decades later, do I think this was a case where there was abuse, within the bounds of scientific and medical certainty, do I as a doctor believe that this is a case of child abuse and domestic violence, the answer is unequivocally yes.
    Medical Record – Children’s Hospital:

    Children’s Hospital July 22, 1992
    The children were asked” if a judge were here with us, right now, what would you say? Both children clearly stated that they did not want to go to Minnesota and see Mark because he hits them and is mean to them.

    From court transcript – testimony of court evaluator Susan Devries:

    GUEST VO# 3-14 – Wendy

    Testimony of Susan Devries, Hennepin County Court Services

    I believe … there is a strong likelihood that there was physical abuse in the past from Mark Collins to Holly Collins…She does have medical records showing…the kind of unexplained accidents we often see with battered women.
    Court Testimony of Jennifer Rojer – social worker:

    Testimony of Jennifer Livingston Rojer

    We found that Zachary and Jennifer have an almost exclusive emotional relationship with their mother. They consistently describe her as the parent they prefer to live with.

    Court testimony

    Cross examination of court counselor Michelle Millenacker

    Question: “But …it doesn’t matter what…
    physical harm he [Holly’s husband] caused to her? That wouldn’t make a different in your decision in relation to the children at this point and time?

    Answer: Correct

    Interview with eyewitness to the children’s return from their father’s house – Holly was not present.

    Mark, when [the kids were] visiting had put ketchup on it [ a hamburger] and Z had said I can’t eat that, Dad, I am allergic to it.

    And he had sworn at him and said you will eat this blank burger…

    and I said are you okay, did you get sick? And she [Jennifer] stopped talking. And then Jen/Fiffi she’s not afraid of anything or anyone. She will tell you what she thinks. She piped in and she said, you tell the rest. He made him get on his hands and knees and beg for his puffer. She made him get on his hands and knees…And I said, SHE? HE? And they said Mark and her…and then they laughed. They gave that child, I mean… (CRIES) Who does that? That they…That was the kind of torture these kids went through. And so when you read those court papers and bruises and you say oh it’s not that bad, when you’re making a small child get on hands and knees and beg for medicine so they don’t have a severe allegoric reaction and laughing and mocking them …I mean… bruises heal…that doesn’t. And that is where this man ….. he’s evil. That’s torture.

    • The Truth

      Barry writes that in an “Interview with Dr. Neuberger (sic)” he said he believes “this is a case of child abuse and domestic violence.” Yet Dr. Newberger has been widely criticized for uncritically validating abuse charges, and many believe this is why he no longer works at Boston Children’s Hospital.

      That the children supposedly didn’t want to return to Minnesota to see their father only means that Collins was alienating them from their dad, as the courts later found. Re: Jennifer Rojer’s testimony, if they had a “primary relationship” with their mother at that point it was because the mother had moved the children 1,000 miles away from their father and limited his contact with them.

      I find it very surprising and suspicious that after all these years of endless attacks on Fathers and Families’ investigation of the case at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267, nobody on your side has ever posted the case documents, as we did. All we’ve seen are occasional documents which have important sections suspiciously blacked out (not by you, but by Collins).

      Even accepting that your quotes are accurate and are not taken out of context–a big concession, given the Collins’ long list of falsehoods and misrepresentations–it’s curious that you would cite Devries as a source. After all, Devries contradicts Collins on a wide variety of important issues, believes Collins is mentally ill, and stated “there is no medical documentation of this abuse and the abuse has not been observed by other neutral parties.” For details, see problems #11, 20, and 27 on http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=1267

  • David Adams

    No way out but one is propagating the completely false allegation that if a man abuses his wife and children that he is more likely to gain custody of the children in a dispute. There is no evidence to support this acertion. As a divorced father I find this personally offensive and completely false. I don’t think your magazine should be publishing propaganda designed to premote discrimination against male parents.

  • Barry

    Dear Mr. Adams,

    One of the many studies available on our web site:

    Gender Bias Study of the Court System in Massachusetts
    Report of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

    New England Law Review, Vol. 24, Spring 1990; pg. 745.

    Highlights:

    Fathers obtained custody 70% of the time:
    “We began our investigation of child custody aware of a common perception that there is a bias in favor of women in these decisions. Our research contradicted this perception. Although mothers more frequently get primary physical custody of children following divorce, this practice does not reflect bias but rather the agreement of the parties and the fact that, in most families, mothers have been the caretakers of children. Fathers who actively seek custody obtain either primary or joint physical custody over 70% of the time. “
    p. 748

    Domestic violence is not always seen as “relevant”:
    “The presumption in favor of shared legal custody that is currently held by many family service officers can result in the awarding of shared legal custody in inappropriate circumstances. We also found that abuse targeted at the mother is not always seen as relevant to custody and visitation decisions. Our research indicates that witnessing, as well as personally experiencing, abuse within the family causes serious harm to children.”
    Executive Summary

    As a divorced father of three – I share your concerns about fairness. For my daughter, as well as for my sons when they are grown.

    Barry Nolan

    • shame

      That is some really amazing “research” Barry. You keep citing the Massachusetts Family Court’s own study on whether they are biased or not. I’m not surprised that they conclude that they are not biased.

      Also, even in that report the figures you cite are misleading. 70% of fathers who ask for some form of shared custody get it. You don’t mention that most of that 70% of them get 2 weekends a month.

      90% get “legal custody”. That sleight of hand might work on people who’ve never been to family court. But those of us who have know that “legal custody” means nothing and is granted to almost everyone. 50% or more “physical custody” is what matters and fathers get that less than 10% of the time.

      There is so much more baloney in your posts, but I don’t have the patience to address it all.

      You should be ashamed.

  • Paul

    VEry poor reporting Ms. Edwards, you need to check your sources and all of the records, not just the ones that support your opinion.

    The entire case was a hoax on Ms Collins’ part.

    So much for reading Boston Magazine.

  • morgan robinette

    Saw this ‘junk’ on the tube via Dr. Phil. My only comments are : “how are documentaries made?”-with Money. “where is the money going”?, Who stands to gain from this junk? This is not only an American Problem, this is a Global problem. The media and ‘idiots’ are still under the assumption that children should be with the Mother. Numbers do speak volumes. IF, just suppose, men were granted custody 80% of the time, do you think divorce rates would fall? Do you think Child support offices would be out of business? Do you think the Federal money states receive would go to bigger projects than paying states for going after a reared folks? Do you think overcrowding in prisons would stop? Just once, I would like a woman accusing a man falsely of any crime to get prison time for that accusation. Just 1 time, I would like a woman to get the same amount of time for any crime a man commits. Just once I would like BOTH Men and Women to be treated equally in both the eyes of the courts and Society. Unfortunately with ‘Junk’ like this STILL being made, Free men will always live in fear. We fear having children, we fear getting married, we fear having sex, we fear having dinner with women, we fear looking at women, we fear working with women, we fear going to school with women. We will never be treated equal.

  • Lynn Murphy

    So far we have 23, JR, Matt, MD, JB, Prince, SRM, Rafael, David, Kevin Goldrick, Mike, Steve Carter, The Truth Says, Bob Sutan, Lexie, Eric, Keen Grant, Mad at Misandry, Seth, Michael Hunter, Justice, Paul, Manilla, Morgan Robinette attacking and unaired documentary.

    Truth says he’s presenting facts about the case. Barry presents contradicting documentation.

    And I’m putting this documentary on my “to see” list because I want to hear from now-adult Jennifer. How often is it that we get to hear from the child in this cases?

    • JR

      For balance, also read “Adult Children of Parental Alienation Syndrome: Breaking the Ties That Bind” by Amy Baker, PhD. Has lots of interviews from now-adult victims of PAS.

  • http://www.examiner.com/domestic-violence-and-abuse-in-honolulu/dara-carlin-m-a Dara Carlin, M.A.

    It must’ve been sometime in elementary school when a “Stranger Danger” presentation had us kids all yelling in response to the question “What do you do if someone hurts you?” with “Say NO, then GO and TELL!” Problem is, what if it’s your mom or dad whose hurting you? Does “say no, then go and tell” still apply or does the rule change depending upon whose hurting you?

    For ANY abuse or crime, isn’t reporting the violation the very first step we encourage everyone to take? To get help for whatever injuries there may be as a result whether – physical or psychological – then work with authorities to apprehend the perpetrator to prevent him/her from doing the same again or to someone else?

    If you look at ANY analysis of crime in the United States you’ll see that most perpetrators are known to their victims – in the majority of violence and abuse cases, the perpetrator IS NOT “the boogie man” – it’s someone whose in a position of authority over or to the victim whether that authority is defined by age, class, race, social, religious, professional, physical or family position.

    Turning in a stranger whose done you wrong is hard enough but can you imagine how hard it’d be to turn in someone YOU KNOW whose done you wrong? Aside from the discomfort of “formally ruining” what’s already been ruined (the relationship) the “what will the neighbors (others) think?” factor holds more weight then you might imagine.

    In all the scandals throughout time, don’t you think there was at least one person who cautioned the victim saying “Are you SURE you want to point the finger at so-and-so? Do you know what this’ll mean if you do?”

    Thing is you don’t have to have a highly publicized case to get such a warning – victims of all ages and both genders hear it every day whether that’s pointing out the schoolyard bully, the exploitative boss or an abusive spouse. Pointing out who your abuser is takes courage, no matter what the abusive situation.

    Holly Collins did exactly what we teach everyone to do: she said “NO” then she went and told. Help, healing and justice were supposed to follow but they didn’t. When her children were abused, they did the same but they screamed “NO” then went and told. Holly identified her husband as her abuser but her daughter, Jennifer, identified two: her father AND the family court system.

    Are you SURE? Do you know what this’ll mean?

    The answer was and remains YES to both but Holly’s courage goes beyond that because she opened herself and her case up for this documentary.

    Are you SURE? Do you know what this’ll mean?

    For our benefit, Holly said yes to both – not so she could enjoy having every aspect of her life analyzed, picked apart and criticized by the public she’s trying to serve – but to shine a light on family violence and the failure/betrayal of the system that has been ordained to “help” in such situations.

    Holly doesn’t want to see what happened to her and her children happen to any other person on the planet and she’s willing to show us all what happened for change, prevention and reform – how is that so despicable?

    On another note: Garland and Barry are accomplished filmmakers – do you REALLY think they’d put themselves/their reputations on the line to produce a DOCUMENTARY that would result with ridicule? “No Way Out But One” is sure to earn Garland and Barry acclaim, not shame.

    • Brad B

      @Barry and Garland

      You claim you have medical records stating that the son’s skull fracture was in fact caused by the father. I have a few questions on this.

      1. When and by whom was this diagnosed by?

      2. Was it diagnosed as a skull fracture caused by the father at the time treatment was given?

      3. Did the doctor treating the son notify Children’s Services?

      4. If the skull fracture was diagnosed as being caused by the father, why didn’t the mother present it into evidence at the custody hearings?

      • Brad B

        Regarding the doctors in Mass and Holland diagnosing the skull fracture as being caused by the father, the only thing they can definately say with credibility is there was a skull fracture and that it is similar to what they see in abuse cases. Unless they were there at the initial diagnoses, any thing else they would testify in court to would be considered hearsay.

        Here’s the problem most people have with this whole situation.

        1. The mother claims very serious abuse (skull fracture) at the hands of the father yet did not mention it in the custody hearing. It came to light AFTER she lost. No one from the mother’s side has explained this.

        2. The mother has made claims of abuse against pretty much the whole world. Or, anyone who disagrees with her. Yet, all have been unfounded. Why should anyone believe her now?

        3. The mother claims she was abused in childhood, in marriage, in relationships after marriage, etc. What steps is she taking to ensure she stays out of abusive relationships?

  • Brad B

    Here is a link to a domestic violence group and their views of what constitutes DV.

    http://www.menstoppingviolence.org/cgi-bin/MySQLdb?VIEW=/viewfiles/view_document.txt&docid=30

    According to this list, a man who does the following would be considered violent and controlling because:

    – He works two jobs and between work and sleep, can’t watch the kids as much as his wife would like him to. According to the above, he is abusive because he is withholding help with childcare.

    – Insists that the mother stay home and watch the two toddlers because between the two jobs he works, they can barely afford to pay all their bills. Daycare would run them $1500/mo if mom worked. To do this, he used logic to prove his point. He made a spreadsheet with all their expenses, all their income, what she could realistically expect to make based on her education and experience, and what the going rate is for daycare for two toddlers. According to the above, he is abusive because he is defining the truth and using logic to prove a point.

    – Likes to hunt and owns a shotgun and hunting rifle. But, his wife was raised in a family who did not like guns and thinks they are dangerous. According to the above, he is abusive because he keeps dangerous guns around.

    – When his wife nags him about not taking time to care for the kids and asks him to get rid of the guns, he ignores her and doesn’t respond because she brings this up every other week. According to the above, he is being abusive because he is ignoring her.

    – While she does have an ATM and Credit Card, he puts her on a strict budget for food, household items, personal items, etc. He does this for himself too. According to the above, he is being abusive because he is withholding funds.

    – When his wife complains about how hard she has it, he tells her to stop complaining- Dad has a job, we have a house, little debt. Their town has 20% unemployment. He tells her Ya gotta do what ya gotta do. He works 8 hours in the Auto Plant wrestling 70 pound car doors into place then goes to work at the supermarket stocking shelves for several hours. According to the above, he is abusive because he didn’t validate “her” feelings.

    – The have not had sex in several months. So, he has a stash of girly mags he keeps in his locked gunsafe and releases himself a couple of times a week. According to the above, he is abusive because he looks at pornography. never mind the fact mom reads the smutty romance novels by the truckoad.

    Mom and dad get a divorce. It happens- they married too young, money was always tight, and just didn’t have time for each other because of real life. Dad’s version is the above. Mom tells anyone who would listen that dad is abusive, etc.

    A nasty custody battle ensues and mom claims the dad is abusive. He never hit her, never called her names, etc. Yet, according to many domestic violence groups, he is a batterer and should not have custody of the kids. Because, well, he is a guy and did his best to support his family on limited resources.

    • Fathers Need Fair Hearings

      Brad,

      I agree about this IV-D family court racket. Let’s take the axe to the root of the problem and cut off the IV-D programs funding it. I attached some research for you to look at and tell me what you think?

      Since your friend Glenn Sacks and his buddy Jeffrey Leving are such big proponents of Fatherhood programs, maybe they can answer these questions?

      SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION: WHERE DOES CHILD SUPPORT GO?

      Recovery Act: Thousands of Recovery Act Contract and Grant Recipients Owe Hundreds of Millions in Federal Taxes
      http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-686T

      This Government Accountability Office report recently came out which shows that these HHS grant recipients owe us struggling tax paying families hundreds of BILLIONS in taxes.

      OIG STATE AUDIT REPORTS ON UNDISBURSIBLE ARREARS
      The more federal dollars were receive the less States collected in support. States refuse to distribute child support to “families first,” and are instead keeping the money for themselves-without accounting for it.

      These reports can be found here:
      http://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/oas/acf.asp

      The Office of the Inspector General found HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars in undisbursed child support which was never accounted for when it audited the child support services programs from only a hand full of counties in approximately 30 states. There are only incentives to COLLECT support and put families on TANF, and NONE to actually disburse it to the children it is intended to benefit. When undistributed arrears were discovered, the OIG ordered the States to give 66% to the federal OCSE office, and allowed the State to keep the remaining 34% for themselves. And so the states deliberately don’t tell parents they collected the money, then create “set up to fail” disbursement methods to retain the funds for the general fund:

      • send checks to the wrong address,
      • illegal liens on accounts
      • create massive arrears, give dad the tax benefit, then garnish the tax benefit,
      • put child support it in trust accounts during litigation-that lasts more than 3 years,
      • retroactively abate arrears, then keep it for themselves without telling either parent.

      When the OIG identified the embezzled funds, they did not help them find the children it was intended to benefit, the OIG instructed States to properly report…So the feds could have their 66%. This policy entirely lacks accountability or consequences for this fraud. Subsequent reports demonstrated that the problem has continued to worsen, and there are [still] no protocols and procedures in place to define, identify, and track these monies.

      Healthy Marriage And Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further Progress Is Needed in Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight:
      http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d081002.pdf

      •$500 Million Unconditionally Given To Activists: Operating under a deadline that allowed HHS 7 months to award grants, HHS shortened its existing process to award Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants to public and private organizations. During this process, HHS did not fully examine grantees’ programs as described in their applications, including the activities they planned to offer, and this created challenges and setbacks for grantees later as they implemented their programs. –P. 2

      •Failure to Implement Uniform Standards, Policies, and Procedures: HHS uses methods that include site visits and progress reports to monitor grantees, but it lacks mechanisms to identify and target grantees that are not in compliance with grant requirements or are not meeting performance goals, and it also lacks clear and consistent guidance for performing site monitoring visits. –P.2

      •Embezzlement and Fraud Was Likely Vastly Under Estimated: Moreover, we did not survey organizations that received money from grant recipients to provide direct services, subawardees. Since making the initial awards, 4 organizations have relinquished their grants, 1 organization had its grant terminated, and 1 new grant was awarded. There are 6 organizations currently pending non-continuation of award funds.

      GAO REPORT: Child Support Enforcement: Better Data and More Information on Undistributed Collections Are Needed
      http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-377

      Medicare and Medicaid Fraud, Waste, and Abuse: Effective Implementation of Recent Laws and Agency Actions Could Help Reduce Improper Payments
      http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-409T

      Child Support Enforcement: Departures from Long-term Trends in Sources of Collections and Caseloads Reflect Recent Economic Conditions

      http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-196
      In fiscal year 2009, the child support enforcement (CSE) program collected about $26 billion in child support payments from noncustodial parents on behalf of more than 17 million children. The CSE program is run by states and overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). States receive federal performance incentive payments and a federal match on both state CSE funds…The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) eliminated this incentive match beginning in 2008, but the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 temporarily reinstated it for 2 years….

      In fiscal year 2009, the CSE program experienced several departures from past trends. For one, child support collections failed to increase nationwide for the first time in the history of the program in fiscal year 2009… Also in fiscal year 2009, the number of CSE cases currently receiving public assistance increased …Preliminary HHS data show that total CSE expenditures grew by 2.6 percent in fiscal year 2008 as many states increased their own funding to maintain CSE operations when the federal incentive match was eliminated…In contrast to fiscal year 2008, a different picture emerged in fiscal year 2009, when the incentive match was temporarily restored but total CSE expenditures fell slightly by 1.8 percent, which HHS officials told GAO was due to state budget constraints. Most states nationwide have not implemented “family first” policy options…because giving more child support collections to families means states retain less as reimbursement for public assistance costs.

      Administrative Expenditures and Federal Matching Rates of Selected Support Programs
      http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-839R

  • http://www.MontanaDAD.com CJ Adams

    While I do appreciate and support any efforts to protect children from the horrors of physical and sexual abuse, I also know of many children who are emotionally sabotaged after being turned against one or both of their parents through false reporting and manipulation of laws. This essentially forces children to hate themselves, emotionally abusive, and equally as abhorrent. How do we as a society protect children from ALL forms of abuse?

  • Fathers Need Fair Hearings

    DEAR FATHERS AND FAMILIES ADVOCATES,

    I would like to talk about the extortion racket that set up this whole mess. The IV-D funding which drives the racket through the Agency for Children and Families. How much money did the court, the supervised visitation center nonprofits, and Fathers & Families get from keeping this case going in high conflict for years? Why is Holly Collins such an advertising cash cow for Fathers and Families? Fathers and Families trains the child support staff for the state child support agencies, so aren’t you the least bit interested in who is extorting you when DOR calls you in?

    90% of the parents paying child support are fathers. Using child support enforcement programs as a vehicle, these extortion based programs force fathers to elect between criminal penalties and inciting “high conflict” family court litigation to create a “need” for their own publicly funded services. These irresponsible programs cash in on the “incentives” by placing children in unstable homes, then starve the entire family onto some sort of public assistance.

    These frivolous TANF fatherhood programs are not needs based, yet spend without restraint and direct money to places HHS cannot identify (as noted by the OIG and GOA reports on the second page.) There is no oversight. DHHS’s position is that once the money goes to the states, they are not responsible for oversight. Fraud is rampant, yet the OIG does nothing to enforce the laws to protect families.

    The [unlawful] programs [including the ‘compromise of arrears programs created by Glenn Sacks et al] are supposed to be ADMINISTRATIVE, but they used quasi judicial power to create, amend, and enforce court orders without judicial authorization. The agency does not provide due process, nor do they have to show you their files. Judges have to look the other way because if they object, they will lose their HHS funding, and at the same time the judge has to accept responsibility for the agency’s badly managed and even crooked interference when litigants are hurt.

    So Glenn, are you going to respond to this? I see your buddy Jeffrey Leving is making a KILLING [literally?] off these IV-D TANF extortion racket programs? Also your buddy David Levy from the Childrens Rights Counsel set up and makes millions from them, no? I notice your website does not accept comments. Cowardly considering all the fathers who deserve the truth, no?

  • Fathers Need Fair Hearings

    IS GLENN SACKS PRO-INCEST, PRO-PEDOPHILE, PRO ABUSER?

    Holly Collins being the cash cow she is for Fathers and Families, I think these are fair questions.

    Below please find a copy of the email between CA NAFCJ Director Cindi Ross, Glenn Sacks, and pro incest pedophile promoter Warren Farrell, who also happens to be Fathers and Families only endorsed child psychology expert. Read up on how Farrell publishes articles in that skin rag Penthouse encouraging parents not to miss out on any “exciting family sex” with their children.
    www[dot]fathersandfamiliesorg.siteprotect[dot]net/site/legal[dot]php

    From: Nafcjcal…
    To: warren[at]warrenfarrell[dot]com; glenn[at]glennsacks.com; marcangelucci[at]hotmail[dot]com
    Cc: LIZGOAL…aol[at]com; liz[at]argate…net; VickPierce[at]aol….com
    Sent: Sun, Nov 11, 2007 9:01 am
    Subject: Re: I keep hearing from people that you

    Hello Warren,

    I appreciate that you contacted me and are giving me a opportunity to respond to you directly. In order to avoid any misunderstandings, I thought it would be a good idea to have a record of what we both really said, so I am copying my response to your email to several people on both “sides”, including a few who are blind copied.

    Best,

    Cindy

    In a message dated 11/8/2007 2:40:58 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, warren[at]warrenfarrell[dot]com writes:
    I keep hearing from people that you are still trying to label me an incest advocate, and to discredit me.
    Who are you hearing this from, Warren? Glenn Sacks, who acts like the incest and pedophile “stuff” relative to the fathers’ rights movement is “nonsense”? (Is it?) James “Sinkiss” Smith, the pervert with the stopcindynow blog? Other people with nasty, libelous sites, like “Mike Rogers of SPARC/ignorecindyross (who holds me personally responsible for the destruction of the American Family), or Torm Howse (who has bashed me in the past, but also thinks David Levy is the anti-Christ)?

    Speaking of David — whom I believe you said asked you to step down from CRC — I don’t recall whether I’ve heard from him since he sent me the email I told you about (attached) claiming he asked you and the word was supposed to be “gently”, not “genitally” (like Penthouse published), or “generally” (like you told me you really said):

    1. INCEST: THE LAST TABOO by Philip Nobile (as originally published in Penthouse, December 1977 issue): “First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally
    caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.

    2. Subject: Re: A statement you allegedly made
    Date: Wed, 24 May 2000 13:10:22 -0700
    From: Warren Farrell
    Organization: @Home Network
    “In the Penthouse article, the word “genitally” should be “generally”.

    3. Subj: Fw: Two More Experts Associated with the Children’s Rights Council
    Date: 10/19/00 7:49:52 PM Pacific Daylight Time
    From: davidlevy1[at]juno[dot]com (David L. Levy)
    To: XXXXX@aol[dot]com
    CC: davidlevy1[at]juno[dot]com
    “I asked Warren Farrell about this, and he said he was misquoted. The quote should have been gently caressing, not genitally caressing.An accusation that Richard Gardner is the center piece (sic) of CRC, which I already replied to he is not. And a statement about Underwager. Underwager is not connected with CRC.You make charges against reputable organizations like CRC. We do not support pedophelia, never have and never will. We do not support abuse in any form. I do not wish to receive any more emails from you.”

    Note that David also told me that Ralph Underwager is not connected to CRC, but that’s not what Underwager told Paidika, the Dutch pedophile publication:

    Click here: PAIDIKA INTERVIEW: HOLLIDA WAKEFIELD AND RALPH UNDERWAGER:

    www[dot]nostatusquo[dot]com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Underwager2[dot]html

    “He is a member of the National Council for Children’s Rights, the American Psychological Association, the Lutheran Academy for Scholarship, and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sex”

    Didn’t you know that the National Council for Children’s Rights is what CRC used to be called? Did you also know that before they both died, Richard Gardner’s material was posted at Ralph’s IPT website, including Richard’s piece on the variety of human sexual behavior, in which he describes the procreative value of sexual paraphilas?. (Please let me know if you haven’t seen it and I’ll send you a copy.)
    BTW, another person connected not only to the Children’s Rights Council, but both Paidika and Penthouse, was sexologist John Money (who apparently died in 2006):

    Click here: National Network On Family Law Policy™: Dr. John Money Has Died

    “Money had also been quoted in support of pedophilia. He has said this the Spring, 1991, vol. 2, no. 3 issue of Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, on page 5: “If I were to see the case of a boy aged ten or eleven who’s intensely erotically attracted toward a man in his twenties or thirties, if the relationship is totally mutual, and the bonding is genuinely totally mutual…then I would not call it pathological in any way.” On top of that, Money was a Penthouse Forum consultant. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, Money “led for an organized crusade to end age of consent laws. “Such praise for pedophilia didn’t stop the Children’s Rights Council from allowing Money to serve on its board of advisors.”

    So, let me ask you this point blank, Warren: If men’s rights activists like yourself don’t really advocate incest or pedophilia, why are many (or even any!), experts and/or (past or present) researchers of incest (including yourself) and/or pedophilia and/or sex in general, connected (presently or formerly) to groups like CRC, which claim to be about fathers and shared parenting?

    I’d also like to know why people like Glenn Sacks (who’s connected to you through N.O.M) and Marc Angelucci (who’s connected to you through NCFM) make like it’s not true, and dismiss anyone asking questions about this fact as a feminist, as if “feminists” are the lowest, most vile sub-human life-form on the planet. (Were you considered vile when you identified as a feminist?)

    Warren, what does “feminism” really mean to you? I’m confused, were you a feminist or a masculist when you told J.Steven Svoboda in 1997 that “Nobody really believes in equality anyway”?

    www[dot]menweb[dot]org/svofarre[dot]htm

    It makes me wonder, especially if you personally don’t really believe in equality, if you became a feminist because you thought feminists were more likely to be into “free sex” than other women? Is it possible that you switched to masculism when you realized that feminists believe women also have the right to say “No” to sex?

    How do you define masculism, anyway? Are men supposed to have primary (exclusive?) rights to access and control women’s bodies, sexuality, and reproduction? Do those rights include the children — and the bodies and sexuality of the children — that women give birth to?

    I know it hurts when people don’t believe you, and when they try to discredit you and dismiss you as a liar when you know you are telling the truth. Do you know how much it hurts when the person being dismissed (as a lying alienator, for example) is a mother like Nathan Grieco’s, who found Nathan dead after he killed himself rather than visit his violent father in a “positive” frame of mind, or have his mother go to jail for his refusal?:

    Click here: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette – Casualties of a Custody War – What’s best for the child?
    www[dot]post-gazette[dot]com/custody/partone[dot]asp

    Do you know how much it hurts a child like Alanna Krause to be put in a lock-down mental institution for the purpose of trying to brainwash her into believing that her father wasn’t really violent, but her mother was crazy?: Click here: LETTING CHILDREN SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, by Alanna Krause
    www[dot]batteredmotherscustodyconference.org/letting_children_speak[dot]htm

    If you do understand that kind of hurt, Warren, why do you seem to ignore it, and pretend it doesn’t exist? Why are you still working to legitimize and justify PAS custody-switching and court-ordered “threat therapy” methods that cause horrific pain and suffering for women and children, especially those who have already been hurt and traumatized by violence and/or sexual abuse?

    If you really wanted to make things crystal clear, “Why wouldn’t you simply have stated what you DO believe, or what it was you DID say?” (Sound familiar? It should. You have been asked this before…)

    Frankly Warren, it doesn’t even matter what “G” word you used if your main concern about parents and children is repressed sexuality. Even some of the others interviewed by Penthouse understand sex with children as abuse, not incest that could ever be characterized as “positive”. (Shouldn’t parents be teaching children how to ride bikes and play baseball, rather than viewing them in terms of their own sexual gratification?):

    “First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and gxxxxx caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.”

    By the way, I can’t help but wonder why you were even talking to Penthouse about incest in the first place. If you were doing serious research, couldn’t you have approached an academic journal, instead of a porn magazine? (If you were trying to do objective research, why did Penthouse say there were advertisements “explicitly for positive female experiences”?)

    When you “discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest” (even though you admitted that “statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse), why did you dismiss it as possible “selective reporting” from the women? Does this mean that you believed — even in your “feminist” days — that women lie about negative feelings toward sex and that they really “want it” even when they say no? (Or does it mean that you simply can’t acknowledge that it hurts children when they are abused, molested, or raped by their own fathers?)

    According to Penthouse you also said, “Weekend recorded sexually abused children speaking about their sexual abuse, which is valuable, but the inference is that all incest is abuse. And that’s not true.”

    So, what is true, Warren? Is incest between a father and his child ever abuse?

    How old does a child need to be for it to be consensual sex and not abuse? A few months? A few years? School aged? Teenaged? (Is it abuse when a teenage daughter’s friend participates in the sex, like the case of the Jewish father described in Penthouse?)

    Since you said that “girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt”, can there ever really be a time when a man having sex with a girl (especially his own daughter) isn’t abuse?

    Is it abuse for a father to have sex with his son, even though — as you told Penthouse — boys don’t seem to suffer, not even from the negative experience of incest?

    According to Penthouse you had already collected 200, and planned to have 250 in-depth interviews, for a book on incest that was “probably” going to be published in 1979. Although it wasn’t published after all, and you never actually wrote a book specifically about incest, I am struck by how often sex comes up in your material: in the context of “date fraud” and “date rape”, of men being attracted to (very?) young women, of false allegations of abuse, of PAS, and of references to people like Richard Gardner (who wrote that sex with anyone, or even animals, has value*), and Ralph Underwager, who told Paidika that:

    “Paedophiles can boldly and courageously affirm what they choose. They can say that what they want is to find the best way to love….Paedophiles can make the assertion that the pursuit of intimacy and love is what they choose. With boldness they can say, “I believe this is in fact part of God’s will.”

    * Speaking of animals, I believe I asked you what you thought about this case from Contra Costa County. Did you ever get back to me, other than to thank me for keeping in touch? Click here: Child Visitation Supervisor Involved in Beastiality and Master

    www[dot]newsmakingnews[dot]com/vm%2cchild%2cvisitation%2csupervisor%2cmaster%2cslave%2csex%2c4%2c2%2c07[dot]htm

    I do appreciate very much that you sent me a copy when you heard that my house had burned down and I had lost many of my books. However, I wouldn’t call Father and Child Reunion a book on parenting. It has little, if anything to do with fathers actually parenting (as in taking care of children), and a lot to do with the usual men shouldn’t have to pay child support and mother as false accuser/alienator themes, e.g., “Playing the Abuse Card” and “Is Child Support Helping or Hurting?”,

    My intention is not to hurt you personally, but to get at the truth and to engage in honest and open dialogue. I hope you believe that I have NEVER intentionally said, written, of circulated — nor would I EVER — anything that I didn’t know, or believe to be true.

    I have to admit that I was taken aback when I saw that your inscription to me read, “If this helps your son have an even richer life, I will be happy”. It made me think that what would really make you happy would be for me to lose custody of my son. Since the book is mostly about how women make false allegations and badmouth dads, and women and society shut men out of kid’s lives for no good reason, I also realized you must think those things about me!

    I doubt you know what it’s like to be harassed and threatened by deranged sexual pervert like Sinkiss, who very likely is a pedophile. If you do, why haven’t you tried to help me out, like I believe I asked you to? And, since you and Glenn obviously talk about these things, why hasn’t Glenn publicly acknowledged what Sinkiss is doing and asked him to stop? (I believe Sinkiss is still posting at Glenn’s blog as “Advocat”. The email address he has listed at his blog is sinkiss2000[at]gmail[dot]com)

    Marin County has been my home for over thirty years. It pains me that Marin has one of the most corrupted family courts in the country, and that the worst PAS “psychos” and racketeers are based right here in my own backyard. Did you know that the first woman ever (to my knowledge) to go to jail a la PAS (Paula Oldham), was from Mill Valley? In fact, the friend who came with me to the Throckmorton Theatre to hear you speak is also from M.V., and used to live right near the address listed in this article about the Oldham case:

    nafcj[dot]org/ClairCharMasa[dot]htm (Scroll down to Kidnap of Rescue? by Doug Millar )

    If my intention was to “poison” your wife against you, don’t you think I would have spoken with her, not you? However, since you mention your wife, it makes me wonder if she knows about some of the things you have said about women and mothers.

    Does she know that you think women “are the only group who get the right to vote without responsibility. Only adolescents expect rights without responsibilities. Adults know they go together.” (Do you view your wife as “adolescent”? Do you think she’s responsible enough to vote?):

    Click here: Q&A / WARREN FARRELL, author: The flip side of feminism | ajc[dot]com

    www[dot]ajc[dot]com/opinion/content/printedition/2007/10/21/gendered10211[dot]html

    Does your wife know that you think that making love to a mother is so much better because a mother is a woman who has been “humbled” by motherhood? (Is that what makes Liz a good wife? She’s humble in bed????) www[dot]archive.salon[dot]com/mwt/mothers/2001/02/06/farrell/index[dot]html

    What does me being the object of Sinkiss’ twisted obsession have to do with this? (Were you the W.F. who commented at his blog about what I get off on and winning the lottery?)

    Are you implying that one of us is smart and the other isn’t (LOL)?

    Joking aside, of course we have differences, and they are not just intellectual. Because you’re a man and I’m a woman, we have biological, hormonal, physical, and emotional differences. As individuals, you and I have (very) different values and ethics. However, our biggest difference is that I know what it is like to be pregnant and give birth, and to nurture and love a child as a mother and a parent. (Sorry, Warren, not only is a mother’s love different than a father’s love, being married to a woman who has had children is not the same as being a real father.)

    The primary definition of integrity is “completeness” and I am committed to addressing the “complete” picture because those directly involved in the fathers’ rights movement and agenda refuse to. Integrity also means honesty and sincerity. Although you may not agree with me — and probably don’t even really like me — I bet you still know that I strive to be completely honest. (Do you think I can say the same thing about you?)

    BTW, here’s what the American Prosecutors Research Institute says about integrity and PAS?:

    www[dot]ndaa[dot]org/publications/newsletters/update_volume_16_number_6_2003[dot]html
    Click here: NCPCA Update Newsletter Volume 16, Number 7, 2003

    “PAS is an unproven theory that can threaten the integrity of the criminal justice system and the safety of abused children.”

    I hope that we can continue to do that. I would also be willing to participate in a public forum or debate with you, about everything I’ve brought up or asked you about in this email. Maybe we could do it in my hometown, perhaps at the Fairfax Women’s Club (Don’t worry. Both men and women are equally welcome at the Women’s Club, which is where the mixed-gender Fairfax Town Council holds its’ meetings. Especially after he attended the fathers’ conference in AZ last year, I bet the Fairfax Councilman who sponsored Resolution 2466 would like to participate too: Click here: Fairfax Town Council Resolution No. 2466

    What works best for me Warren, is honesty, scrupulous honesty…

    Reply

    • John Mace

      Anybody that says PAS doesn’t exist does not have our children’s best interest as a priority. They have most likely used false allegations in family court to get an upper hand or are profiting from the destruction of American families.

      • Barry

        Dear John,
        So are you suggesting that the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association and the Center for Science in the Public Interest “have most likely used false allegations in family court to get an upper hand or are profiting from the destruction of American families.”?

        A serious charge indeed.
        Barry Nolan

        • John

          Thats exactly what I’m saying Barry. Lets go thru a common family court case. Father and Mother split up. The mother wants primary custody and the house. The father wants equal custody and she can have the bleeping house. She says no. He hires an attorney. She files false domestic violence charges on him to get an upper hand in court and prevent him from spending time with the children. He can’t even call them because of the restraining order. It takes about a year to get in front of a judge. In the mean time he has to take parenting and anger management classes. He has to pay someone (who”s on the board of directors?) and the kids start to believe what ever mommy tells them about daddy. They start fear their own dad for no reason. The judge then orders the parents and the children to take a psychological evaluation. The same psychologists and classes are recommended by the court. Its a racket and you know it.

  • John Mace

    70% of fathers getting custody? Anybody that has ever been in family court knows that is a complete lie! Where do these statistics come from? The same men hating organizations that make a living off of societies family problems? The writers/producers in this Sci-Fi movie could have more class by telling both sides of the situation. Instead their priorities lie in making money and continuing a proven lie. Glenn Sacks/Fathers and Families have done more positive things for our kid’s future than any organization involved in the legal system. Any person that puts others first…. thats allot of backbone AJ. Anyone raised with a father in their life would have been taught that. I hope this father sues everybody involved in the making of this movie for continuing to defame his character.

    • AJ

      the point is, John that mr Sacks somehow got it in for Holly Collins so bad , that he doesn’t know left from right anymore and is mistaking fiction for facts.
      All the evidence in this case, and there is a lot, has never been seen by mr Sacks.
      His list of ‘problems’ is mere assumption and fantasy.
      I’ve seen the evidence; read the documents pertaining to this case ; it’s all there, just as mr Nolan And Holly collins say.
      A stand-up person would never attack a woman who has been through so much in her life and has gained nothing out of her ordeal.
      Her only intention is to prevent children to have to experience what her children have.
      AJ.

      • John Mace

        Wouldn’t it be a great idea if we stop “pointing” out one side to every story AJ? The point is Mr. Sack tells the other side. If Garland Waller really cared about a solution to the crisis going on in family court system she would be making movies about fixing the problem for both parents (not just women). How about this Mrs. Waller…
        The county I live in the CSEA hired a private law firm to represent “our kids”. This law firm gets paid to “collect as much money as possible”. Problem is this attorney is on the board of directors at the CSEA. Court house recordings of the CSEA worker coaching my ex to lie to the judge under oath. Using the freedom of information act to prove my ex is looking up my medical records and relaying the information to the CSEA. In the HIPPA interview she states the CSEA told her what to say under oath. Police reports stating that she was misusing 911 when she tried to have me arrested a second time (a camera security system and the recorded conversation helped prevent a false felony charge). Paying a lawyer to represent me when she used “Domestic Violence” the day she received “Joint” custody papers; first time. (is that 70% figure joint custody?) …..do a movie about both sides. I’m sure that women don’t commit violence or abuse, of any kind, to their kids or insignificant others, lie under oath or misuse agency help in the family court system. Lets see how disturbed you get after looking at the paperwork and hear recordings of fathers and children that experience PAS from mothers. Is your answer going to be a “yucky-no”? You are a great lawyer, producer, writer, and director but does the journalist in you have any personal connections with childhood men that are falsely accused of DV or experienced PAS? Thats the point AJ. Glenn Sacks and F & F helps both genders and seeks better lives for children through family court reform that establishes equal rights and responsibilities for fathers and mothers.

  • http://www.zorza.net Joan Zorza

    I am really excited about seeing this film, having found Garland Waller’s prior films so outstanding. Garland has been exposing the unjustices in the family courts across America where judges, custody evaluators and others connected with the courts have been unwilling to believe allegations of abuse against women and children, and actually putting many of the children in their fathers’ custody. Despite men’s claims that they are discriminated against in child custody disputes, Garland Waller and Barry Nolan (and various academics, including ones funded by the U.S. Department of Justice) find that is is mothers who experience gender bias in the family courts, leaving them and their children inadequately, and often completely unprotected. We see this with more and more accounts in the press of abusive men who get physical custody or unsupervised visits with their children and then kill their children. This film exposes one of the worst cases, but one where the mother and her children escaped and were given political asylum in the Netherlands because nobody in the U.S. would protect them. Thank you so much for making this film!

    While I wish I could be there for this first screening (and have a chance to thank Garland and Barry for their courageous work), I will have to wait until it is shown in my area.

    • Brad B

      Care to comment on the attached link?

      http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/usermanuals/fatherhood/chapterthree.cfm

      Here’s a summary:

      18% of the time fathers were the sole perpetrator

      16.9% of the time the father and mother were the perpetrator

      40% of the time the mother acted alone

      6% of the time the mother acted with someone else

      In summary, the mother is involved with abuse of the children 64% of the time, and the father 37% of the time.

      Why is a mother nearly twice as likely to abuse her children than the father? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have fathers have custody of the kids to protect them from their mothers?

      So, if we are all about protecting the children, should we be encouraging fathers and the courts to award shared custody to both parents?

      • Barry

        Dear Brad,
        Happy to comment on the article you cite. When you actually go to the data source referenced by Rosenberg and Wilcox in their paper [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services]- you find this in the Executive Summary at the top of the paper:
        “Of all reported cases in the18-State data set, slightly less than one-half of all perpetrators were male.”
        This seems to be rather starkly at odds with their summary of the data from their paper and would appear to be a rather gross misrepresentation.

        Barry Nolan

  • Lynn Murphy

    Over two dozen have moved in here to attack a documentary about a mother granted asylum after she decided to protect her children by taking them out of the country. This attack by so many is quite remarkable. I look forward to seeing “No Way Out but One.

    • John Mace

      Have anything to say about F & F cohabitating with Jane Doe to protest Jimmy Choo Ltd’s add?

  • Barry Goldstein

    Thank you Sara for a good article and to Garland and Barry for such a valuable film exposing the broken custody court system that routinely fails to protect children. This is a really important issue and I am sorry the discussion has been hijacked by a small group of male supremacists seeking to distort the truth and distract attention from the courts’ failure to protect children in the Collins case and so many others. I would suggest we ignore the lies and personal attacks from the abuser right’s people and instead move the discussion to how to reform the broken system so that we stop sending children to live with dangerous abusers.

    • http://www.nowayoutbutone.com Garland

      Thank you, Barry, Joan, Eileen, and so many others above for your supportive comments. Frankly, I think that most of the comments come from anger, certainly not awareness of what is in No Way Out But One because we have had only one screening and one review.

      The goal of No Way Out But One is to expose the problems of the family court system by using the strong and powerful story of one person which was backed up with solid evidence and research.
      Barry and I also make the point that bad decisions that are harmful to children are made every day in family courts, especially when there is credible evidence of domestic violence and child abuse. Do some fathers get jerked around in family courts? Absolutely. Do some women? Beyond question. But this documentary specifically focuses on how a family court can come to give custody to someone who has beaten his wife and/or children. We refer to published studies that show that some men who are sexual abusers manage to get custody as well, but that is not the focus of this documentary.

      Our primary goal has been to shine a light on a disastrous family court system that routinely takes children away from loving parents. It is not based on anecdote, but rather published peer reviewed research that indicates that this happens most often, but not exclusively to women, and most specifically battered or abused women.
      No reasonable thinking person can support a system that forces children to live with someone who has beaten them. I think most Americans would be appalled to know that this happens in our country. I believe this is the story that needs to be told, and that Barry and I have told it using a powerful and honest story.

      • Mister M

        You’ve picked the wrong cause célèbre. The evidence against Holly Collins couldn’t be any stronger.

        Your agenda is clear, and it has nothing to do with reforming family courts.

      • Brad B

        Garland,

        The issue many people have is this case is not a good example of where the courts screwed up. Ms Collins always seemed to bring up issues of abuse whenever something didn’t go her way. This is not a cut and dry case because there is very convincing evidence presented to the courts that the mother fabricated the allegations.

        1. The parties agreed to an award of joint legal custody with primary physical to the mother in Aug, 1990. NO MENTION OF DAD CRACKING THE SON’S SKULL!

        2. In June 1991, mother was granted permission to move to MA and a new visitation schedule was implemented. No mention of abuse by the father.

        3. Mother refused to let the child travel to see the father for Thanksgiving in 1991 even though the father bought the plane tickets.

        4. In February 1992, father moved the court for an order to grant him physical custody of the kids on the grounds that the mother denied him visitation and interfered with his relationship with the children.

        5. In her response, mother alleged the father was providing a dangerous environment for the children – forcing them to eat foods they were allergic to. NO MENTION OF THE FATHER CRACKING THE SON’S SKULL!

        6. On Feb 28, the Referee said the mother may have moved to MA to interfere with dad’s visitation. The case was continued for more investigation and the Referee ordered the mother to cooperate with the visitation schedule starting with spring break in April 1992.

        7. On April 17, the day visitation was to commence, the mother filed for an Order of Protection because father physically and sexually abused her, and the father and his wife physically abused the children, forced them to eat foods to which they were allergic, and withheld medication. NO MENTION OF THE FATHER CRACKING THE SON’s SKULL!

        Here’s the major problem I have with Ms Collins’ story and why I don’t think she has a shred of credibility.

        1. For 10 months, from June 1990 – June 1991, it appears things were perfectly peaceful between the parties. If any abuse occurred at the this time, WHY DIDN’T THE MOTHER BRING IT UP?

        2. WHen the mother asked for permission from the court to move to MA, why didn’t she bring up the issue of abuse then as part of her petition? The parties AGREED to a new visitation schedule.

        4. The first time any abuse was alleged was when the father petitioned for custody because the mother would not follow the AGREEMENT SHE SIGNED!

        5. When the court put the mother’s feet to the fire and ordered her to follow the visitation schedule, she filed an order of protection the day visitation was to start alleging abuse. This was to be the first time the father saw the kids since the previous August. IT DID NOT MENTION THE FATHER CRACKING THE SON’s SKULL!

        The mother has no credibility. These are major holes in her story – abuse never occurred until the father got tired of her interefering with visitation. Yet, the father hadn’t seen the kids in 6 months at the time he filed his custody petition.

        • Barry

          Dear Brad,
          All of the following appears in the film”

          Interview with Dr. Eli Newberger:

          Eli:
          Well, my recollection is that at the time of the referral, the professional people who had seen the children, and these included a physician and a mental health worker, had been powerfully impressed by the tremendous amount of anxiety among these quite young children, and the terror on the part of their mother about the danger were they to be awarded to the custody of their father.

          Medical Record:
          Children’s Hospital
          June 16th, 1992
          Mother and children are participating seriously and consistently in treatment. The disclosures of abuse appear to all…observers…to be valid.

          Medical Record
          Children’s Hospital
          July 22, 1992
          Both Zachery and Jennifer have made statements to members of evaluation team about specific abusive incidences with their father. The children’s mother was not in the room when these disclosures were made.

          Interview with Children’s Hospital Pedicatrician Dr. Maureen O’Brien in reference to Zachary Collin’s allegations of abuse at the hands of his father:
          so remember that feeling of this poor child was so young and he already was so beaten down by the system. He already felt like people weren’t listening to him. And it was just disheartening because I felt like his emotions were so honest.

          Interview with Dr. Eli Newberger:

          “So if you ask me two decades later, do I think this was a case where there was abuse, within the bounds of scientific and medical certainty, do I as a doctor believe that this is a case of child abuse and domestic violence, the answer is unequivocally yes.”

          Some of Dr. Newberger’s awards and honors:
          Among his many prestigious honors include: induction into Alpha Omega Alpha medical honorary society; the annual award for improvement of the welfare of children from the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children; the Pantaleoni Award for the outstanding contribution to the betterment and welfare of children, awarded by the greater Boston Committee for UNICEF; the Commissioner’s Award for outstanding contributions in the prevention of child abuse and neglect, awarded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; and the Humanitarian Award of the Massachusetts Psychological Association.

          Medical record:
          Children’s Hospital July 22, 1992
          The children were asked” if a judge were here with us, right now, what would you say? Both children clearly stated that they did not want to go to Minnesota and see Mark because he hits them and is mean to them.

          Sworn Testimony of Court Evaluator Susan Devries:
          Testimony of Susan Devries, Hennepin County Court Services

          “I believe … there is a strong likelihood that there was physical abuse in the past from Mark Collins to Holly Collins…She does have medical records showing…the kind of unexplained accidents we often see with battered women.”

          From the FBi transcript of their interview with Mark Collins and his wife – after the “kidnapping” occurred:

          Federal Bureau of Investigation – witness interview July 8th, 1994.
          The husband of Holly Collins was interviewed at his home. Also present was his wife. When he arrived home on June 30, 1994, the children were not at home. A neighbor told him that the children’s bicycles were at the video store. The children were probably waiting for Holly to pick them up. Both Mr. Collins and his wife feel that the children would prefer to be with Holly. They probably went with her willingly.

          There was no room for all the evidence in this film or any film for that matter – but we have reviewed medical records of numerous other injuries and conflicting accounts in sworn testimony by Mark Collins about how the injuries occurred. For instance he initially swore that Holly’s shoulder was never dislocated. He later swore that it was dislocated when they were fooling around in a “sexual” kind of play. he also swore that he was practicing wrestling moves on her with his family present when the injury occurred. This is all there in court transcripts. He has denied knowledge of any broken noses, said that there were several broken noses – and said that he rolled over in his sleep to break her nose – which he described as something that probably happens to a lot of people.

          We have reviewed medical records of a black eye with a punctate injury – and a concussion on the back of Holly’s head. We have reviewed medical records of an injury to Zachary – besides the concussion – in which a contemporaneous allegation that the injury was received at the hands of Mark Collins. We have reviewed correspondence from the children’s pediatrician in Marblehead stating that the Minn. Court evaluator had falsely claimed that he had recommended a change in custody – he says clearly in the letter that he did not. We have reviewed correspondence from other treating professionals to the same effect.

          There is more – but there is also this compelling bit of evidence that the court got it wrong in this case. In taking custody away from Holly Collins – Judge Davis said this:

          “the evidence is overwhelming that the children are at great physical and emotional risk if the children remain in respondent’s care.’

          I have had the pleasure of spending a fair amount of time in the company of Holly’s children. They are quite remarkable. They are healthy, self directed, poised and gracious, despite Judge Davis’s dire prediction. And they remain so. even though people like you and Ms. Imm and Glenn Sacks have been calling them and their mother liars and worse for years – and you have dismissed and diminished a great deal of painful trauma they suffered at the hands of a man you so eagerly defend. I doubt I would be so gracious about it if i were in their shoes.

          And finally, I do find it curious that most of the people here posting angrily about Holly Collins – without having seen the film or all the evidence – are using selected material from the court hearings as if it must be the unvarnished truth – while simultaneously holding the belief that family court hearings do not do a very good job of ferreting out what the truth is in such difficult cases. I happen to agree with you on that point.

          Barry Nolan

          • Brad B

            Barry,

            Your arguments are very weak. All you do is dance around the real issues.

            1. There was a veritable army of judges, custody evaluators, GALS, psychologists who have a very differing view of what was going on. I think the court did a very thorough job.

            2. You ignored the evaluations where the children did BETTER with the father in regards to their health, anxiety, etc than with their mother. Can you please explain why you ignored those?

            3. Where is the medical documentation that says the father fractured his son’s skull? I’ve asked you this many times for this but you still haven’t presented it. It strains the bounds of credibility that a Dr. would say with conviction that a child whose skull was fractured 5 years prior AND there was a large settlement involving a head injury was caused by the father. I don’t think Dr. Newberger had enough data when he made those statements.

            4. Why have you ignored multiple therapists who diagnosed Ms Collins with personality disorders which cause her to distort facts?

            5. Why did you ignore that Ms Collins was diagnosed with Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy? This is most certainly a recognized form of child abuse.

            6. Why do you gloss over the mother’s issues that were presented into evidence by a father who was UNREPRESENTED?

            I look forward to seeing your answers to these points.

          • The Truth

            Barry repeatedly accuses Fathers and Families of “using selected material from the court hearings” to create a false view of the Collins case. Yet Fathers and Families for almost three years has had the major documents and rulings from the case readily available on its website (see http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax), as well as dozens of others, including letters and testimony from numerous mental health health and medical professionals who had examined the Collins children. By sharp contrast, after years of attacking F & F, the Collins side has posted very little in the way of documentation. If anyone is “using selected material from the court hearings,” its the Collins, not F & F.

      • John Mace

        We don’t support this flawed family court system Mrs. Garland. It ruins life’s. But your past movies/documentaries are leaning to men being abusers and women & children being their victims. Why can’t you acknowledge in film when the family courts are biased against fathers and that woman are perfectly capable of being the abusers? Evan your supporters seem to have the nazi feminist point of view calling men that disagree with a one sided film male supremacists. Your past movies are also in this character as well as the groups and organizations that you are affiliated with.

  • Barry

    Dear Mr. Mace,

    I would like to correct a misperception on your part. My wife’s work on “Small Justice” and on this film is directed, not at men in general, but at the small subset of men who batter their wives and abuse their children and then try to gain custody following divorce. And how ill equipped the family court system is to effectively deal with this problem.

    Most men do not batter. Just as most men do not murder, rape, or commit acts of assault. No one would suggest that those who murder or commit acts of assault on strangers should not be held accountable. I suspect you would agree that it would be wrong to for those who commit similar acts of violence against their intimate partners or their children to not be held accountable. And that it would be even worse for them to have sole custody of the children that they hurt.

    Among that small subset that does batter, it is hardly surprising to find that they frequently attempt to continue efforts at the control of an intimate partner by taking “possession” of the children.

    The focus of my wife’s films is essentially, an attempt at triage. Save the largest number at greatest risk first. Yes, there is no question that men have been victims of the courts failures. Some of them are dear friends of mine. But the data on this issue concerning who the most frequent victims of domestic violence are is very clear. Here is just a small part of it:

    According to the U.S. Department of Justice, between 1998 and 2002:

    84% of spouse abuse victims were females, and 86% of victims of dating partner abuse at were female.

    Males were 83% of spouse murderers and 75% of dating partner murderers

    50% of offenders in state prison for spousal abuse had killed their victims.

    Wives were more likely than husbands to be killed by their spouses: wives were about half of all spouses in the population in 2002, but 81% of all persons killed by their spouse.

    Matthew R. Durose et al., U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 207846, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Family Violence Statistics: Including Statistics on Strangers and Acquaintances, at 31-32 (2005), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fvs.pdf

    In a study of 724 adolescent mothers between the ages of 12-18, one of every eight pregnant adolescents reported having been physically assaulted by the father of her baby during the preceding 12 months. Of these, 40 percent also reported experiencing violence at the hands of a family member or relative.


    Constance M. Wiemann et al., Pregnant Adolescents: Experiences and Behaviors Associated with Physical Assault by an Intimate Partner, 4 Maternal & Child Health J. 93 (2000).

    Some abusive partners may try to stop women from working by calling them frequently during the day or coming to their place of work unannounced. Research indicates that about 50 percent of battered women who are employed are harassed at work by their abusive partners.


    U.S. Gen. Accounting Office, GAO/HEHS-99-12, Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among Welfare Recipients (1998), available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1999/he99012.pdf

    Battered women are not the only victims of abuse – it is estimated that anywhere between 3.3 million and 10 million children witness domestic violence annually. Research demonstrates that exposure to violence can have serious negative effects on children’s development.

    Sharmila Lawrence, National Center for Children in Poverty, Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being 5 (2002).

    Children exposed to Intimate Partner Violence were 1.6 times as likely to score in the borderline to clinical level range on externalizing behaviors relative to children of similar age and sex (as measured on three scales of internalizing behaviors, externalizing behaviors, and social competence according to the standardized psychometric instrument of Achenbach’s Child Behavior Checklist, or CBCL).

    Mary A. Kernic et al., Behavioral Problems Among Children Whose Mothers are Abused by an Intimate Partner, 27 Child Abuse & Neglect 1231 at 1239 (2003).

    The U.S. Department of Justice reported that 37% of all women who sought care in hospital emergency rooms for violence-related injuries were injured by a current or former spouse, boyfriend or girlfriend.

    Michael R. Rand, U.S. Dep’t of Just., NCJ 156921, Violence-Related Injuries Treated in Hospital Emergency Departments, (1997) available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/vrithed.txt

    While some people of good faith may disagree about the precision of the data concerning battering and domestic violence – there can be little debate over the number of dead. They are silent witnesses, the bodies can be counted. Women die at the hands of a male partner, about 6 times more often than men die at the hands of women. It should hardly be surprising then, if statistics on battering mirror that ratio.

    As to your characterization of those who disagree with you as “nazi feminists.” perhaps you are simply unaware of how offensive it is to civilized people of any political persuasion that you compare women who wish to protect children to those who systematically slaughtered Jews. Or perhaps you just don’t care. Either way, you do your “side” in this debate a great disservice in resorting to such hate speech.

    Barry Nolan

    • JB

      “As to your characterization of those who disagree with you as “nazi feminists.” perhaps you are simply unaware of how offensive it is to civilized people of any political persuasion that you compare women who wish to protect children to those who systematically slaughtered Jews. Or perhaps you just don’t care. Either way, you do your “side” in this debate a great disservice in resorting to such hate speech.”

      While I don’t agree with the term nazi feminist being used, I don’t agree with your statement about who we targeted this at.

      “women who wish to protect”, That would be every man and woman on the planet. I’m fairly certain he is making his statement about a select group of feminists who subscribe to the believe that men are all abusive in some nature and that it is ok to de-humanize them (the same way the jews were).

      I also agree that it is extremely offensive. As offensive as being called Faccist..

      • JB

        should have read “HE” not “WE” said there.. sorry.

    • JB

      Is this the link to the full study ? that you describe ” one of every eight pregnant adolescents reported having been physically assaulted by the father of her baby during the preceding 12 months.Constance M. Wiemann et al., Pregnant Adolescents: Experiences and Behaviors Associated with Physical Assault by an Intimate Partner, 4 Maternal & Child Health J. 93 (2000).”
      http://www.springerlink.com/content/x616012g28428644/abstract/

      The women in question and even the conclusion is interesting for that piarticular one. “Conclusions: Pregnant adolescents who are assaulted by intimate partners appear to live in violence-prone environments and to have partners who engage in substance use and other nonconforming behaviors. Comprehensive assessments are critical for all adolescent females at risk of assault, and direct questions about specific behaviors or situations must be used.

  • Kim

    I live in San Francisco, CA. Is there any screenings out here or a way to get a copy of this documentary in the future?

  • Allison

    You do know that there are woman that actually exist that witness the false charges and alienation of children from their fathers. I am one of them and my husband has been going thru this for over 10 years. His ex wife has been slinging false charges at him every time they have a new custody hearing. So all of you ladies that abuse the system and say your actions don’t exist need to be on medication because you have mental problems. By the way, we outnumber you and love our men.

    • Brad B

      Right on Allison. Having to deal with an abusive ex who files abuse charges because she can’t handle someone saying no to her is very hard to deal with.

  • JB

    When I first started reading these comments I gave the poster barry, a little bit of credit.

    After reading all of his comments, I know believe he is willingly spreading falsehoods and mis-leading people. The credibility of anyone involved in this film is in serious question.

    In fact – I think some people should do some jail time.

    • Brad B

      Barry, you said in a previous post:

      “The injury at the hands of his father was a depressed skull fracture, confirmed both by an x-ray and a CAT scan. Evidence of that same skull fracture was again confirmed years later by an x-ray in the Netherlands. Mr Sacks clearly did not have access to this evidence when he wrote his highly slanted account. ”

      1. Again, this injury occured in the 1986-1987 time frame. WHY WAS THE CLAIM THAT THE FATHER FRACTRURED THE SKULL NOT BROUGHT UP IN THE MOTHER’S CUSTODY FILINGS FROM 1991-1993?

      You have been asked multiple times to answer this question. You should also note that the mother did indeed make other claims of abuse during the custody proceedings from 1991-1993. It is pretty clear the mother didn’t think about blaming the son’s head injuries on the father until after she lost the custody case and after she alread received a large legal settlement from the head injuries.

      2. An XRay in the Netherlands confirmed an injury that happened 5 or 6 years before is not evidence that abuse occured at the hands of the father. An injury, BTW, that no one disputes happened. The reason that Mr. Sacks probably did not include it in his analysis is because he had access to records from the phsysicians that treated the injuries at around the time they occured. Those physicians were in much better position to determine if the injuries were cause by child abuse because they treated the injuries at the time they occured.

      You made the choice to use a case in your film that has very strong evidence contrary to what the mother claims. To call people who bring up evidence that is stronger than that in the film to refute the claims as fathers rights fascists pretty much destroys any credibility you have.

      • JB

        I a little confused – did anyone here actually call someone a “fathers rights fascists”?

  • JB

    Barry – you should note that most of your data above relies on actual convictions.

    How much effort did you put into considering how often men are convicted of those crimes?

    Is it possible to get a refference that we can all read – example your Constance M. Wiemann et al., Pregnant Adolescents: Experiences and Behaviors Associated with Physical Assault by an Intimate Partner, 4 Maternal & Child Health J. 93 (2000).

    which I find posted 100’s of times all over the place with little blurbs almost identical to what you are saying here…. but i can’t find the actual info to see the study and see how it was done, or what the full results where.

  • JB

    Could we get some links about the PAS being junk science? I’m not able to find the peer reviewed studies you refer to on YOU site without a link. I assume it’s on the main site for the movie. The only link i found there was a very biased and poor example. The article itself is more like an attack add then any sort of balanced article.

  • Mrs. Burns

    Thank you for having the courage to publish this very thoughtful review of a very uncomfortable but necessary documentary. The comments from so many spewing hate, while unfortunate, are representative of why this needs to be news and needs to be brought to the forefront of our awareness.

    The abused, be they women, men, children or the elderly, are not only let down far too often by thsoe that should protect them (the courts, guardians, social workers, etc) but are (as demonstarted in this chain of comments) often publicly and brutally attacked for having dared to speak out. The attackers (whose examples can be seen here in the names of JR, Matt, Prince, Mike, etc) jump on any claim of abuse (especially by a Mother) as categorically false, exaggerrated, criminal, etc. They threaten those with the courage to come forward and continue the abuse cycle. This disgusting circle of behavior no doubt exacerbates the level of physical and mental torture endured by so many suffering. It prevents them from being willing to seek help as they know what they will have to endure. One can not help but wonder how many people are suffering today that will read this looking for a ray of light will instead be beaten again tonight, tomorrow…next week… because of their fear of being scorned, called a liar…attcked. It is a stain on our nation to allow this to continue unchecked. It is a violation and an outrage.

    Bravo to the courageous. Bravo to the ones with the fortitude to stand up anyway. You are heros. You are true. Thank you.

    • Brad B

      Mrs. Burns,

      Everyone on this board is on the same side that DV must end. The vitrol you claim is coming from men who HAVE been through the wringer of having to deal with false accusations that most likely arose out of the context of divorce. To put your head in the sand that false accusations don’t happen is the same as someone saying DV does not happen.

      False accusations have a huge toll on the true victims too. Resources which could be used to help the true victims are being stolen by those who are pushing their own personal agenda to punish their former spouse.

      The issue we have with this story is contrary to what the filmmakers say, this case WAS thoroughly reviewed by an army of evaluators, psychologists, and judges. Mr Sacks (who is blasted and slandered) used in his analysis of the case only evidence that was admitted in court as the basis of his thesis.

      There are a ton of holes in her story. So, far, the filmakers have not presented any evidence that would refute the facts of the case that made the basis of the decision.

      • G Garcia

        I attended the screening and have a few points to make.
        1. It was intriguing that none of Holly’s detractors would speak to the filmmakers for the documentary. I found their silence spoke volumes, particularly if they feel maligned or misrepresented.
        2. I was also struck by the (now adult) children’s
        detailed testimony of remembered abuse by their father and eyewitnesses who would have nothing to gain by ‘lying’.
        3. The movie shows the terribly chaotic life that the family had to endure on the run; I can’t imagine what would be gained by this life.
        4. It is clear that Jennifer has grown into a wonderful person despite these circumstances. And during this time, the only parent she had was Holly Collins.

        I would advise folks reading these comments to see the documentary and decide where they stand for themselves.

        • Brad B

          @ G Garcia I want to make a few comments about your take on the screening.

          “1. It was intriguing that none of Holly’s detractors would speak to the filmmakers for the documentary. I found their silence spoke volumes, particularly if they feel maligned or misrepresented.”

          The only detractor that matters is her ex husband. His position was laid out over 15 years ago and is all part of the court record. Why should he comment? You need to stop equating silence with guilt.

          When the filmaker says in these comments that Glenn Sacks did a hatchet job when he analyzed the EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO COURT kind of shows that the filmakers would ignore evidence that would not agree with their agenda.

          “2. I was also struck by the (now adult) children’s
          detailed testimony of remembered abuse by their father and eyewitnesses who would have nothing to gain by ‘lying’.”

          Who were the eye witnesses? Dr. Newberger? If you read the court record, he was on the losing end of a professional disagreement between who was going to do the custody evaluation – him or his Minnesota counterparts. The Minnesota Dr’s had a very different view than Dr. Newberger.

          Did the film mention eyewitness accounts about how the children were very anxious and uncomfortable in front of their mother yet were very relaxed, affectionate, had better health, and by all intents and purposes did better when they lived with the father?

          Young children are not the best eyewitnesses when it comes to remembering details – they are very suceptible to suggestion. That’s why experts in children psychology look heavily into their actions when evaluating allegations of abuse. The Minnesota evaluations were able to observe the children’s ACTIONS when they were with the father. The MA evaluators only went by the mother and children’s WORDS.

          “3. The movie shows the terribly chaotic life that the family had to endure on the run; I can’t imagine what would be gained by this life.”

          And this rests solely on the mother. The evidence is overwhelming the allegations were fabricated. It was the MOTHER who deliberately made the children’s lives chaotic. Read the court record.

          “4. It is clear that Jennifer has grown into a wonderful person despite these circumstances. And during this time, the only parent she had was Holly Collins.”

          The reason she had only one parent lies solely on the mother. The mother violated numerous court orders in order to take the children’s father out of their lives. She broke the law. Don’t make the mother out to be some sort of martyr because she is not.

          “I would advise folks reading these comments to see the documentary and decide where they stand for themselves.”

          A documentary that ignores:

          – a mother being diagnosed with mental illness that causes her to fantasize about perceived sleights as well as a diagnosis of a personality disorder

          – custody evaluators who observed the children interecting with the father yet used custody evaluators who did not see the children with the father

          – why the mother never mentioned the father fractured the son’s skull until she applied for asylum 7 years after the alleged incident. In the seven years prior, she made several allegations of abuse against the father yet never mentioned the fractured skull

          – the veritable army of custody evaluators, judges, etc who had nothing to gain who said the mother was in fact the one who was abusive.

          That is not a documentary. It is propaganda to promote an agenda.

      • Mrs. Burns

        What you are missing is this: I knew them and I know them. I SAW the abuse. I WITNESSED what Mr. Collins did to Holly AND to her children.

        NOT just the after-effects, not just hear-say…I SAW IT HAPPEN.

        That, and ONLY that is why I can say with utter certainty that it did occur. I DID read Every. Single. Document.

        I DO know with 100% certainty that every word spoken by Jennifer, every opicture drawn by Zachary is 100% true and not in any way influenced by their Mother.

        YOU DO NOT. YOU have an opinion.

        Further, I am a survivor of an abusive marriage. My own marriage began in 1999 and ended in 2002. I would have never, ever thought I would end up in that type of situation. But I did. You see, you can’t “spot” an abuser.I also dealt with Hennepin County Courts. The ONLY reason my outcome was far, far different than Holly’s was that I recorded it happening. He had no choice but to plead guilty. I learned from her. I learned that no one would ever believe me until I was dead if I didn’t have irrefutable proof. That in itself isd so very, very wrong and people l;ke YOU are the reason it is necessary. Had I NOT done that, I may well be unable to type this now and defend families, Fathers, Mothers and Children alike that have had to face this gross injustice these courts perpetrate.

        SHAME on you. Shame on you for being no better than the abusers themselves by perpetuating this cycle of punishing and blaming the victim.

  • Barry

    For quite some time, Mr. Sacks and his followers have been repeating the claim that Zachary’s skull fracture, received at the hands of his father, was merely a pre-existing injury – one that was actually received a year earlier in an accident at Cannobie Lake Park.

    Even a cursory review of the medical records show that claim to be patently false. The two injuries are medically distinct in both location and nature. Despite an e-mail I sent to Mr. Sacks drawing his attention to this incontrovertible fact, Mr. Sacks fails to acknowledge it and writers here continue to repeat what it a demonstrable falsehood. It does not fit with your pre-conceptions.

    Mr. Sacks fails to mention in his “exhaustive” analysis, the court testimony of Mark Collins given on June 7th, 1989 regarding injuries to Holly. P. 5:

    “The two broken noses occurred when we were first married in my parents’ house, which was an accident, which many people roll about, and I rolled over asleep in bed.”

    Has that ever happened to you Mr. Sacks? Someone rolled over in bed and broke your nose in their sleep? Twice? In that same testimony, Mr. Collins says on P. 6:

    “I don’t remember her having a concussion or a dislocated shoulder. If she did, it wasn’t caused by me.”

    In later hearings, Mr. Collins would claim that he dislocated her shoulder while engaged in a kind of sexual play and alternately, that he was practicing wrestling moves. I have reviewed the medical records of both a dislocated shoulder and a concussion.

    In testimony, on December 15th, 1992, Mark Collins is again asked about those injuries. He says – on page 30:

    “I hurt Ms. Collins nose one time wrestling in our bedroom, it wasn’t that we were sleeping at the time.”

    Wrestling, sleeping, it’s all the same to Mr. Sacks. He doesn’t seem to mind that Mr. Collins has a variety of colorful stories about just how he broke Holly’s nose and dislocated her shoulder. Or didn’t. Mr. Sacks does not note that fact. It does not fit with his narrative.

    In the 1989 hearing, Mr. Collins is asked by the judge if he ever threatened Holly that he was planning to take the children and she would “never see them again.” On page 4, Mr. Collins denies having ever said such a thing. But in our film, eyewitness Ranna Grant describes one of the handovers of the children from Holly to Mark and Rena Collins :

    These were children that were afraid of this man, and this woman, their father and his wife. And we were standing there, and the children didn’t want to go. And so, Mark grabbed Zachary by the arm, Rena grabbed…Jennifer by the arm, and started dragging them. And the kids were, you know, like putting their heals in, like “no, no”, and their being dragged and dragged.

    And Reena came over, and I mean I’m standing right next to Holly Anne, she’s got you, you know, her hand on my arm, and, can I swear? (yes, you can swear) Okay, this is exactly what Rena said to Holly Anne, “you’ll be lucky if you ever see these f***ing children again

    Ms. Grant gave the same sworn testimony in court. Mr. Sacks does not see fit to mention this.

    Mr. Sacks has also perpetuated for years another false claim – that Holly Collins received a diagnosis of Munchausen by Proxy. Here is an important bit of the sworn court testimony from the Court Evaluator Susan DeVries that Mr. Sacks does not mention, but that can be found in the film:

    Testimony of Susan Devries, Court Evaluator:

    I had very little background in this area. I had heard about the syndrome, but I asked the medical library to do a search for me…I read those articles and prepared a memo.

    In these situations the symptoms are not induced in the children, the symptoms are exaggerated, fabricated, blown out of proportion by the mother.

    This is akin to diagnosis by Lifetime Movie. Ms. DeVries had a Masters degree and had absolutely none of the training or clinical experience that would qualify her to make a diagnosis of such a rare and controversial disorder. The court did not admit into evidence the written opinion of the highly qualified Psychiatrist, Dr. Newberger and his team from Children’s Hospital, or admit the opinion of the children’s Massachusetts pediatrician. They all found that such a diagnosis was preposterous. I have reviewed the documents and they are unequivocal on that. The court would not allow a qualified specialist in Munchausens to be consulted. The court instead, relied on the suggestion of someone not remotely qualified to make such a diagnosis. This is how the courts fail us. Both fathers and mothers.

    The ultimate proof of how wrong that suggested diagnosis was is in how right the children turned out to be. They are fine – quite healthy. We visited face to face with their pediatrician in the Netherlands who confirmed just that for us.

    Mr. Sacks notes that Holly has sued people in the past. Yes she has. And she won. She and Mark sued Canobie Lake Park when Zachary was injured on a ride. That was settled in Zachary’s favor. And Holly sued Mark’s second wife Rana for an injury Holly received when Rana purposefully drove her car into Holly. Ironically, it was the money from that settlement that would help Holly fund their escape.

    And as to the suggestion that the children were somehow happier or more at ease with Mark and his wife, why then does the FBI report say that both Mark and his wife acknowledged the fact that the children would prefer to live with Holly and that they probably went with her willing. This occurs mind you, after the children had been in Mark’s sole custody for one and a half years – with Holly having only supervised visits. You can see the FBI record in the film as well.

    There is much more. We have boxes of documents that reach to the ceiling. And this is not a trial. It is a discussion of a movie. It is a movie that relies on far more evidence than Mr. Sacks was selectively fed, more eye witnesses, more one on one interviews with the people involved.

    Ultimately, it is a movie about something that we seem to agree on – that the family court system, as it is now constituted, does not do a good job of sorting out the truth. We disagree vehemently, on whether or not Mr. Sacks is being honest about his ideological driven presentation of selected evidence.

    Mr. Sacks’ Javert-like vendetta against these abused children over the span of many years – his defense of the findings of a system he finds himself to be deeply flawed and often wrong – he refusal to acknowledge it when the facts show him to be wrong (such as the skull injury records) and his perverse denial of the scientific consensus on the issue of PAS – all taken together suggest that the Fathers Rights Advocates have a troubled and tarnished champion who is crusading – not for justice – but for kind of vicarious vengeance. And has been as ugly to see here on this page – as it is in real life.

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “Mr. Sacks and his followers have been repeating the claim that Zachary’s skull fracture, received at the hands of his father, was merely a pre-existing injury.”

      Actually, the F & F website has had the distinction between the two injuries on its website for 2 years. There were two injuries–first the amusement park one, then the shopping cart one. The skull fracture was from the second one, though (according to documents we posted) doctors felt that the first one was actually the more serious of the two.

      The real issue is this–neither you nor Ms. Collins has ever presented the slightest evidence that Mark Collins caused the skull fracture, and there is considerable evidence that Holly’s accusation is false.

    • The Truth

      Barry again goes to Dr. Newberger and criticizes Devries to support his views. Yet many medical professionals contradicted the Newberger/Collins’ version, and, unlike Barry, F & F supplies all the documentation at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax. One example is Problem #11 below:

      Problem #11–Holly invented mythical food allergies for the children which were contradicted by many medical professionals. Once custody of Zachary and Jennifer was switched from Holly Collins to Mark Collins, the allergies soon dissipated.
      On October 17, 1991 Jennifer suffered a cyanotic attack and was brought to the North Shore Children’s Emergency Room. Psychiatrist Dr. Barbara Burr wrote in her report that “recent visits to the North Shore Children’s Emergency Room culminated in admission there though child was virtually asymptomatic. She was referred to [Boston Children’s Hospital] for further assessment.”

      Dr. Burr was concerned because Holly was “applying pressure to physicians to prescribe meds, assign diagnoses, and label the children chronically ill.” To view Dr. Burr’s report, see document #23 here (see paragraph 2).

      On December 9, 1991 Jennifer was brought to Boston Children’s Hospital by Holly Collins for an alleged cyanotic attack. Doctors suspected that there was something wrong with Holly, and ordered a psychological assessment of both Holly and Jennifer. Additional immunological testing was ordered for the children to determine the validity of Holly’s allegations that the children were allergic to 20 different foods, and that Zachary was deathly allergic to bee stings.

      Holly didn’t follow through with the psychological treatment the concerned medical professionals wanted her to have. The children were tested by Dr. Stephen Polmer (CHMC) and found to have insignificant food allergies. Moreover, Zachary was not allergic to bee stings.

      Later, Dr. Paul Hannaway also doubted the severity of the kids’ allergies. Dr. William Yee also did allergy testing on the children, and found that they were within normal range.

      Nevertheless, Holly filed reports with Minnesota child protective services accusing Mark of feeding the children foods which they were allergic to. Child protective services found the accusation to be groundless.

      Jennifer Rojer of Hennepin County Family Court Services says that she and her colleagues “saw a lot of evidence that it was Holly’s anxiety that was creating symptoms in the children, both the suicidal behaviors and some of the asthmatic allergic reactions that they may be having.”

      Elizabeth Sullivan, MA, of the North Shore Children’s Hospital in Massachusetts, also expressed concerns over Holly’s parenting style.

      After the change of custody to Mark Collins, the children’s health improved. According to a February 22, 1993 Minneapolis Metro/Star News article written during the custody case, court-appointed child psychologist Susan Devries found that “the children’s illnesses abate when they’re with their father. ‘The children are rarely observed to suffer from asthmatic or allergic reactions while in Mark’s presence and have not required any kind of emergency room care or medical treatment,’ DeVries reports.” To read this article, see document #19 here.

      In her February 28, 1992 court order, Referee Marybeth Dorn writes:

      The respondent [Holly Collins] continues to make allegations that the petitioner [Mark Collins] provides a dangerous environment for the children during periods of visitation. All of the respondent’s current representations have been repeatedly addressed by this Court on numerous occasions. It appears the children experience significant medical difficulties when they are in the respondent’s care, not the petitioner’s…

      There also exists concern that the respondent overemphasizes and dwells on the children’s medical status, to their detriment…medical reports…indicate concern on the part of physicians in Massachusetts that the respondent is preoccupied with the children’s medical condition.

      To read this court order, see document #28 here.

      The Minnesota Court of Appeal, in affirming the lower court’s award of custody to the father in March of 1994, noted that since the custody switch “the children’s health has improved.” To read the Court of Appeal’s ruling, see document #13 here.

      In an April, 1993 report to the Court, Guardian ad Litem Michael J. London describes the children as being healthy and happy, and that Mark Collins was attentive to the children’s medical needs, which were normal. To read London’s report, see document number #26 here.

      The children’s healthy, normal life under Mark Collins’ care can be contrasted with the way Holly herself described the children’s medical condition under her care in a 1991 request to the court for an ex-parte order. Holly wrote:

      Both children are on home nebulazation therapy and extensive preventative as well as symptom-alleviating medicines. They also have injection syringes which must be kept on hand at all times. They also have been prescribed a home oxygen unit for the severity of the disease.

      To view Holly’s request, see document #31 here.

      Holly did initially succeed in misleading a few doctors into believing that Zachary and Jennifer had significant allergies. What these doctors did not realize at first was that at the time the children were living in a household in which, according to Dr. Paul M. Blum, M.D., there were “numerous animals having the run of the house.” To view Dr. Blum’s letter, see document #24 here.

      In an April, 1991 letter from Dr. Paul M. Blum, M.D. to physician David Estrin, M.D., he wrote:

      Environmental review reveals a menagerie living at the house. There is a dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, all with constant access to this child.

      To view Dr. Blum’s letter, see document #25 here.

      In a different April, 1991 letter from Dr. Blum to Dr. Estrin, M.D., he said the Collins family needed “environmental control issues includ[ing] removal of all pets from the home with the exception of a dog.” To view Dr. Blum’s letter, see document #24here.

      The doctors at first also did not realize that the children’s health problems were partly caused by Holly Collins overmedicating them.

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “We have boxes of documents that reach to the ceiling,” this purportedly being evidence to bolster the Collins’ case. I’m sorry if Barry has storage problems, but did he ever consider putting any of these documents on line? He makes claim after claim based on what he tells us these documents say, without once letting the public see the documents.

      At the same time, he repeatedly criticizes Fathers and Families’ view of the case as being based only on narrow, “selected” documentation, even though F & F has, at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax, posted dozens of documents, including the rulings from the seven judges who heard the case, listed in order of their appearance.

  • Stan

    How curious is it that his dramatic video is about the current story of a woman who, as a matter of public record, has been practicing her histrionic stories of sexual abuse and physical abuse against both men and women in countless allegations that even most very misandrist shelter counselors can spot as false, but extremely emotive. It is a fantastic story without verifiable evidence.

    Ms. Collins story fits well into Garland Waller’s ideological agenda where emotive pleas rule over fact.

    I would rate this high on the list on works of fiction that are iconic of a myth based ideology.

    The courts are biased, but against men, not women. A short review of every State’s current Bar Journal articles will provide support for this claim. For a woman to run afoul of the courts, she has to be extremely problematic. Ms. Collins’ public record of crying wolf against her mother, landlords, etc… found fertile ground in the mythological world of Garland Wallers.

    Ms Collins claims against her ex-husband were well practiced and well rehearsed on a host of other men and women before her pogram against her ex and her own children.

    I can hardly wait for the plethora of litigation by the real innocent parties hurt by the wild imagination of Ms. Collins and the pandering ideologue, Ms. Waller.

  • Barry

    Dear The Truth – or Mrs. Imm,
    You say: “Problem #11–Holly invented mythical food allergies for the children which were contradicted by many medical professionals”
    You are no doubt aware that the children’s principle allergist, Dr. Blum repeatedly told the courts that – after his extensive testing – he found that the children were among the most allergic he had treated in his 13 years of practice. He told Holly that the children’s reaction to their food allergies could be fatal. The record of this is seen in the film. If you were Holly – and one person told you the kids could die – and another told you not so much – what would prudence and common sense dictate to you? Be a bit cautious. You also fail to note the sworn statement of an EMT who said that every time he was involved in transporting the Collins children to the emergency room – it was an appropriate response to their condition and he notes Jennifer’s cyanotic (blue) appearance.
    You claim: Holly filed reports with Minnesota child protective services accusing Mark of feeding the children foods which they were allergic to. Child protective services found the accusation to be groundless.
    You fail to mention that an eyewitness to the children’s return from a visit with Mark who testified in court about the children’s contemporaneous account that Mark insisted on them eating food to which they were allergic – about their subsequent allergic reaction – and about Mark’s withholding of medication. You can see her interview in our film.
    You note: Jennifer Rojer of Hennepin County Family Court Services says that she and her colleagues “saw a lot of evidence that it was Holly’s anxiety that was creating symptoms in the children, both the suicidal behaviors and some of the asthmatic allergic reactions that they may be having.”
    Yet you fail to note that it was acknowledged that these are all behaviors which happens to correspond to PTSD and that Ms. Rojer also testified in court that the children seem to have an exclusive emotional bond with their mother.
    You fail to note that numerous treatment providers observed the children’s expressed fear of their father and their spontaneous complaints about his abuse of them.
    You fail to note that one of their therapists, Dr. Klein testifies about the children requesting the opportunity to confront their father about his abuse of them in a safe environment – and that they subsequently read him a list – to his face – of the abuses they had suffered at his hands and how that made them feel.
    You note: After the change of custody to Mark Collins, the children’s health improved.
    Yet you fail to mention that the children’s allergist had said from the beginning that these are allergies that children often outgrow that they often become less reactive over time.
    You note: The respondent [Holly Collins] continues to make allegations that the petitioner [Mark Collins] provides a dangerous environment for the children during periods of visitation.
    And you fail to note that several eyewitnesses testify to the fact that Mark would drop the children off at Holly’s after a visitation – in need of immediate medical care due to an allergic reaction. Pictures of the children with widespread rashes can be seen in the film, along with eye witness accounts of their allergic reactions.
    You claim: The doctors at first also did not realize that the children’s health problems were partly caused by Holly Collins overmedicating them.

    Yet there is no medical record that substantiates your claim.

    You do not address the fact that Court Evaluator Susan DeVries said she believed abuse of Holly probably occurred and that the judge accepted this as a fact in his ruling.

    You do not address the fact that the issues of abuse were first raised before a Catholic Priest in 1987 – who testified in court that Mark was abusing Holly and, he believed, the children as well.

    You fail to account for Mark Collins ever changing accounts about how he repeatedly injured Holly.

    You fail to account for the complaints that the children expressed repeatedly– without their mother present – to a wide array of seasoned professional at Children’s Hospital about the abuse they had suffered at the hands of their father. You fail to note the pictures they drew of the abuse.

    You fail to account for the wide array of supportive letters that were presented to the court attesting to Holly’s calm, nurturing and loving treatment – not just of her children – but of all those she encountered.

    You fail to explain the statement that Mark Collins and his wife gave to the FBI after the “kidnapping” – that the children would prefer to live with Holly. You fail to note that this statement was given after the children had been living in Mark’s sole custody for one and a half years. I ask you – if the children were so happy and carefree in Mark’s care – and if they were so anxious in Holly’s care – why would Mark Collins say something like that to the FBI? Saying something that was untrue to a federal agent would be a crime.

    Even a modicum of conscience should tell you that it is time to drop your hate fueled vendetta, to stop your continued abuse of those who have been abused and to go forth and do some good in the world – instead your monomaniacal attempts perpetuate a lie and continue the harm.

    • The Truth

      Barry, much of what you write is contradicted by the record and the documents provided at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax. And you have produced no documentation to support your claims above.

      Re: your repeated claims about the kids’ “fear” of their father, this is meaningless–courts and numerous mental health professionals found that they had been taught to fear their father by Holly, and that when they lived with their father (until Holly kidnapped them) they were very happy. Much documentation supports this.

      The fact that little children were happy to see their mom and perhaps went with her willingly is again meaningless–of course they’d be happy to see their mother, just as (when not under Holly’s influence) they were happy to see their father and would go with him willingly.

      You accuse us of a “hate fueled vendetta,” but there’s no hate here, only facts. You and your allies have misused and misrepresented the Collins case in order to promote an agenda harmful to children and their parents–an agenda which denies the prevalence and severity of parental alienation, and which urges courts to uncritically accept claims of abuse.

      Our agenda is different–we want courts to recognize Parental Alienation when it occurs and combat it, and to also be aware of the possibility of false accusations of Parental Alienation, which certainly do happen. When claims of abuse are made, we want courts to carefully weigh the evidence in order to protect the abused and punish the guilty, while at the same time being careful to prevent innocent people from being harmed by false accusations. It is hard to see why a reasonable person would disagree with this agenda.

  • Barry

    Dear Truth – Mrs Imm –

    IPeer reviewed research published in credible professional journals, medical science, psychology, and psychiatry all disagree with you. Though false accusations surely happen, large sample peer reviewed research – cites available on our web site – have shown repeatedly that knowingly false accusations are rare – and when they do occur that are most often made by the non-custodial parent – most often men. That is why the AMA, the American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association do not recognize PAS.

    That is why the paper cited on our web site: ( A Critical Assessment of Child Custody Evaluations Psychological Science in the Public Interest – Emery, R. E., Otto, R. K., & O’Donohue, W. T. (2007) pages 1-29) says that the scientific evidence to support PAS is “nil”

    That is why PAS is not included in the DSM-IV and will not be included in DSM-V.

    If you wish to maintain that it was meaningless that the children were happy to see their mother – and wanted to go with her – then your repeated offers that the children were happy to see their father as proof of anything is equally meaningless and of no consequence.

    We produce documents in the film – including FBI files – medical records – eye witnesses – medical and legal experts – and cite peer reviewed research.

    The example i have cited of Mr. Sacks deliberately misleading account of the skull fracture being merely a pre-existing injury is an example of how trustworthy his “extensive analysis” has been.

    You accuse us of promoting “an agenda harmful to children and their parents” – Our point of view is quite clear – it is the consensus of the research, the medical and the scientific communities that PAS is junk science. This is not to say that people don’t lie – of course they do. But some people lying is not a syndrome. it does not mean PAS is science.

    Our point of view is that children should not be placed by the courts in the care of people who hurt them. Our point of view is that children are not mere property to equally divided – no matter the circumstances. If you think that point of view harmful to children – further discussion would be pointless.

    Barry Nolan

    • Brad B

      @Barry

      You said

      “Mr. Sacks has also perpetuated for years another false claim – that Holly Collins received a diagnosis of Munchausen by Proxy. Here is an important bit of the sworn court testimony from the Court Evaluator Susan DeVries that Mr. Sacks does not mention, but that can be found in the film:”

      You are blatantly wrong on this account. Here is verbatim what Judge Davis wrote in his decision on 1/26/1993:

      “48. Based on the foregoing, the court finds that Respondent suffers from a personality disorder. The personality disorder Respondent suffers from includes, but is not limited to, Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy. Whatever the label, the type or types of emotional difficulty Respondent suffers from is extremely resistant to treatment and requires years of long – term psychotherapy.”

      Mr. Sacks did not “make up” that diagnosis. The diagnosis is part of the court record.

      As for the skull fracture, you have been asked numerous times to provide the medical documentation that says the father caused the skull fracture. I think you are lying about this too. Here’s why:

      – Ms Collins made no mention of this until she lost the custody case. Why not? She made other allegations yet never brought this up.

      – If you broke your arm falling off your bike when you were five, a doctor 5 years later would be able to diagnose that yes, you did break your arm. However, how can he diagnose that you really did fall off your bike or your father broke your arm? The only way he can tell how it happened is by what he is told. This is the same situation as the Collins case.

      On the other hand, the doctor who treated the injury would be a thousand times more credible when telling HOW it happened. You have yet to present anything into evidence about this.

      When weighing eyewitness evidence, the courts look at credibility. A court ordered custody evaluator who has no ties to either party is a very credible witness.

      The custody evaluator saying dad is a great parent and the kids are very comfortable around him carries much more weight than the father’s mother testifying to the same fact.

      Likewise, in this case, a psychologist who observed the children WITH the father carries much more credibility than a psychologist who has not seen the kids with the father because they have much more information to draw their conclusions from.

      • Barry

        @Brad B.

        The record is before me as I transcribe it.

        The State of Minnesota – County of Hennepin
        Order – File No. DC-159283
        Dated Feb. 22, 1993
        Findings of Fact
        Item No 10. – The court did not find that Ms. DeVries diagnosed Respondent (Holly Collins) as suffering from Munchausen Syndrom by Proxy (MSP). Specifically, the court found: “Susan Devries, Child Psychologist with the Hennepin County Family Court Services, submitted a report and testified as to her findings that Respondent may (underlined in original) suffer from Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy…)
        Signed by Judge Michael J. Davis on March 5, 1993

        As noted above, Ms DeVries was not qualified by training, education or experience to make such an diagnosis in the first place. There were written opinions submitted by medical doctors stating clearly that such a finding was preposterous.

        Had Mr Sacks been given access to the entire record of court proceedings – he would have known this – or perhaps does and does not care to mention it. I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was selectively fed documents that fit nicely with his narrative.

        Ask your source for their copy of this document. Or go to the courthouse and copy it yourself. But to continue to say that Holly Collins suffered from – or was diagnosed with Munchausen by Proxy (sub-category Doctor shopping) is false. And to continue to promote the lie is to do so knowingly and with malice.

        • The Truth

          Barry writes “[The claim that] Holly Collins suffered from…Munchausen by Proxy…is false. And to continue to promote the lie is to do so knowingly and with malice.”

          The Minnesota Court of Appeal supported Minnesota Family Court Judge Michael J. Davis’ finding that Holly Collins “suffers from a personality disorder, which may include a disorder in which a parent invents, induces or exaggerates medical symptoms in a child” (i.e. Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy). See page 6 of the Court’s ruling at http://s90844510.onlinehome.us/gs/blog-files/pdf/Document13AppealCourtRuling.pdf.

          Also, according to a February 22, 1993 Minneapolis Metro/Star News article written during the custody case:
          In a custody evaluation, Hennepin County Family Court Services found that Holly Collins suffers from multiple disorders, including Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy…as a result, she was deemed a threat to the children and given limited visitation rights…

          Court-appointed child psychologist Susan Devries reported several examples of how the Collins family fits the pattern of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy…

          The link to the newspaper article is at http://s90844510.onlinehome.us/gs/blog-files/collins/Document19.doc.

        • The Truth

          Barry writes “[The claim that] Holly Collins suffered from…Munchausen by Proxy…is false. And to continue to promote the lie is to do so knowingly and with malice.”

          The Minnesota Court of Appeal supported Minnesota Family Court Judge Michael J. Davis’ finding that Holly Collins “suffers from a personality disorder, which may include a disorder in which a parent invents, induces or exaggerates medical symptoms in a child” (i.e. Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy). See page 6 of the Court’s ruling (document #13 on our Collins page.)

          Also, according to a February 22, 1993 Minneapolis Metro/Star News article written during the custody case:

          In a custody evaluation, Hennepin County Family Court Services found that Holly Collins suffers from multiple disorders, including Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy…as a result, she was deemed a threat to the children and given limited visitation rights…

          Court-appointed child psychologist Susan Devries reported several examples of how the Collins family fits the pattern of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy…

          The link to the newspaper article is document #19 on our Collins page.

    • JB

      Barry – you said
      “You accuse us of promoting “an agenda harmful to children and their parents” – Our point of view is quite clear – it is the consensus of the research, the medical and the scientific communities that PAS is junk science. This is not to say that people don’t lie – of course they do. But some people lying is not a syndrome. it does not mean PAS is science.

      Our point of view is that children should not be placed by the courts in the care of people who hurt them. ”

      – First Point – PAS being a syndrome or not currently at this time can be debated. The medical and the scientific communities calling this JUNK science seems a far cry from the truth. There are plenty of people in those communities that believe more research should be done, and believe it’s abuse. It may not be a syndrome however, but alienating children and manipulating children into an irrational hatred for one parent does happen and seems to be generally accepted by anyone with a bit of common sense.

      – You claimed it’s your view that courts shouldn’t give children to people who hurt them, yet you are defending a case where the courts tried to get the children away from a mother who was abusing the children. Call it what you will, SYNDROME or not, but kidnapping children, and taking them away from one of their parents, and then brainwashing them over decades and twisting their heads is abuse.

      • Barry

        @JB
        I have met the children. You have not. We have spoken to their pediatrician in the Netherlands. You have not. We have reviewed voluminous, unedited medical records. You have not. We have interviewed at length numerous people who knew the children and Holly and observed the children’s interaction with Holly – and their play with other children including their own at the time of the custody hearings. You have not. We have interviewed caregivers for the children and have vetted their credentials. You on the other hand have read Glenn Sacks account that was based on a slice of evidence carefully selected.

        I have a degree in Psychology and the equivalent of a Masters in Social Work (it was a 70’s thing). I guess that makes me as qualified as Court Evaluator Susan DeVries. I feel rather confident of our assessment that the children are healthy now- have been healthy all along. They have been well cared for and are functioning at a high level today. You on the other hand, know what you read from Glenn Sacks sad and twisted account on line.

        We both agree that the courts often do a very bad job of determining the truth – that often court personnel – GAL’s, Court evaluators, social workers, custody supervisors – are ill trained and ill equipped for the job and simply get it wrong.

        Yet – without having met any of the players in this case – you and Mr Sacks are dead certain that they got it right here – because it fits your narrative. This time.

        We have cited peer reviewed research that you can easily go to the library and read – as i have done. Or you can continue – “birther-like” – to deny facts that can be seen and substantiated in the real world and have corporeal existence whether you like the research or not. It is there.

        We agree – the court system needs to change – those who would serve in such sensitive posts should be more carefully selected – better trained – and more independent. There should be checks and balances – reviews should be meaningful – there should be rules of evidence that are actually followed – ex parte is a problem that needs to be resolved. A history of Domestic Violence should always be considered in custody hearings. Research clearly shows that exposure to domestic violence has profoundly negative effects on children. And there is much more.

        But for Glenn Sacks and the Fathers and Families people – to continue to attack a woman – who the court clearly found had been abused – and to call children who have been abused liars – is to align yourself with a batterer – to perpetuate and injustice – and to continue a lie that does not hold up under the weight of all the evidence. And the most compelling evidence of all – the lives of the children. Despite the dire predictions leveled by Judge Davis – they are fine – more than fine. They are a delight and a blessing to this world.

        It is never a bad thing to recognize an error – and to say “I am sorry” when it is warranted. But it is unforgivable and disgraceful to continue to hector the innocent in the face of overwhelming evidence that you have been taken in – and that you support a batterer – against the battered.

        • The Truth

          Barry writes “You on the other hand have read Glenn Sacks account that was based on a slice of evidence carefully selected.”

          We supplied 40 different documents, including all of the major documents in the case, and wrote a detailed, 13,000 word analysis–hardly a mere “slice” of anything. You keep bobbing and weaving by telling us what this record supposedly says and that one supposedly documents, yet you never let anyone actually see these alleged documents.

          Fathers and Families posted Holly’s appeal to the Minnesota court from 1993 in which she listed all of her accusations and provided all of her evidence. And the evidence was sorely lacking. Holly Collins details for the court over 50 violent assaults Mark Collins allegedly committed against her over a 10-year period, yet she is somehow unable to produce witnesses to any of these assaults. Your entire case is built on:

          1) Abuse allegations by Holly Collins which are unsupported by any independent evidence.
          2) Statements from discredited Dr. Eli Newberger, who has been frequently condemned for uncritically validating abuse charges, and is widely believed to have been pushed out of his position at Boston Children’s Hospital for this reason.
          3) Medical records which purport to show injuries suffered by Holly Collins or the children but which have no tie to Mark Collins.
          4) Claims from documents you claim to have in your possession but somehow won’t show anybody.
          5) Misleading, out of context quotes from Mark Collns’ testimony which make it appear he admits to committing abuse when he made no such admission.
          6) Statements made by small children who were, as the court found and as is quite obvious, being poisoned against their father and lied to.

          At the same time, you never even try to address the credibility of Holly Collins’ endless list of abuse allegations against a wide range of people, nor provide explanations for the endless contradictions Holly Collins has in her stories.

          • The Truth

            Barry, please explain the following:

            While Holly Collins claims Mark Collins raped and abused her from the very beginning of their relationship, her own writings thoroughly contradict her version of events.

            In a letter to her mother (later included in the court record), Holly describes Mark as a loving, kind and thoughtful husband, explaining “Mark and I and Zachary are so happy. Mark has been so understanding.”

            The letter was written in 1995 while she was pregnant with Jennifer and was living with Mark in Texas while he was in the army. Years later she claimed that by this time Mark had already raped her eight times, assaulted her six times, and attacked Zachary twice. (Holly details these accusations in her court appeal–see document #37 here.)

            In this revealing letter, she tells her mother:

            Mark and I and Zachary are so happy. Mark has been so understanding…Mark says he can’t stand to seeing me in pain [from the pregnancy] and that it hurts him just as much. But he sticks by me and holds my hand…

            I don’t like being home alone [from] 6-12 at night but it’s not that bad. It’s pretty good because Mark can spend the whole day with me….

            I want to stay here [in Texas] with Mark. I need his support. Don’t worry I’ll be home to finish the rest of school…I had to [come down to Texas] I was dying without Mark. I wouldn’t be able to make it through these problems without him.”

            To read Holly’s letter in full, see document #34 here.

    • JB

      Barry – can you please post the link to the site you claim has your evidence on it?

      Also post your peer reviewed research links. Not just a few lines out of a 1000 page research paper.

    • The Truth

      Barry–“The Truth” isn’t Beth Imm, it’s Fathers and Families. But speaking of Beth and Jeff Imm, why is it you never seem to mention that Holly Collins also kidnapped Jeff’s child? Holly has deprived Christopher of a loving father practically his whole life. Does it bother any of the Collins’ remaining supporters that Holly kidnapped another man’s baby?

  • The Truth

    Holly Collins accused both her mother and her stepfather of serious and significant abuse. Yet, as documented on http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax, Holly’s accusations of abuse against her mother and stepfather are repeatedly contradicted by her own statements and actions, as well as by the statements of her sister and her brother.

    When Holly moved with the children from Minnesota to Massachusetts in 1991, she moved in with her mother, Eleanor Gallagher, and her stepfather Tom Gallagher. Holly’s behavior while in their house was erratic and problematic, and eventually Holly’s mother asked her to move out. Soon afterwards, Holly refused to allow her mother and her grandmother to visit the children. Holly then accused her mother of having abused her when she was a child.

    Eleanor and Tom fought to have grandparent visitation with their young grandchildren Jennifer and Zachary, who loved them and with whom they had a good relationship. This positive relationship is documented in the record in numerous places. For example, Dr. David W. Cline, M.D. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, who is Board Certified in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, regularly treated Zachary and Jennifer Collins in 1989-1990 prior to their move to Massachusetts and again in 1992-1994 after their return to Minnesota. In a July 14, 1994 Psychiatric Summary, Dr. Cline wrote:

    “The children especially enjoyed their relationship with their grandmother, Eleanor Gallagher, who they saw frequently…”

    To read Dr. Cline’s findings, see document #3 here.

    In an April 22, 1993 letter to Guardian ad Litem Michael London, Esq., Dr Cline wrote:

    It is clear that [grandmother Eleanor Gallagher] and her mother [great-grandmother Mary Therien] add significantly to the development and nurturance of the children. I recommend that this relationship be supported and continue unobstructed and unsupervised for the future.

    To read Dr. Cline’s letter to London, see document #21 here.

    In an April, 1993 report to the Court, Guardian ad Litem Michael J. London wrote:

    I agree with Dr. Cline’s proposal [that the children have unobstructed and unsupervised visits with their grandmother, Eleanor Gallagher, and their great grandmother, Mary Therien]. I believe the children would like to have access to their grandparents and other extended family members.

    To read London’s report, see document #26 here.

    As Eleanor and Tom were about to be granted grandparent visitation, Holly accused her stepfather, Tom Gallagher, of sexually abusing her when she was a child. These accusations are contradicted by Holly’s own statements, as well as those of her sister Michelle Ek and her brother Michael Tveter:

    a) On several occasions during Holly Collins’ adulthood she wrote letters to Tom Gallagher praising him and expressing her love for him. This includes a 1990 letter in which Holly writes:

    “I am so proud of you…I am extremely grateful for all that you have done for me. I’m sure I’ve tried your patience many times. It would have been so easy to give up on me…you didn’t! Thank you!

    The letter, document #6, can be seen here.

    b) Holly praised Tom Gallagher’s loving bond with his grandchildren Zachary and Jennifer. In the 1990 letter, Holly writes:

    “My children love you dearly you are the most wonderful grandfather! They and I have the utmost respect for you.”

    The letter, document #6, can be seen here.

    c) Michelle Ek, Holly Collins’ sister, in a sworn affidavit dated July 6, 1993, says:

    “My stepfather [Tom Gallagher] has never abused Holly, me, Zachary or Jennifer or anyone else that I know of.”

    To read Michelle Ek’s 7/6/93 affidavit, see document #7 here.

    d) Michelle Ek, Holly Collins’ sister, in a sworn affidavit dated June 18, 1992, says:

    “I have read Holly’s affidavit. Many things she said are just not true…. I have never seen my mother, Eleanor Gallagher yell at Zachary or Jennifer Collins. I have never seen her slap them. They love my mother and always wanted to go to her house.”

    To read Michelle Ek’s 6/18/92 affidavit, see document #20 here. In it, Michelle Ek contradicts several of Holly Collins’ claims.

    e) Michael Tveter, Holly’s brother, in a sworn affidavit taken during his time in the Marine Corps stationed at Subic Bay in the Philippines, stated:

    “I have not been physically or emotionally abused by my mother, Eleanor T. Gallagher, nor by my stepfather, Thomas J. Gallagher. In addition, I know of no cases where my sisters, Holly or Michelle, have been abused by any member of my family.”

    To read Michael Tveter’s sworn affidavit, see document #17 here.

    e) Michael Tveter, Holly’s brother, in a sworn deposition taken during his time in the Marine Corps stationed at the KMCS First Radio Battalion in Hawaii, denied that Tom Gallagher or Eleanor Gallagher had ever abused his sister Holly, his sister Michelle, himself, their grandson Zachary, their granddaughter Jennifer, or each other in any way. He said that he had never seen any abuse nor been told of any by his sisters.

    To read Michael Tveter’s sworn deposition, see document #18 here.

    f) When Holly was 16 years old she had a dispute with her mother, who wanted her to finish high school before getting married to Mark Collins. As a result of this dispute, Holly desired to live with her biological father, from whom Eleanor Gallagher was divorced.

    The Guardian ad Litem conducted a custody evaluation. During this custody evaluation, Holly made no accusation of abuse against either her mother Eleanor Gallagher or her stepfather Tom Gallagher. Yet a decade later she accused both of them of having abused her while she was a child.

    Also, Holly at 16 recommended to the Guardian ad Litem that her two siblings, Michelle and Michael, continue to live with Eleanor and Tom. The court upheld Eleanor’s sole custody of her children.

    g) Holly claimed that her mother abused her throughout her childhood. However, later, when Holly was pregnant with Zachary, Holly asked Eleanor to be her birthing coach which she did. While Holly lived with Mark Collins at Mark’s parents’ house, Holly would drop off Zachary at her mother’s house who then cared for the child while Holly attended school. In a sworn affidavit, Ann H. Collins, Mark Collins’ mother, states:

    During the last stages of Holly’s pregnancy she took birthing classes and because Mark was in Texas [in the military] she asked her mother, Eleanor, to be her birthing coach. Eleanor agreed and did so attend the classes, except for one. She was out of town on one of the nights I substituted for. This is the only time that I attended these classes.

    After the birth of Zachary in Texas Holly returned to New Hampshire to finish high school at the urging of her mother and grandmother. She stayed at my home and was driven by my husband, Gerald, to her mother’s home each morning. She would then leave the baby with her mother [Eleanor Gallagher] and have full use of her mother’s car to attend classes.

    To read Ann H. Collins’ sworn affidavit, see document #22 here.

    h) In a letter to her mother (later included in the court record), Holly tells her mother “The children miss you so much. So do I…my heart is still with you and wherever you go that is my home. I do love you and Tom so very much. I know you love me…” (see document #36 here.)

    i) In a Mother’s Day 1989 card to her mother (later included in the court record), Holly tells her mother “Thank you for having faith in me” and signs the card “Love, Holly” (see document #35 here.)

    j) In a letter to her mother written in 1995 while she was living with Mark in Texas, Holly describes her life in Texas in detail to her mother, and ends the letter by writing “I love you! Write back.” To read Holly’s letter, see document #34 here.

    • AJ

      Great point!

      For Holly’s followers too blind to see the point, allow me to rephrase;

      Holly has accused her mother Eleanor, of the most egregious physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

      Mr. Nolan, do YOU and Holly stand behind these accusations?

      Holly’s mother, brother, sister, stepfather and grandmother for heaven sakes swore in court none of her delusions were true.

      • AJ

        “AJ” ,
        please refrain from using my initials !,

        ….and like so many : taking Glenn Sacks’ nonsense for granted !.

        AJ.

    • Barry

      @Truth
      In the 600 pages of FBI files – there are interesting passages about Mrs. Gallagher. She sought actively to help the FBi. She hired a private investigator – and sent the FBI the files that the investigator produced. She sent tips to the FBI – pushed them – nagged them.

      We also have reviewed numerous letters from doctors and other care givers – complaining about the actions of Mrs. Gallagher. She sought, persistently, maliciously and wholly inappropriately to lobby Doctors and convince them her daughter was crazy. She sought at every turn to try to destroy her own daughter. I don’t think I have ever seen behavior quite like it.

      • AJ

        Have you read Holly’s accusations of abuse? Exactly how do you think a mother FALSELY accused should behave?

        You Mr. Nolan owe Eleanor an apology.

        Once and for all post the FBI docs online. Believe me there are dozens of people who’d love to give them the same scrutiny as you have. Having 100’s of pages means nothing more than 100’s of pages.

      • The Truth

        Barry writes “She sent tips to the FBI – pushed them – nagged them.”

        Not surprising–as numerous experts and the courts themselves found, contrary to Holly’s claims, Eleanor Gallagher’s grandchildren loved her and had an excellent relationship with her, and she probably wanted to locate them (See problem #7 on our Collins web page)

        Barry writes “We also have reviewed numerous letters from doctors and other care givers – complaining about the actions of Mrs. Gallagher. She sought, persistently, maliciously and wholly inappropriately to lobby Doctors and convince them her daughter was crazy.”

        I doubt it’s numerous–probably just the discredited Dr. Newberger and a couple of his fellow true believers. Then again, since you won’t post any documents online, we don’t know. Readers can read Eleanor Gallagher’s letters to Newberger & Co. and judge for themselves–see problem #22 on our Collins web page.

        As far as Holly being “crazy,” her actions speak for themselves.

        While we’re on the subject of Holly’s mother, please give us your evidence to substantiate Holly’s abuse claims against her mother and stepfather. There is a mountain of evidence to contradict them–her own statements and actions, as well as the statements of her sister and her brother–see Problem # 7 on our Collins web page. We provide documentation of all these claims.

    • AJ

      PS The Truth

      Don’t hold your breathe for a response. Finding a way to completely destroy your family AND simultaneously show up with your hand out takes some time.

  • Barry

    Jennifer Collins just sent me this by e-mail and asked me to post it.

    I First want to begin by saying my name is Jennifer Collins. This is ME. Not my mother, not my father and not some stranger pretending to be me.

    I wish that the cowards who hide behind fictitious names who are publically bashing my protective mother and supporting my abusive father would come forward and reveal their true identity. I’ve already figured out who a few of the commentators are but unlike them I’m not going to spread allegations until I am positive about my information.

    I am an adult living on my own and I know exactly what happened to me as a child. I am also intelligent enough to know the difference between fact, fiction and parental desires. For example my mother really wishes that I would attend church every Sunday and she has tried to engrain that belief in me since I was a young child but I’m sorry to admit I haven’t been for a couple of months since my little sister made her first communion. On the other hand my father would beat me, strangle me and suffocate me telling me what a horrible child I was and it took years before I believed that it wasn’t a bad thing being “just like that bitch who divorced him”. Every parent tries to mould their child according to their own beliefs and as we grow we pick and choose which values we treasure and those we choose to ignore. To claim that none of my memories of my childhood are my own because my mother was a supposed alienator is ridiculous.

    One of the reasons why all of the medical experts believed our horrendous stories of physical abuse at the hands of our own father was that we provided details of the event (for example feeling the cold floor on my face while my father kicked me for bringing my security blanket into the kitchen).

    Last night at the screening of “No way out but one”, I spoke to a doctor from the Boston Children’s Hospital who also performed a child abuse evaluation when I was a kid. She said that our case haunted her all these years and she reiterated that she believed me and my brother to this day. Twenty years later I can’t express how much that means to me especially when there are angry people such as my abusive father, his supporters (including Glenn Sacks and Fathers & Families) trying to snuff out my voice once again and blame this all on my mother. It’s easier that way isn’t it guys? Ignore the children and blame the ex wife for being bitter. The thing is if you look at it, look at all the articles about our case and the comments my mother is remaining graceful and dignified. I am the one who is speaking up. Instead of listening to me, a survivor who was there, the fathers rights guys are trying to negate the validity of our case by systematically making up excuses claiming that my statements are either my mother pretending to be me or that I have been brainwashed by my mother. They blatantly ignore the fact that it is ME an adult survivor of child abuse who is speaking out against what happened to me when I was younger.

    My father fractured my brother’s skull in 1987 when our father bashed my brother into a wall. Glenn Sacks and his followers keep screaming that it happened a year earlier and are they are trying to connect it to an unrelated incident. It’s just like some of these anonymous men claiming that my father broke my mother’s nose by “play wrestling” in 1982 when she was 5+ months pregnant. Come on! Who “wrestles” a pregnant woman? And if that’s not enough to cast out, in my fathers court testimony (which I have the full transcripts for) he claims that her broke my mother’s nose when by punching her in the face “accidentally”. You can’t go and rewrite history but they keep trying.

    As for Glenn sacks’ libellous article being “undisputed”, on my website http://www.Americanchildrenunderground.blogspot.com (American Children Underground) I clearly address every point Mr. Sacks brought up or invented. I realize that it is damming for Father’s & Families to admit that one of the father’s they support is a wife beater and a child abuser but they should admit their mistake and support good loving father’s who deserve to be in their children’s lives. The judge found that my father was a wife beater yet Father’s & Families keep trying to excuse this finding. My father testified that he broke my mother’s nose “two or three times by punching her in the face” but Father’s & Families are now claiming that all of her injuries were resulting from “play wrestling.” It is disturbing that this is what Father’s & Families are trying to call abuse. No way about it, beating a woman is still abuse no matter what some men try to call it.

    This isn’t about my father and mother. It is about me and my brother. We are coming forward to tell about the abuse we experienced. Don’t you dare tell us or the world that it didn’t happen. You weren’t there!

    • The Truth

      My father testified that he broke my mother’s nose “two or three times by punching her in the face”

      Really? Strange that Holly didn’t include it in her appeal to the court, where she cited Mark’s testimony and laid out all of her (paltry) evidence that Mark had abused her (see Problem #35 on our Collins page). Nor after all these years have you ever posted this seemingly damning document online.

    • The Truth

      Barry/Jennifer/Holly write “It’s just like some of these anonymous men claiming that my father broke my mother’s nose by “play wrestling.”

      These were hardly “anonymous men”–It was Holly’s mother Eleanor Gallagher, Holly’s grandmother Mary Therien, as well as Gerald and Nancy Ann Collins, Mark Collins’ parents, who, in a notarized affidavit submitted to the Fourth Judicial Court in Minneapolis, Minnesota, wrote “Holly received a contusion of the nose in 1982 while in family play with Mark, which was not intentional but solely an accident.”

      As for the date, Holly was only pregnant the second half of 1982.

      For details on the wrestling incident, see Problem #15 on our Collins page.

      • Barry

        Truth –
        You lie once again. See the above posting for the dates and pages of testimony in which Mark Collins gives sworn testimony that he never dislocated Holly’s shoulder, that he dislocated it in sexual play, and that he dislocated it practicing a wrestling move. He also gives conflicting testimony for how he broke her nose – that he rolled over in his sleep – twice – that he did it wrestling – and that he doesn’t know how it happened. You are mental. And this is done.

        • The Truth

          Well, in Holly’s Appeal she quotes from the testimony you’re apparently referring to (see Problem #35 on the Collins page on our website, document #37, page 15), and there’s no admission there that Mark harmed Holly, except for the accidental wrestling incident, and he specifically denies striking her.

          Holly’s quotes from Mark’s testimony are very short (which is suspicious in itself) and thus hard to understand, but don’t indicate much of anything. In fact, for the most part Mark Collins doesn’t seem to know what Holly’s attorney is talking about.

          As for the alleged separated shoulder, Holly’s family members assert that while growing up, Holly had a shoulder that would periodically pop out of joint.

          • AJ

            Truth did you see the medical record from the actual incident where (again) the dr. clearly writes the patient (Holly) and her husband were play wrestling.

            Amazing how many dr’s have conspired against her.

          • AJ

            Truth,
            Can you give the link to your website? I’d link to email to others. Thanks

      • AJ

        You insist over and over Mark fractured Zachary’s skull by bashing him against the wall and still refuse to explain why the attending doctor, Dr. Backus wrote specifically Zachary was there because he FELL FROM A SHOPPING CART in July 1987.

        For all your “investigating” Mr Nolan, you should have a clear explanation here.

        The medical report is online.

        • The Truth

          AJ tells Barry Nolan “You insist over and over Mark fractured Zachary’s skull by bashing him against the wall and still refuse to explain why the attending doctor, Dr. Backus wrote specifically Zachary was there because he FELL FROM A SHOPPING CART in July 1987. For all your “investigating” Mr Nolan, you should have a clear explanation here.”

          Nobody on the Collins side has any evidence linking Mark Collins to the skull fracture. In a letter to me, all that Nolan could cite as evidence that Mark Collins fractured his son’s skull is “you must be aware of the well established fact that many of the victims of domestic violence give innocent sounding excuses for their injuries. “I ran into a door knob, I’m just so clumsy”.

          Nolan is correct in general, of course, but neither he nor anyone on the Collins’ side has ever produced any evidence that this is what happened with the Collins skull fracture.

  • The Truth

    AJ, in answer to your request, our Collins analysis is at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/hollycollinshoax

  • allison

    I think everybody should look at this and go see her movie. Melody Brooke just tells it the way it is.
    http://www.the33tv.com/news/kdaf-movie-could-change-societys-perceptions-of-fathers-20110619,0,1817619.story
    Barry Nolan, are you the one that was fired by CN8? If so then explain this. If freedom of speech so important to you why block the father’s side in this movie?

    • AJ

      Allison
      From what we know, Mark Collins wants absolutely nothing to do with any of them. He and Rena have a wonderful family, why would he want any of them subjected to Holly’s wrath and Jennifer’s delusional, false memories?

    • The Truth

      Allison writes says “Barry Nolan, are you the one that was fired by CN8? If so then explain this.”

      It would only be fair or productive to bring Barry’s firing by CN8 into the Collins issue if his firing spoke to or reflected on his credibility. This does not appear to be the case.

      Barry was fired for making what his company felt was an inappropriate political protest at an Emmy award show dinner. He sued for wrongful termination and lost. I don’t know whether Barry’s firing was fair or not (it seems like it might not have been) but I don’t see it as reflecting on his credibility.

      • AJ

        Truth, what’s up with the Dutch father of 4?? Is he in the film and I missed it?? They were never married so is he in the US?? Is there a pattern here??

  • AJ

    Did I miss something or is the Dutch father not in the movie??

  • AJ

    Glenn’s docs say it all.

    Jennifer writes:
    “Last night at the screening of “No way out but one”, I spoke to a doctor from the Boston Children’s Hospital who also performed a child abuse evaluation when I was a kid. She said that our case haunted her all these years and she reiterated that she believed me and my brother to this day.”

    What’s the doctor’s name? If she really did perform a child abuse evaluation you can post online just as Fathers and Families has posted the original medical record of the following. It’s obviously not Dr. Barbara Burr, the Psychiatrist you and Holly saw on Dec. 11 1991 who wrote the following;
    1. Immediate concern is to what degree psychosocial issues contribute to clinical issues.
    2. Recent visits to N. Shore Children’s ER culminated in admission there, though child was virtually asymptomatic. (i.e. presenting no symptoms of disease)
    3. Ms. Collins feels Jennifer is a well adjusted happy child, compliant and eager to please. She has no behavioral concerns. [Holly] tended to dwell on medical details even when I inquired about other matters.
    4. [Jennifer] had some difficulty drawing her family, wanting to know who to include and commenting this is very hard. She acknowledged confusion over family issues.
    5. [Jennifer’s] 1st wish when asked was for her dad. She was ambivalent regarding whether she meant her real father or a “different” father.
    6. She doesn’t always enjoy visits with her father because he likes football, play Nintendo which she doesn’t.
    7. [Jennifer] is currently coping with a great deal of family tension and stress. She is clearly a compliant child, a “good” girl and is quite loyal to her mother even adapting much of her mother’s medical terminology. My sense is that the parents are involved in an extremely hostile, adversarial relationship and that the “chronic illness” of Jennifer (+ her brother) have become the central focus of their communications which will clearly have detrimental effects on the children.
    8. In addition, there is much information that is unknown or hearsay and some of the history provided by the mother is inconsistent (e.g. whether father abused Zachary)
    9. Recommend;
    1. Consultation of Trauma team regarding protective & legal issues in this situation.
    2. Contacting past providers, including a family therapist who worked = Ms. Collins for several yrs in Minnesota.
    3. Family + children should clearly be involved in ongoing therapy both to put illness issues in some perspective and help them defuse the hostility with the father (if possible) as this will also be ultimately detrimental to the best interest of the children.

    Not ONE mention of your abuse and Zachary’s is suspect.

  • Connie Valentine

    Garland, you did it again. The trailer of this documentary is superb and I can’t wait to see the full film.

    Thank you for exposing this dark secret: the United States is committing egregious human rights violations. Other countries are finding that they must rescue American victims, just as if we were a war-torn third world country.

    The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights has also give the USA a black eye – their scathing findings in the Gonzalez v. The United States of America clearly demonstrates our country’s cruel treatment of victims of domestic human rights violations.

    Your film has been released at a perfect moment in history.

    • Garland

      Thank you for your kind words, Connie. Despite the level of vitriol, I know that the documentary Barry and I produced tells a true and solid story that sheds a light on a broken family court system. The anger that has been generated is quite revealing in and of itself. Barry is a man committed to justice and truth. His investigative work on this project was thorough and remarkable. My hope is that this documentary will help abused children find a voice and, that in cases where there has been abuse and violence, it will give some comfort to battered women who have lost custody of the children they love. Again, thank you for your remarkable work and your words of support.

      • Brad B

        Garland,

        Here’s why your film has zero credibility.

        1. Your website says the father fractured his son’s skull. You still have not posted any credible documentation that supports this.
        a. Ms Collins never mentioned the father fracturing the father’s skull until after the appeals. She mentioned other unfounded allegations of abuse but did not mention that.
        b. The doctor that treated the son for his head injuries is required by law to report suspected abuse. He never did. Ms Collins never mentioned it until AFTER she lost the appeals.
        c. Doctors looking at Xrays years after the fact can not credibly say what caused the injuries unless they were present for the initial treatment and follow up. For example, let’s say I broke my arm falling off my bike when I was five. I go to the ER, the doc notes scrapes on my legs, elbow, and some bruising on my hip and shoulder in addition to the broken arm. Those superficial injuries would corroborate that I fell off my bike. Fast forward 7 years, my mother says my dad broke my arm. A doctor in another country examines me and notes on an Xray evidence of a previous injury. Based on what my mother told him and what he observed from the old injury, he concludes that my father broke my arm. Yet, which doctor would be more credible in concluding what actually happened? The doctor who treated the initial injury or the doctor looking at a 7 year old injury? Think about it.

        2. You used evidence from Therapists, etc who never observed the children with the father to support your thesis yet ignored conclusions from therapists that were presented in court who observed the children with their father and came to much different conclusions.

        I think all involved in this debate would agree that the courts don’t get it right at times. However, this is the wrong case to highlight this because the evidence supporting the father is much more credible than what you have presented.

      • Steve

        Noland/Garland

        You’ve chosen to give Holly a public platform to make egregious accusations and extraordinary claims. As supposedly independent, unbiased journalists you should know extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

        You have both failed to address very real evidence contrary to Holly’s story. Once AGAIN below is a partial list of this evidence which Holly/Jennifer and now you simply ignore. This fact alone should cause anyone to doubt your credibility;

        1. The attending Dr at Mpls Neurology who saw Zachary on July 11, 1987 unequivocally states he “fell from a shopping cart”. Holly has posted a partial medical record, which actually says nothing about how the injury occurred, yet purposely neglects to address this one.
        With all your 100’s of documents, you need to both post the supporting one. Question, did Holly even inform you of the existence of Dr. Backus report?

        2. Holly claims the FBI investigated her story in 1997 and concurred she suffered such abuse and acted appropriately.
        Since you claim to have ALL the FBI files, just produce this one. Without it why would anyone believe the FBI did this without contacting the MN courts, Mark Collins, after all he had custody. Did the FBI question Holly about the third child and was his father contacted?
        By the way, Holly doesn’t need an FOIA to see her own files, but it does sound “impressive”.

        3. As recently as 2 days ago Jennifer claims to have spoken with a Dr from Boston Children’s who “also performed a child abuse evaluation”.
        Who is this Dr and where is the record which Holly could obtain just by asking.

        4. Jennifer has asked “who would wrestle with a pregnant woman? The medical record from this instance clearly states “the patient was wrestling”.

        5. Holly has claimed over and over she was physically abuse by her Mother and Stepdad. Did you read the sworn affidavits by her entire family this never happened.

        6. Dr. Cline who was the family therapist for years clearly states the abuse never happened and in his opinion the kids were coached. As opposed to Eli Newberger who saw the kids exactly 4 times and never even spoke with Mark Collins. Newberger’s reputation has been seriously called into ??

        7. Psychiatrist Dr. Barbara Burr conducted an interview with both Holly and Jennifer when Holly took her to the ER and raised serious concerns about Holly and NOT Mark.
        How does Holly explain never even mentioning any of all her abuse? In fact the concerns were Jennifer’s use of “pseudo mature” specific medical terminology and Holly Dr shopping for prescription drugs for her kids. (Munchausen?)

        8. In Holly’s initial interview in the Dutch media Holly claims Congressman Steny Hoyer asked her to speak in front of Congress. This was reported in several outlets.
        Holly denies this ever happened yet it’s clearly stated in their articles. Are we to believe these media simply made it up? Would they even know who “Steny Hoyer” is?

        Lastly did those who gave your film an award see all/any of the evidence seriously questioning your lack of objectivity?

        Again extraordinary claims. It’s now your reputations on the line and the onerous is on you. Either defend it or start offering sincere apologies. In choosing NOT to answer speaks louder than words. Time for a real investigation.

        • Barry

          @Steve et al,

          Once again, what you say here is demonstrably false – it may either be because you were not provided with the entire unedited court record but you still choose to believe you know everything about the issue anyway – or you have been provided with the entire unedited mountain of court records and simply choose to misrepresent what happened. Either way, it is reprehensible and further victimizes children, now adults, who were abused.

          Let’s take Dr. David Cline’s testimony for example. The Sworn Testimony on 10/8/93
          of David Cline, about a session Dr. Cline had with the Children and their father – without Holly present. P. 47 of the transcript.

          A
          …the children had felt that their father had mistreated them physically and that that matter was verbally discussed at that session and there was dialogues between the chlidren and their father around that.

          Question from Mark Collins acting as his own lawyer to Dr. Cline, P.49

          Q. (Mark) In the custody report, it talks about the children only viewing me in a negative view and their mother only in a positive view. What could be the cause of that and could the long term effect from this type of situation.

          A. (Dr. Cline) Well, the cause of that could be many. It could be, in fact, that their father had indeed mistreat them and they had cause to believe him to be a negative, a totally negative person.

          Dr. Cline – in response to a question from Holly’s attorney Laurel Learmonth about incidents of abuse – P. 62

          A. …they’re spelled out in the letter that they wrote to him and report to me that day, being hit, kicked pulled, armed twisted being threatened.

          Q. Threatened with what?

          A. Threatened that they would be harmed, that the children would be harmed by their father.

          Question from attorney Laurel Learmouth to Dr. Cline – P. 73.

          Q. (Learmouth) It is not your recommendation — you have not made the recommendation that custody of the children be changed from Holly Ann Collins to Mark Collins, is that true?

          A. (Cline) That’s correct.

          As for Steny Hoyer, I used to work for Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who worked very closely with Rep. Hoyer, who was at the time the Majority Whip. I attended numerous events with Mr. Hoyer present – including an event for Justice for Children at which Rep Hoyer received an award. He is very interested in the issue of Domestic Violence in part because his own daughter was a victim. That is why his office was so receptive to Jennifer, who has been on the Hill several times to discuss the issue of the family court’s failures with receptive members and their staffs.

          As for the head injury – Holly was with Zach when he was seen at the emergency room. She gave as an excuse for the injury – that Zach fell out of a shopping cart. That is the only source for that etiology. Period. it is very typical of how battered women give benign sounding excuses for injuries to themselves – or their children. But very shortly after this incident – Holly and Mark separated –

          see the testimony posted above of the Catholic Priest in 1987 who testifies that Mark was battering Holly and at least one of the children.

          See the medical records referred to above –

          see the interviews with highly qualified professionals – not just one – but a team – who believed Jennifer and Zachary –

          see the posts above by Mrs. Burns – who was an eyewitness to abuse –

          see the Judges finding that there was not a diagnosis made of Munchausens’ posted above

          See the sworn statement – posted above – by the Court Evaluator Susan Devries that there was abuse.

          And there is much more that has not been posted – simply because it is so voluminous

          Such as the testimony of Holly’s father that Holly had been abused both by her mother and by Mark.

          If Mr. Sacks has this material – he should post it himself. If he does not he should acknowledge what a thin sample of the full record he has.

          Yes – there was conflicting evidence – and there are witnesses for both sides. And if you take a small slice of the evidence from either side – it can be persuasive. But taken as a whole – reading all the evidence – all the medical records – hearing from all of the eyewitnesses – the evidence is overwhelming and leads inescapably to one conclusion. Holly was the victim of domestic violence. The children were victims of child abuse. The court failed to ferret out the whole truth. And Holly Collins had good reason to believe, she had no way out but one.

          Barry Nolan

          • The Truth

            Thanks, Barry, but again your evidence is thin. All of your evidence is either:
            1) From the young children, who were clearly under Holly’s powerful alienating influence, as many of the mental health professionals in the case said.
            2) The discredited ideologue Dr. Newberger and a couple of his like-minded associates.
            3) Hearsay, such as the Catholic priest, who did not witness any violence but only testified that Holly told him she was being abused.
            4) Holly’s claims, which are highly suspect because she has accused so many people of so many crimes and she has contradicted herself on so many occasions.

            You keep saying I don’t have access to Holly’s side of the story but her Appeal in 1993–which are documents #37 and #39 on our web page — is where she lays out all of her evidence to support her charges. That is the most complete document anybody could post, and again, her evidence is very thin.

            You cite Dr. David Cline’s testimony from 10/8/93, but Cline really doesn’t say anything more than that the kids say Mark is bad. His statement “Well, the cause of that could be many. It could be, in fact, that their father had indeed mistreat them and they had cause to believe him to be a negative, a totally negative person” is another example of the evidence problems in this case–yes, Dr. Cline says it COULD be the case, but nowhere does he say that it actually IS. And whatever his 1993 testimony, he later (7/14/1994) clearly states he believes all of Holly’s accusations are false (document # 3 on on our web page).

            Barry writes “As for the head injury – Holly was with Zach when he was seen at the emergency room. She gave as an excuse for the injury – that Zach fell out of a shopping cart. That is the only source for that etiology. Period.”

            Thank you for that clarifying statement. So whether we believe Holly’s claim really comes down to whether we believe Holly is credible. She has produced ample evidence that she is not.

            Barry writes “It is very typical of how battered women give benign sounding excuses for injuries to themselves – or their children.”

            Barry is correct, but again, “could” is a far cry from “is.” Little kids play and hurt themselves all the time.

            Barry writes “see the testimony posted above of the Catholic Priest in 1987 who testifies that Mark was battering Holly and at least one of the children.”

            To clarify, what Father Corsica testified was that Holly TOLD him she was being abused. It’s fine for you to use this as evidence, but it’s a far cry from eyewitness evidence, and that important distinction should be made.

            Barry writes “see the interviews with highly qualified professionals – not just one – but a team – who believed Jennifer and Zachary.”
            This is Newberger and Co., which is problematic (see Problems #21 and # 22). Many if not most of the people in Boston did NOT believe that Holly and the children were being abused–see problem # 11–and the ones who did had no evidence other than Holly’s claims and what she had told the children to say.

            Barry writes “see the posts above by Mrs. Burns – who was an eyewitness to abuse.”

            Mrs. Burns, who “witnessed abuse,” does not appear in Holly’s appeal, and it’s hard to believe that if she were a credible eyewitness she would be left out. Also, she does not claim to have actually seen the father abuse the kids.

            Barry writes “See the sworn statement – posted above – by the Court Evaluator Susan Devries that there was abuse.”

            Again, this needs to be clarified. The document you claim to have says that Devries thought that there had been abuse. I’ll take you at your word, but it’s very strange that Devries’ finding is not in Holly’s appeal. Also, Devries contradicted Holly on a wide range of issues.

            Barry writes “Such as the testimony of Holly’s father that Holly had been abused both by her mother and by Mark.”

            Again, this needs to be clarified–Holly’s father Ronald Tveter testified that Holly TOLD him she was being abused. He did testify that he saw her one time with an injury which he thinks was Mark’s doing, though there’s no evidence to suggest it was, except that Holly says it was.

            As for Holly allegedly being abused by her mother, a mountain of evidence contradicts this, much of it from Holly’s owns actions and words. Ditto with Holly’s abuse accusations against her stepfather. See Problem #7 on our web page.

            Barry writes “Mr. Sacks….should acknowledge what a thin sample of the full record he has.”

            Again, in addition to posting a wide range of other documents, I’ve posted and referred to Holly’s 1993 appeal where she lays out ALL of her evidence to support her charges. That is the most complete document anybody could post—how is that “thin?” What’s thin is Holly’s evidence.

          • prince

            Where is this, Barry?

            1. Medical records at the time of treatment that the father cracked his son’s skull

            And where is this, Barry?

            2. Explanation as to why Ms Collins never mentioned that the father cracked his son’s skull until after she lost the custody case.

            Where, Barry? Post it, Barry.

  • http://Q Barry

    Mr Sacks,
    You are wrong about the facts and reality, as usual. Dr. Newberger, a graduate of Yale Medical school, with a Masters in Epidemiology from Harvard and an instructor at Harvards School of Public health remains an Adjunct Physician at Boston Children’s Hospital. In Holly’s case, he lead a team that included Dr Maureen O’Brien – who is also interviewed in the film and strongly supports Dr. Newberger’s conclusion that the children are telling the truth.

    One of the nearly 30 peer reviewed published articles that Dr. Newberger has authored – published not long before he met Holly and her children – may have been most pertinent:

    McKibben L, Devos E, Newberger EH. Victimization of mothers of abused children: a controlled study. Pediatrics 1989; 84:531-535.

    The Catholic Priest says in his sworn testimony that he met with both Mark and Holly.

    You are grotesquely misrepresenting the testimony of Holly’s father – Ronald Tveeter. On page 131 of the hearing that took place on Dec. 14th, 1992, Holly’s father is asked: “Are you aware of your own personal knowledge, aware of any physical abuse that Ms. Collins suffered, either by someone as she was a child, or in her adult life?

    A: I am aware of abuse to Holly, yes.

    Q: And what, as a child what abuse did you witness?

    A: By her mother.

    Q: And what was the nature of that abuse?

    A: Bruises. One particular brusie I was sorry I did not have a camera to take a picture of her. …
    Q: …how did you know, for instance, that that bruise that you saw was the result of abuse?

    A: I asked Holly how it happened.

    Q: And how old was she ast that time?

    A: Seven and a half probably, eight.

    As to Mr. Tveeter’s testimony about abuse from the hands of Mark: beginning on page 133 – he describes seeing Holly in a K-Mart at Christmas in 1982

    A: (Mr. Tveeter) I walk face to face to her and looked at her, and she had a bruise across her nose. Both her eyes had broken red blood vessels in the white part of her eye, two vessels on her right eye and three on her left, and under her left eye a yellow and purple mouse or shiner was developing. …..I asked her what happened. She said it was an accident and i said, “Well, what ahppened?” And she was very reluctant to explain to me what happened. I said, “Well, how did that happen as an accident? That’s a lot of force.” And she said that “He yawned in his sleep and his arm hit me across the face.” I said that was an awful ot of —how could anything like that happen? And she said, “Dad, I’ll take care of it.” She was very reluctant to tell me.

    On page 135 the testimony continues:
    January first I had spoken to Mr. Collins’ father, Gerlad Collins, and Mr. Collins was callin me because Holly had to go to the emergency room again, and wanted to know if I had insurance to cover my daughter because she had an injury to the iris or cornea or some part of her eye.”

    This injury is substantiated by a medical record from that time which notes a black eye and corneal abrasion

    On page 140 Mr. Tveeter testifies about a conversation with Holly when she had just returned from the Emergency Room to be treated for a broken nose.

    A separate medical record from that time substantiates a broken nose.

    On page 142 Mr. Tveeter testifies about a time when Holly was considering moving in with her mother after separating from Mark:

    A: (Mr. Tveeter) …she (Holly) was hit by her mother in front of the children and they did not get together.

    Q: And on what do you base that statement? How do you know?

    A: From Holly telling me and from my grandchildren telling me that “Grandma Eleanor hit mom.”

    And on page 151 – while being cross examined by Mark Collins about why he is testifying that day, Mr. Tveeter says: “I feel tghat what I’m here for is because you turned out to be a monster, and I wish I would have stepped in the first time I had heard about it, because I think you’re a cunning little schmuck.”

    The post above of Ms. DeVries findings that she thought abuse occurred – can be seen in film and can be found in the court record. You would know that if you had a full account of all that transpired instead of one court document out of hundreds.

    As to Jennifer’s incredulous response to Mark’s claim that Holly’s shoulder injuries were the result of “practicing a wrestling move” see above where Mark variously gives an explanation that:
    He never hurt her shoulder.
    He hurt her shoulder fooling around in “sexual sort of play”
    He hurt her shoulder “practicing wrestling moves”.

    The laws of logic tell us that all of these can not be simultaneously true. Mark lied – no question – no getting around it.
    He never hurt Holly’s shoulder,

    And as to Dr. Cline’s change of opinion, in most court settings – recall and opinions closest to the events in question – are usually given the most credence.

    Your statement that many or perhaps most of the treating professionals in the Boston area did not believe the children or Holly is demonstrably false based on extensive correspondence between the doctors and therapists we have had available.

    And an appeal is not an argument on the facts – it must be based on appealable or reversible errors. You don’ t want t judge to overturn a finding you agree with.

    Again – you source your claims on a partial record – fed carefully to you by someone with an agenda of their own.

    You show a serious defect in judgement and an and the absence of a moral compass – to perseverate in copying and pasting your your screed while you ignore the voluminous evidence that is there for you to examine even as you continue to hector children who were abused and have suffered greatly – while vouching for those who did harm.

    • prince

      Shame on you, Barry. Cease repeating the phony claims of a mentally ill woman discredited by her own family, a host of professionals, and 7 judges. Start posting documents if you have them. Fathers and Families rubbished your story before you even started telling it, with documents posted years ago. Where are yours?

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “The Catholic Priest says in his sworn testimony that he met with both Mark and Holly.”

      Yes, he testified that he had met them both and he also testified that Holly told had told him she was being abused.

      Re: the testimony of Holly’s father, Ronald Tvetter, let’s separate two distinct issues–Holly’s claims of abuse by her mother Eleanor, and Holly’s claims of abuse by Mark.

      Re: the mother, again Ron doesn’t say he witnessed abuse, he says that Holly told him she was had been abused. A wide range of evidence contradicts Holly’s assertion that she was abused as a child, much of the evidence coming from Holly herself. This is explained, with much documentation, at Problem #7 on our website.

      Re: Mark, yes Holly told him she had been abused and Ron believed it and did see an injury which he concluded was abuse. But he never witnessed Holly being abused. Nobody did–despite this incredible 10 year rein of terror Mark supposedly inflicted on Holly.

      Incidentally, Holly’s father Ron Tvetter is a very special guy–he’s one of the few major figures in Holly’s life who Holly hasn’t claimed abused her and/or her kids.

      Re: Mark Collins’ testimony about Holly, you portray it as a guilty man giving various explanations. Actually, the testimony shows Mark Collins unable to explain Holly’s various injuries, real and/or alleged, because he has little idea what she’s talking about.

      Barry writes “And as to Dr. Cline’s change of opinion, in most court settings – recall and opinions closest to the events in question – are usually given the most credence.”

      He didn’t “change his opinion”–he never said he thought Mark was abusive, he said that, in general, if a child doesn’t want to see a parent, abuse by the parent could be one of many reasons for it. When actually addressing the issue of whether he thought Holly’s claims were true, he clearly said they were false.

      Barry writes “You show a serious defect in judgement and an and the absence of a moral compass – to perseverate in copying and pasting your your screed while you ignore the voluminous evidence that is there for you to examine…”

      Why so testy? You were the one who said he wanted to debate. And it’s hardly a “screed”–what we wrote about the Collins case on our website is a meticulous, well-documented review of the numerous problems with Holly Collins’ version of events.

  • Barry

    @Prince,
    You will find posted above – cites for both dates and pages of sworn court testimony, accounts of eye witnesses that appear in the film and the postings of an eye witness who saw the children leave for a visit with their father without any bruises – and return from that visit with bruises. If Mr. Sacks has access to the records i cite – I have no doubt he will scan and post them himself. If he does, you will find that every cite is accurate as to content and context.

    If however Mr Sacks does not have access to those records – then he could not have – as he has claimed – performed an “exhaustive” investigate. He appears to only have access to records of appeals. Appeals are very different from trials with testimony and cross examination. You can not argue the facts in an appeal – you can only argue that the lower court made a reversible error. Even those who support the work of Mr. Sacks’ organization complain – that is a very high hurdle.

    An appeals filing does contain all of the original testimony – it does not contain all of the original evidence. In short – if Mr. Sacks does not have access to the full court transcript – and all of the accompanying medical records and correspondence from treatment providers – it is not remotely possible for him to have performed an “exhaustive” investigation. He went over what he was given. And what he was given – was carefully selected to support one side. It is the “prosecutions” side – without the defense arguments. This – in American law – does not count as “exhaustive.”

    The eyewitnesses we cite and documents and research and medical records all appear in the film. We do not make any claim in the film for which we do not have documentation. If you will get someone to help you read all of the postings above – you will get a sense of the scope and strength of the evidence that Holly and the kids were clearly abused. Court Evaluator Susan DeVries clearly stated that in her testimony. The truth is – Glenn Sacks continues on a vendetta based on ignorance and fueled by mysognyny that continues a cycle of abuse.

    • The Truth

      Thanks, Barry, but I do have Holly’s side of the story–all of her accusations and most of the evidence which she claims supports it. There are many, many problems with her evidence, and you and Ms. Waller have vastly oversold the strength of it. One longtime observer of the case just wrote me the following, and it rings true–“Barry is now using Holly’s ploy: Create a diversion, refer to other aspects of the case, small snippets of information that are sensational, in order to avoid addressing the real issues.” I would add that when you do cite information, often it’s marginal or even meaningless, but you insist on making it sound far more incriminating than it really is.

      • Barry

        Yes indeed – meaningless –

        Like the sworn testimony of the court evaluator that that abuse of Holly likely took place –

        The sworn testimony of Holly’s father that abuse took place,

        The strongly held opinion of a team of professionals from Boston Children’s Hospital that abuse took place.

        The letters from treatment professionals saying that a diagnosis of Munchausen’s was preposterous –

        The letters from treatment professionals complaining that the court was misstating their findings – falsely construing them to be against Holly.

        The eyewitnesses to abuse – including one who posted here her observations of the bruises the children received on a visit to their father’s house.

        The conflicting statements from Mark Collins about how he injured Holly.

        The fact that you have falsely claimed for years that there had been a diagnosis of Munchausen’s

        The fact that you have falsely implied for years that the the x-ray that showed that Zach’s skull had been fractured was merely a pre-existing injury

        The fact that you now admit your “exhaustive” investigation – did not include actually looking at all the evidence – reading all the testimony – or reviewing all the records. You read what you were given. In my book – that is hardly exhaustive. But, maybe you just get tired easy.

        • AJ

          Barry/Garland

          You insist you have exclusive docs for everything that supports your choice to air Holly’s accusations.

          So post it, all of it. Holly should have no qualms since she herself has published select information.

          If you stand behind it post everything on your website. If you honestly believe her story rings true and the whole world should hear it, then post everything you have.

          • Barry Nolan

            AJ –
            It’s a good idea to post documents – and we intend to do that – but will be impossible to post them all – the documents that we have run to thousands of pages – the biggest item is the five days of back to back hearings that resulted in the change in custody – that by the way is a set of documents that Mr. Sacks does not appear to have access to.Then there are years worth of hearings – 600 something pages of FBI files – medical files -and much more.

            We will have to sort thru the docs and decide what is most worthwhile, all the docs we will put up have to be scanned and we have to bring our web master back in – and write material that puts the docs in context.

            We will get to all that – but we are not Wikipedia – we don’t have a staff – we have lives and jobs – and it is more important to take care of some other things first – but we do want to post docs.

            But also – please note – unlike Mr. Sacks – we have also relied on much more – we have reached out to people who were involved – not just Holly and her children. We tried to talk to the judge, the court evaluator the guardian ad litem and Mark Collins about it all. They all refused. We have talked directly to witnesses, to treating professionals, to attorneys, the the attorney in the Netherlands, to the Pediatrician in the Netherlands, We filed a FOIA request for the FBI files and when we didn’t get them all – filed an appeal for the rest and got turned down. We went to St. Paul and the Netherlands and Marblehead and Washington.

            Mr. Sacks on the other hand, spoke to his source and relied on the small slice of documents he was handed.

            If he had worked for me on any of the shows that I have produced over the years – and referred to that as an “exhaustive” effort – I would have fired him.

        • The Truth

          Barry, As you well know, there are major problems with every piece of evidence you list above.–GS

          • The Truth

            Again, you’re portraying your evidence as being far better than it really is. Dutch doctors and lawyers, traveling to Holland and Washington–none of that has anything to do with verifying the veracity of Holly Collins’ abuse claims, nor do the FBI files. There are many, many people who dispute Holly’s abuse claims who you apparently did not offer to speak to. But even for the ones you did, they probably saw no point in being a part of a film whose extreme slant was set up well in advance.

            BTW, while you were in Holland I’m sure you collected evidence to back up Holly’s claims that (guess what?) her neighbors there abused her. According to Holly, she and her children were “terrorized and physically assaulted by this neighbor [Jaap Hogewoning], his family and his friends” and that Hogewoning “threatened to drown the children in their own blood” and “forced his way into Collins’ home and attacked her and her children.”

            Holly’s seeming ability to be harshly abused everywhere she goes and by so many people over her entire life is quite remarkable. Please provide the evidence which supports Holly’s very serious claims.

        • The Truth

          Barry, As you well know, there are major problems with every piece of evidence you list above.–GS
          (sorry for accidental double post)

          • Barry Nolan

            Mr. Sacks,

            You are wrong again. For instance, I have viewed the entire video tape of Holly’s neighbor in the the housing project in the Netherlands trying to push his way into their house while screaming epithetes at them.

            You can even see a clip of it yourself if you go to this YouTube video of a Dutch TV show – you will see the neighbor screaming and trying to push his way in about 30 seconds into the clip – sorry for the commercial at the top.

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_QjjB4D-ZI

            I went the neighbors house with our crew to interview them – the man’s wife was there and denied that her husband – the one I had seen on the video tape – had tried to get into the house – basically – she said the equivalent of “who are you going to believe? Me – or your lying eyes?” The FBI files seem to suggest that it was the neighbor who “dropped a dime on Holly”

            The FBI files also contain the interview with Mark and his wife – in which they tell the FBI that the children would rather be living with Holly – and that they probably went with her willingly. This interview took place after the children had been living with Mark and Rena for a full year and a half – with minimal contact with Holly – always under supervision. If as you try to claim – they were so happy with the father – why would the father say such a thing to the FBI?
            Your claim that we did not reach out to others besides the judge, the court evaluator, the guardian ad litem is also false. We tried other service providers – but they would not speak to use either –

            The film is about the failure of the family court system to protect children from further abuse – We document that – we are not interested in fact checking every claim you may care to make about the entirety of the life of Holly Collins. That is your jihad.

            Your understanding of how a thorough investigation is conducted is flawed and shallow.

            Ask anyone who has ever conducted a serious investigation if it is preferable to have an interview along with a complete set of documents – or to just have someone slip you a selected pile of stuff and write a story hunkered over your desk in your basement.

  • AJ

    By going back to the beginning of when the story broke over the internet, her sensationalism is what 1st strikes a cord.

    Does anyone have a link to the Dutch blog that first wrote about it? All I’ve found is a Toby Sterling but this doesn’t sound very Dutch.

    Barry you must have this info in your “investigation”, after all you went there

    • The Truth

      Barry writes “we are not interested in fact checking every claim you may care to make about the entirety of the life of Holly Collins. That is your jihad.”

      What’s central here is Holly Collins’ credibility, since there’s so little independent evidence of her claims. For example, as you admit, the skull fracture–which you’ve made the central abuse claim–has no evidence to support it beyond Holly’s claim. So the fact that she’s made abuse claims against so many people over such a long period of time is very relevant. I don’t blame you for not wanting to defend the claims, though.

      • The Truth

        Barry writes “video tape of Holly’s neighbor in the the housing project in the Netherlands trying to push his way into their house while screaming epithetes at them.”

        As usual, you’ve oversold your evidence–I’m familiar with the video, and yes, he was shouting at her, and from the numerous letters I’ve received from some of Holly’s neighbors in Holland, the neighbors had good reason to be angry. This is hardly evidence to support Holly’s claim that she was “physically assaulted by this neighbor, his family and his friends.”

  • Barry Nolan

    Mr Sacks,

    Let us briefly examine all the claims that you have made that have been demonstrated to be false. You most recently doubted that we interviewed Holly’s neighbors in the projects – we did – and have the video tape to prove it. You doubted she was assaulted by the neighbor – and I provided a link to a YouTube video which shows him violently trying to push his way into their house. Maybe you wish to try to diminish the seriousness of an attempted home invasion – or excuse it because you got a letter – I think this is an important thing to know about you – you excuse violence against women and children.
    You previously claimed that Holly had been diagnosed with Munchausen’s. This is false and the judge affirmed that this was not the case. You have claimed previously that Zach’s fractured skull was merely a pre-existing injury from an accident at Cannobie Lake park. The medical records clearly show that the two injuries were distinctly different in diagnosis and location.

    You have claimed that Holly did not receive asylum. She did and her drivers license clearly marked with Asylum is shown in the film

    You fail to address the ever shifting reasons Mark Collins has given for Holly’s broken noses, black eyes and dislocated shoulder.

    You discount eyewitnesses to abuse yet give full credence to speculation about what might have caused the children to complain about their father. You claimed to have done an exhaustive investigation but have since admitted that you have only a fraction of the court record, and few of the medical records, have not interviewed care givers or eye witnesses. And you continue to the shallow pretense that this is about the evidence – instead of your agenda.

    • AJ

      Jennifer Wrote;

      “Last night at the screening of “No way out but one”, I spoke to a doctor from the Boston Children’s Hospital who also performed a child abuse evaluation when I was a kid. She said that our case haunted her all these years and she reiterated that she believed me and my brother to this day.”

      Barry/Jennifer

      This is a really easy one.

      Exactly who is this Doctor just in case someone might want to verify your statements?

      We look forward to seeing her medical report.

      • AJ

        Also, does she know Dr. Barbara Burr, the psychiatrist who also examined you?

        • Barry

          @AJ
          You are right AJ – that is an easy one. The doctor at the screening was Dr. Maureen O’Brien. Children’s Hospital. She appears in the film and says much the same thing on camera. You can see medical records signed by her in the film. She has no doubt that Jennifer and Zachary were telling the truth.

          • AJ

            She’s apparently not in the short version. Can you point to her testimony in the court records?

            Also, why is the Dutch dad not in any of the film, after all they had 4 children together.

          • AJ

            What was the date of the exam by said dr?

    • The Truth

      Barry–Most of what you write below I’ve already effectively addressed in comments above and/or on our website.

      Re: Holland, the accounts from Holly’s neighbors there are quite different from Holly’s claims, but, unlike much of the US evidence, I’m not in a position to judge what happened in Holland. I can’t tell what’s happening 30 seconds into the video, but perhaps what you’re saying–that the neighbor is trying to push his way into Holly’s house–is correct. The fact that he is shouting at her later means little–shouting isn’t violence.

      The Dutch neighbors wrote me with a very different version of events, saying that the assault charges brought by Holly against Jaap are false, and that Holly went out of her way to provoke him into shouting at her and then taped the shouting as if it were an assault. Given Holly’s past behavior of making endless unsubstantiated accusations against a wide variety of people, the Dutch neighbors’ claims wouldn’t surprise me, but on this issue I don’t claim to know the specifics.

      • AJ

        The Dutch article states how angry the neighbors were that she’s an immigrant living off welfare, who continues to have another child after another (4) without marrying the father to support her.

        Another neighbor is angry Holly receives extensive medical care at the public’s expense.

        Think what you want about the implications here then remember the same struggles we have here with our immigration policy.

        Speaking of kids..Holly claims she “adopted” 3 other children. Huh?? Would a foreign immigrant, unmarried and unwilling to support herself really be allowed to adopt anything…save maybe a puppy?

        • The Truth

          AJ says “The Dutch article states how angry the neighbors were that she’s an immigrant living off welfare, who continues to have another child after another (4) without marrying the father to support her. Another neighbor is angry Holly receives extensive medical care at the public’s expense.”

          I’ve received many letters from the neighbors, and they don’t mention any of this, but instead point to Holly making false accusations against them, filming them, and behaving very erratically. While this behavior is certainly typical of Holly, I don’t know anything about it beyond what the neighbors have written me.

          Re: Holly living off welfare, etc., Holly’s finances and alleged exploitation of the Dutch government isn’t the neighbors’ business.

          • AJ

            Left, right or center Holly’s neighbors had a lot of opinions about her. This is from a Dutch blog first [unedited] reporting on this story without my interpretation that sent a TV crew to interview the neighbors.

            “10 children, welfare, neighbors complaining about the family? Could it be she met a nice Muslim in the asylum center… How irionic: American woman, flees for her abusive American husband to mary a Muslim immigrant in Holland to live from welfare.”

            I don’t buy the anything is moral (right) depending on the circumstance. Holly has 7 kids and married for only 2. Of the 7 none have their Fathers in their lives, none. In fact we know the 1st 3 actually hate their dad’s. As for the next 4 we’ll just have to wait and see.

            Looking at the big picture as to what’s best for kids and families…

  • copier

    I don’t want to assume too much based on one short video, but…It looks like Hill has edited out eating. One major gripe I have with many tiny houses is that the kitchens and storage areas are so small that it seems it would be difficult to store natural foods in bulk and prepare healthy, inexpensive meals.

  • AJ

    Truth,
    I’m sure you’ve noticed the pattern of her supporters, this time Nolan, to quietly disappear as their “evidence” becomes harder and harder to defend.

    It’s either that or do what seems impossible, admit they’ve been sorely taken in by a very delusional albeit convincing woman.

    Maybe someday someone will do a documentary on all the people who’ve swallowed Holly Collin’s story hook, line and sinker.

    • Carrie

      Everyone wants to discredit Holly Collin’s story. However, Mark Collin’s actions now and 20 some years ago deserves a critical eye as well. Why did Mark Collins originally LIE to Glenn Sacks about Zachary’s skull fracture being a result of the Lake Canobie incident? Why did Mark Collins suddenly change his story when Jennifer Collins proved that Zachary did not have a skull fracture from the Lake Canobie incident? Why is Mark Collins suddenly claiming that Holly Collins said Zachary fell out of a shopping cart when Jennifer Collins did prove that Zachary had a skull fracture from an entirely different incident a year later? An incident that Holly, Jennifer, and Zachary say was a result of their father’s abuse. Can anyone explain this?
      Don’t give me excuses that Holly did claim at the TIME OF THE INCIDENT that Zachary fell from a shopping cart. It’s not unusual for a battered woman to lie out of fear of her abuser. You don’t believe Holly was an abused woman. Okay, why did Mark Collins change his court testimony all the time? He claimed he didn’t cause Holly’s dislocated shoulder. He claimed he dislocated her shoulder during “play wrestling”. He denied knowledge of a concussion and than contradicted that. He said Holly broke her nose three times and had black eyes because he “rolled over in his sleep”, “it was due to play wrestling”, it was due to sexual wrestling” He contradicted this blah, blah, blah ad nauseum. Does this guy have Alzheimer’s disease? Is he mentally incompetent or just plain stupid? Don’t give me an excuse that Mark Collin’s testimony was only put in part on Jennifer Collin’s website. Even Glenn Sacks said Mark Collins sounded “clueless” with all his contradicting testimony. Yet, he still supports this guy even after he wore egg on his face for believing Mark Collin’s Lake Canobie lie. Can someone answer my questions based solely on Mark Collin’s actions? I’m not interested in the Holly Collins blame game. I want answers that explain THE FATHER’S ACTIONS.

      • The Truth

        Carrie writes “Why did Mark Collins originally LIE to Glenn Sacks about Zachary’s skull fracture…”

        Actually, I’ve never had any direct contact with Mark Collins, and he certainly never “lied” to me about the skull fracture.

        At first I confused the two incidents–Holly makes up so many tales that it can be hard to track them all down. However, the Canobie Park injury was in fact the more severe injury–according to the doctors–and I’ve had the skull fracture info. on the website correct for the past couple years, though Collins’ supporters keep ignoring this.

        I’m not sure why Holly’s supporters keep wanting to talk about the skull fracture, since they themselves admit they have no evidence (beyond Holly’s claim) that Mark had anything to do with it.

        As for Mark’s testimony about Holly’s injuries (real and alleged), I’ll stick with what I wrote previously.

        • Carrie

          “Actually, I’ve never had any direct contact with Mark Collins, and he certainly never “lied” to me about the skull fracture.”

          In other words, poor journalism is to blame. This is all the more reason to double check your facts before you defend someone you never spoke to or met. You had contact with Mark Collin’s second wife, Rena. She sent you a lot of the court document on your website. I don’t believe for a minute that you couldn’t have verified the facts with Mark Collins himself. The fact that Mark didn’t clear this issue himself when your article was printed tells me that he didn’t want people to know about a second head injury. An omission is as good as a lie. It wasn’t until Jennifer disproved the Lake Canobie story that this fact was brought to light.

          “At first I confused the two incidents–Holly makes up so many tales that it can be hard to track them all down. ”

          Oh, I see. It was Holly’s lie that Zachary’s skull fracture happened at Lake Canobie that led to your confusion. Funny, I never heard Holly (or Jennifer in fact) mention Lake Canobie until they disproved the lie that you printed and didn’t even bother to fact check.

          “However, the Canobie Park injury was in fact the more severe injury–according to the doctors”

          Don’t you understand? The severity of the Canobie injury doesn’t matter. The Lake Canobie injury has absolutely nothing to do with accusations of abuse against Mark Collins. That was a red herring that you swallowed big time. The second incident is the one that matters. A skull fracture is severe enough when it’s at the hands of an abusive father. You don’t agree with that, but that is the accusation. That alone makes the second incident the only injury that we need to look at. An unrelated injury at Lake Canobie has nothing to do with this case until Mark Collins decided to use it as a smoke screen. I don’t give a rat’s behind how severe the Lake Canobie injury was. It doesn’t matter.

          “I’m not sure why Holly’s supporters keep wanting to talk about the skull fracture, since they themselves admit they have no evidence (beyond Holly’s claim) that Mark had anything to do with it.”

          A grown man named Zachary Collins says he remembers his father smashing his head into a wall. That is the proof right there. Your PAS syndrome theory was started by a pedophile. It’s not even accepted in the DSM IV. I don’t believe a theory started by a pedophile over an adult child abuse victim.

          “As for Mark’s testimony about Holly’s injuries (real and alleged), I’ll stick with what I wrote previously.”

          You said he was “clueless”. Yeah, Sacks, your a man of words.

          • PolishKnightUSA

            I lost track of this thread years ago and it’s a pity because it died out. Apparently it was Glenn that responded as “the truth”. “Carrie” says that the word of Holly Collins cannot be taken too seriously, against her, because at the time as an alleged DV victim it’s possible she was covering up for her abuser. And that’s perfectly reasonable.

            However… in light of that logic, “Carrie” cannot double dip and argue that a claim by Zachary which he’s held since as a child while entirely under his mother’s control is necessarily beyond critique either. False memories by children happen all the time and Holly’s blog websites by her and her children are full of creatively colored renditions of childlike drawn nasty portrayals of the fathers and their stepmothers as monsters. It’s almost amusing. “Here honey. Here’s some more crayons for you to draw about how abused you were. You do want to have fun and make mommy happy, don’t you, by showing new mommy as a purple haired monster, right?”

            Yeeks.

            We have to go on what we have on paper and the alleged skull fracture is highly suspicious. Glenn’s sources, from what he gleams, appears that there’s a court case of the injury at the park that took years. No mention of the skull fracture is made in them. The mother was no longer a helpless DV victim years later when she was already self-admittedly involved in the women’s DV victim legal defense movement and would have had no hesitation to provide documentation of this abuse. In on/off reading of the case over the years, there isn’t evidence tying this to the father posted so far.

      • Deborah Anne Weber

        Again, Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands is a relative, my son’s relative and obviously my son’s father relative–she never did anything to help my son’s father a project artichoke victim or our son,,,, this smells fishy, why would Congress ask her to testify> Why on EARTH would she come back to the States…

    • Barry

      @Truth and AJ –

      It has been very instructive to watch the two of you lay out the way you think and the way you see the world. You are much like the crowd we see amongst “the birthers” and “the truthers” – you are not tethered by reality – instead you dismiss the medical records, expert testimony, court transcripts and eyewitness accounts of abuse that all contradict your cherished belief – but you gleefully embrace the discredited junk science of PAS – a piece of nonsense that has been rejected repeatedly by the AMA, the American Psychiatric Assoc. and the American Psychological Assoc, and the DSM, to drive your case.

      You embrace the ever changing denial of abuse by a man who admits he hurt his wife repeatedly – and you reject the consistent testimony of victims that was found to be highly credible by a team of trained professionals at Children’s Hospital.

      You deny the violence that people can see for themselves in the YouTube video by the Dutch neighbor – while you embrace his “don’t believe your own lying eyes” excuse, you accept his bigotry, racism and his preposterous excuse for trying to assault a woman and children in their own home – that they “annoyed” him. That they “took his picture.”

      You continue to attack a family you have never met – while you maintain the hollow and ludicrous pretense that you are somehow “pro-family.” You maintain the fiction that you have conducted an “exhaustive” investigation – even as you have clearly established here that you have not – that you have merely read one small slice of evidence that was handed to you by your source – and you simply swallow whole hog the vitriol of your favorite Dutch bigot.

      You have been too lazy or afraid to reach out to speak to anyone else involved in the case who may have actual first hand knowledge – be they treating professional or witness to the abuse.

      You have misstated the evidence and have lied repeatedly – and you have been clearly shown to be lying about issues like the skull fracture – the diagnosis of Munchausen – the issue of asylum and the finding by the court evaluator that abuse occurred.

      The evidence for it all of this is stated here and can be seen in the film. And yet – after hectoring children for years with lies – when confronted with the facts – you can’t even manage to say you are sorry. It is the mark of someone without a moral compass – and a coward

      You have both laid out a clear paper trail here of two people – indifferent to and uninformed about the facts, remaining willfully ignorant and driven by hatred. You further victimize victims and defend bigots and abusers.

      You are delusional if you believe that you have driven us off – or diminished our belief in the truth of what we say in this film – but you have made me feel like I need to take a shower after corresponding with you. No purpose would be served by further discussion.

      • AJ

        Opinion aside, there is enough conflicting evidence to raise serious questions about Holly’s credibility, which your “documentary” completely ignores. This list is just a sample of serious problems and your questionable responses;

        1. Zachary’s fractured skull has been the most prominent accusation against Mark in every interview. She claims this happened in July of 1987. We can just forget the Canobie Park issue, it doesn’t matter.

        In 2009 a medical record dated Sept. 1987 surfaced which unequivocally states the injury in July 1987 was due to “falling from a shopping cart”.

        Holly/Jennifer/You NEVER offered an explanation about this…until now. Now, the story is “she gave this as an excuse”. Why in the past try to use a partial record, which didn’t say anything about Mark anyway as proof. Remember we’re talking about evidence.

        2. You/Holly/Jennifer apparently have testimony from Dr. Maureen O’Brian, Boston Children’s, part of Eli Newberger’s team, detailing the abuse, which was completely discredited by Dr. Cline who had been the family thereapist, BY HOLLY’S CHOICE for years.

        Then we have the medical record from Dr. Barbara Burr, Psychiatrist at the same Boston’s Children on Dec. 11, 1991 where she interviews Holly and Jennifer together and separately where Holly says nothing about being abused by Mark and neither does Jennifer. The biggest concern is Holly’s Dr. shopping, Jennifer’s “pseudo mature” use of medical terminology, Holly’s obsession of having the children diagnoses as chronically ill and the detrimental long term effects of an extremely contentious divorce. Jennifer’s complaint about visiting with Mark is that he watches too much football and plays Nintendo, NO MENTION of abuse.

        Jennifer is at the hospital after being admitted from the ER supposedly for a severe allergic reaction, yet “the child was virtually ASYMPTOMATIC” and referred to psychiatry.

        Clearly Holly would have told her entire story here, yet says nothing. Again it’s imperative to know NONE of Holly’s accusations began until after the custody trial began.

        3. As to credibility, Holly clearly claims in 2006, HOLLY was “asked to speak in front of Congress” by Steny Hoyer.

        Your reason for this LIE, which is what it is, doesn’t even make sense. Holly made this claim BEFORE you ever knew her. She stated publicly SHE not Jennifer was asked. They had not come back to the US when these statements were made. Your response doesn’t even address the statement in question; that she was ASKED TO SPEAK IN FRONT OF CONGRESS. Your response below;
        “As for Steny Hoyer, I used to work for Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, who worked very closely with Rep. Hoyer…I attended numerous events with Mr. Hoyer present…that is why his office was so receptive to Jennifer, who has been on the Hill several times”

        4. Holly claims the FBI did an extensive investigation IN 1997, concluding she acted appropriately by fleeing. Are we to believe the FBI would do this without contacting Mark or the Hennepin County District Attorney, or for that matter the father of her 3rd child…apparently that’s another can of worms you haven’t mentioned.
        For anyone interested, Minneapolis City Pages Newspaper’s blog has some very interesting posts which I found through Google.
        Supposedly you have these files, but simply saying it doesn’t make it so. Post them immediately if you believe they’ll stand up to scrutiny. According to one source Mark Thompson, the Minneapolis FBI agent in her case had heard nothing of her as of early 2008.

        5. Holly has made the most egregious accusations against her own Mother and Step Father. Each and every one of Holly’s family members has sworn this is NOT true. Again do you stand behind her ALL her claims against her Eleanor?
        If Holly would make such false accusations against her Mother why would anyone believe her about any other accusations?

        6. You keep using Mark’s changing testimony as to Holly’s shoulder, noses etc. Yet each and every one of the medical records associated with these incidents, Holly herself states the play wrestling and such, all available online. It seems its unacceptable for Mark to be ambiguous yet perfectly reasonable for Holly to give “inaccurate” reasons for the injuries.

        There is much, much more, as listed on Fathers and Families, but this is just a sample.

        I will also reiterate what I’ve said before, she has 7 children from 3 separate fathers and NONE of these children have the benefit of a father in their lives. I’ll not even get into the claims she’s made of ”adopting” 3 additional kids in the Netherlands.

        Doesn’t this raise any red flags for anyone??

        • Mary

          The article begins that this case started 10 years ago and Holly Collins was on the FBI Most Wanted List.

          Is this true???

        • AJ

          “AJ”,
          You would be a wise man, NOT getting into this,….unfortunately, you DID.
          Now the ‘truth’ has been proven to be a ‘LIE’, it would be so easy to have you join him.
          Barry spoke wisely : futher communication serves no purpose.
          Just know : We know , you do not.
          Accept that and move on.

          A.J.

        • Clarice

          “I will also reiterate what I’ve said before, she has 7 children from 3 separate fathers and NONE of these children have the benefit of a father in their lives.”

          Holly Collin’s 4 youngest children are none of your business. It’s obvious that Holly would not have been able to leave the Netherlands without THE DUTCH FATHER’S PERMISSION. That speaks to a private agreement that probably concerns some kind of visitation. There are ways to have a reasonable visitation plan that allows children to spend time with both parents when they are seperated by distance. That does not mean these 4 younger kids do not have the benefit of a father. Holly has remained on good terms with her dutch ex, and THE DUTCH FATHER PROBABLY KNOWS HOW TO CO-PARENT WITHOUT TRYING TO TAKE CHILDREN AWAY FROM THEIR MOTHER. If he is comfortable with Holly taking his kids to the states, who are you to question this? Jeff Imm moved to England before Holly even left Minnesota. Jeff Imm also took along his new wife and 6 year old stepdaughter (depriving the stepdaughter of her own biological father). Why aren’t you condemning this? By your own logic, Christopher didn’t have the benefit of a father BEFORE Holly left Minnesota due to Jeff Imm’s actions. Why aren’t you questioning this? Did Jeff’s wife have her daughter’s father’s permission to move to England? If so, how is this any different than Holly moving to the states with dutch father’s permission? Why aren’t you questioning the actions of Jeff and Beth
          Imm? The hypocrisy of the Mark Collins and Jeff Imm supporters is showing. Btw, even though the dutch father and Holly aren’t together anymore, this guy is close enough to Christopher that he plans to legally adopt him. Heck, even Jennifer and Zachary credit this guy for showing them what a real father is like. The fact that two kids willingly ran away from their father (and to their mother) after being in said father’s sole custody for 18 months tells me that things weren’t kosher at Mark Collin’s house. However, you can disagree about Jennifer, Zachary, and Christopher, but you need to shut your mouth concerning Holly’s other 4 kids. Their father didn’t have a problem with Holly moving to the states with them, why should you? That said, this guy is THE ONLY FATHER who will have a relationship with his kids in the future. That doesn’t make Mark Collins or Jeff Imm look very good. Heck, Jeff Imm moved to England with his new wife and stepdaughter BEFORE Holly left Minnesota. By your own logic, Christopher didn’t have the benefit of a father before Holly “kidnapped” him, nor did Jeff Imm’s stepdaughter after moving to England (did her father give permission?) Funny, how you guys don’t question THAT?

          • PK

            It’s pretty clear this “documentary” is one sided. I began following the case when it appeared on fathers and families and the “Jennifer” blog has numerous attacks on the step-siblings. Now, it appears that not all is well in Netherlands paradise and Holly’s 3rd husband and father of children is on the outs. You BET he knows not to try to get uppity with Holly because she’ll accuse him of being an abuser next. But for how long? How long before that situation explodes and she’s on the run from the next one in a long line of ruthless abusers? (And no doubt, another documentary about the horrible pro-male court system that gives women the vast majority of custody and financial awards from children?)

            Sheesh, this one is cool aid cult level. The next documentary to be made will be a doozy and probably on VH-1.

            If she really loved her kids, she’d encourage them to get their own lives rather than live in the Jonestown camp worshiping their poor, victimized mother.

          • Crystal Ball

            PK says: “It’s pretty clear this “documentary” is one sided. I began following the case when it appeared on fathers and families and the “Jennifer” blog has numerous attacks on the step-siblings.”

            Gotta love that name-Fathers and Families! Jeez, you translate that into latin and you get Paterfamilias. It reminds me of the old roman Paterfamilias where the fathers had absolute authority over their children while the mothers could be divorced never to see their children again. From what I’ve read of this group, it’s no wonder they’ve chosen the english translation of this name. Can’t tell me that wasn’t deliberate. As for Jennifer’s blog post, you fail to mention her posts on Glenn Sacks himself. From reading Sack’s own description of his family on Fathers and Families, I can’t help but agree with Jennifer that there is something very disturbing about this guy’s relationship with his children. In the meantime, Sacks should spend as much time looking into Christian “Clark Rockefeller” Gerhartsreiter’s background (con artist and murder suspect), as he does Holly’s past. All he did was make excuses for this guy. I guess kidnapping is only okay for dads in Sack’s book.

            PK says: ” Now, it appears that not all is well in Netherlands paradise and Holly’s 3rd husband and father of children is on the outs. You BET he knows not to try to get uppity with Holly because she’ll accuse him of being an abuser next. But for how long? How long before that situation explodes and she’s on the run from the next one in a long line of ruthless abusers?”

            Again, Holly couldn’t have left the Netherlands without the dutch dad’s permission. If this guy was really that scared, all he would have to do is jump on the bandwagon with Mark Collins and Jeff Imm to get plenty of sympathy from the Paterfamilias AKA Fathers and Families. Instead, the dutch father wrote a post on Holly’s son Christopher’s website in full support of Holly and condemning Glenn Sacks. If this was made up by Holly, I think the dutch dad would’ve said something a long time ago.

            PK says: “(And no doubt, another documentary about the horrible pro-male court system that gives women the vast majority of custody and financial awards from children?)”

            Yeah, right. That’s why a native born dutch guy (Paul Leendertz) can become a naturalized US citizen, get joint legal custody in his native Holland with his Ukrainian ex-wife, kidnap his 7 year old daughter to the United States with the help of the US consulate in clear violation of the Hague Convention, and get sole custody in a US courts with no questions asked. In light of this, Holly’s ex dutch husband doesn’t have anything to worry about. As for the Paul Leendertz case, the Ukrainian ex wife would be justified in “kidnapping” her daughter back to the Ukraine. Take a good look PK because that is your future.

          • PolishKnightUSA

            It’s a pity I didn’t receive notice at to your reply but stumbled upon it years later.

            A lot was said in the above including some crude semantic jabs (fathers and families translated into another language sounds and implies something bad and this must be intentional). Ok…. (coocoo, coocoo…)

            I made the observation that the family court system tends to award custody to mothers and the response was to cite a case whereby a father got custody of a child in the states and appeared to pull a reverse what Holly Collins did and kidnap his own child from the Netherlands.
            I read the case and it says that the mother had broken the law herself and the father believed he was acting legally based upon a court order where he resides. Did the court in the states issue the custody order with “no questions asked?” That wasn’t in the details I had seen online. The mother was certainly aware of the court proceedings and the child was born in the states and it was a jurisdictional hot mess.

            Note: Nobody said that the courts NEVER found in favor of men or that sometimes women get a bad shake. Overall, the courts in the states appear to be biased against men and for a woman to lose custody, something special must be happening and that’s where the skepticism over Holly Collins’ claims come in.

            Anyways, time will tell. 3 years is a while but at my age, it seems like it’s only yesterday. Dutch men have a reputation for being, er, softer than American men so perhaps Holly’s husband is going to continue to be compliant for a while but Holly has a pattern: EVERY man in her life eventually winds up in the dog house and then, an accused abuser. Holly doesn’t like being alone either. Considering all the men that have abused her and her association with feminists accusing men of being sole abusers, she seems to need a man in her life to pay the bills and provide stability.

            On a personal level, I met a few women like this. They’re charming at first because they know men don’t put up with crazy right away. But after they sink their hooks in, LOOK OUT! But the signs are there in the beginning and I largely avoided them before they sunk their claws too far in.

            Holly and her “cult” (as Glenn Sacks readers are referred to by Holly supporters) have made some progress. A DVD has been burned and showed around a little. Various man-hating feminist groups have provided some support. I don’t know if this gig pays much but it must feel good for Holly and her cult to rail against her exes. But if Holly had gotten this out of her system I wonder… why doesn’t it stop? When does it stop? Not only her railing against these fathers but also for her children and their inevitable “abuse” they’re going to find as well. How long can she “keep it together” before she snaps against her ex, or a new boyfriend?

            Holly is not terribly old and has a long way to live before breaking down again. I’ll check in from time to time to see how it’s coming along… This reminds me of the Bachelor style shows where you watch a train wreck.

    • Deborah Anne Weber

      Why on Earth would she come back? Also, Courageous Kids network is Connie Valentine’s son creation which is constantly hacked…. Finally, Queen Beatrix is my son’s relatvie–his father is a Project Artichoke victim–they never get help, so what gives? This story just doesn’t jive…

      Deborah Anne Weber

  • Joan P.

    I am so glad to hear this movie has been completed! I have seen the trailer, and personally heard Zachary and Jennifer speak about their father’s abuse. Ignore the Father’s Rights lobby’s vitriol. Sure, they can dig out some nonsense on paper that this or that supposed expert said something negative about Holly. How do you think the abuser got custody? When a family court and a judge makes a mistake, they will do anything rather than admit they were wrong, including that preposterous Munchausen diagnosis. Yes, abusive fathers get custody. Our system is flawed and often, abusers and liars win.

  • Scott

    First let me say, I am against domestic violence. It is a terrible crime no individual should have to endure… but,

    Isn’t this entire story based on complete falsehoods? Hasn’t Holly Collins’ own family contradicted her version of the facts? Holly brought false allegations of abuse against most of her family, all her ex-husbands and even their spouses, as well as former landlords and neighbors.

    The story centers around a major false claim that if you batter your wife or children you’re most likely going to be awarded custody. It is well documented that fathers are mostly alienated by domestic courts. It has also been shown in well over 100 studies that nearly half of all domestic violence claims are baseless and more often than not plain false allegations. It’s no secret women use false allegations to get the upper hand in divorce and custody battles.

    Its just my opinion but I think if you’re against domestic violence you should be against ALL domestic violence. Overwhelming evidence has shown that domestic violence occurs equally by men and women alike. It has also been shown that women are more prone to use “severe” violence against men than men are to women.

    By making this a gender issue, at the same time all this research data is available, is a clear statement that you and your peers believe domestic violence is okay, as long as its against men.

    Until women’s groups stop skewing statistics to make this “seem” like a gender issue the problem will only grow, families will continue to suffer and children will continue to replicate the abuses they witness by one or both of their parents, be it mom or dad.

  • Lisa

    A father’s rights backlash is no reason to punish women who want to protect their children and are attacked by the legal (joke) system and a vindictive father. My child was too young to have a say and her father has taken the last 12 years to brainwash her to convince her that I “kidnapped” her to deprive him. It wasn’t true but do you think I could find ONE NON GREEDY LAWYER to help me? People don’t seem to understand these are human beings who’s lives are being changed forever.