December 29th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Collins continues to look for a life, and exploits the media in that quest. Another person not happy with her 15 minutes of fame.
I 'highly doubt' that when Jennifer was 8 or 9 years old years old that she said to herself - self, I want to be in the public eye when I am 23, so I am going to let my father keep abusing me just so I will not have '15 minutes of fame.' And then when it looks like I am falling out of the public view, I will harp on some poor men's rights website so I can keep myself in the public eye. I am soooooooooo sure Jennifer said this to herself when she was 8. (NOTE THE SARCASM HERE!!!!)
December 29th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
So, she is alienated from her father. What does she remember about her father that was not drilled into her by her mother? If she doesn't condemn her father, her mother will reject her. Abuse is a great word without any clear definition, so is anything which is unpleasant abuse?
Look at any PA site and see that the daughter's reaction is typical of alienated children. Will the daughter talk to her father or hear what he has to say and offer; NO. Has the daughter talked to all the others who supported her father,NO. That is the Parental Alienation.
Pure brainwashing; just as the North Koreans thank their Great Leader when foreign doctors come to North Korea to restore their lost eyesight. The alienated child praises the aliennator for her alienation.
Okay, not very much commentary will be needed here. Jennifer was old enough to remember for herself abuse at her father's hands. The 'duh' award of the day goes to this poster :-)
Sister Charity Says:
December 29th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
This family is suffering and Jennifer has obviously been abused by one of her parents, but I am not sure that it is her father that was abusive to her. She sounds very much like other adults that I have spoken to when they are still under the control of an alienator. I pray that she is able to move on to have a healthy and truthful relationship with both of her parents.
It has been my experience that the majority of people that attack PA/HAP have never lived with the pain of the targeted parent nor that of the alienated child. If someone really looks at the tatics used by a person using PA/HAP and the tatics used by a person that actually is abusive and guilty of DV they might be surprised to find out that it's the same hurt inflicted on the victims.
Okay, pages upon pages of court documents whereby her father has admitted to abuse, and you still think mom is the abuser? Get a real life please. It must also be pointed out (per postings on Jennifer's own blog and in the news reports on this situation) that Jennifer did try to communicate with her father. He REFUSED!!!!
December 29th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
I believe that Jennifer Collins was a victim of PAS based on her letter to Glenn. Whenever a women use the term "real man" to try and shame a man into doing something it raises flags. Maybe a poor little girl with no father had to come up with reasons in her 8 year old mind for the trauma she felt. "If he really loved me he'd cross the ocean and come get me", she may have told herself while crying herself to sleep over the pain in her heart. And the mother fed the dark hole by poisoning the memory of the man in a hundred ways overt and covert.
Geraldo, Mr. Prompt, is such a piece of sycophant slime. Glenn, how you shared a stage with him like a gentleman shows a lot of intestinal fortitude and restraint!
Jennifer is rightfully angry that a person she has never met would suggest that people in essence stalk her and peer into her life, all in the name of proving her story. SHE SAYS SHE WAS ABUSED AT HER FATHER'S HANDS, HER BROTHER SAYS HE WAS ABUSED AT HIS FATHER'S HANDS, SO WHY MUST THEY 'PROVE' THIS? And yet again when you cannot debate, you resort to nastiness as displayed towards Geraldo.
December 29th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
Since Jennifer Collins may have been on the receiving end of distorted information about her father and was abducted from him, don't you think that may make her an unreliable source of information?
Isn't the search for objective information in cases like this more important than the he said/she said hearsay which so often sways judges in Family Court?
For a biased, censorship-loving blogger who usually only tolerates one side of a story on your own blog, you sure have a lot of nerve criticizing Glenn for an open-minded search for objective information.
Lisa's comment will get its own post since it is just about the only post that defends the Collins' family - specifically Jennifer. Now onto this poster......Do I need to say it again? Jennifer was abused and has clear recollections of that abuse. She was not a baby, toddler, or preschooler when this happened. She was 9 years old!!!!
December 29th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Sorry, when I listened to that girl on the video and she said her father was "always" abusive, I immediately stopped believing her. She didn't strike me as credible at all. She gave the impression that she came to that show ready for bear and just couldn't wait to heap on her father, and I'd bet she remembers of him only what her mother told her.
Ummm okay - this is real logical. My ex was 'always' abusive to me when the abuse started, so I guess I should not be believed either. Runner-up 'duh' award.
Here you’re essentially asking me to take Jennifer’s word for it, against the ruling of the court, and independent of any evidence except her and her mother’s claims. I think that’s asking a lot. And contrary to what you may believe, I generally don’t do that for fathers, either.
No he just publicizes many 'anonymous' letters from men, second wives, grandmothers, friends about 'supposed' bad acts by mothers. But that is 'okay.'
Also, Jennifer was very young—seven years old or younger—when the alleged abuse happened. Given that children are sometimes programmed by an alienating parent to believe various things about the target parent, I think it’s fair of me to not simply take this as the gospel truth.
Thirdly, time and again the Feminist Family Law Movement has foisted cases on the media—cases which I’ve investigated--which have turned out to not be at all what the FFLM claims. For example, the Sadia Loeliger case was publicized by the same people who are helping to publicize the Jennifer Collins case. The FFLM told us that Loeliger was a heroic mom who had lost custody of her daughter due to her ex-husband's family court machinations.
He then states that Jennifer was 'too young' to remember any abuse. I myself remember when I was 4 years old and events that happened at that time (my father was in the Air Force and my mother and younger brother were living overseas). I remember vividly our residence (as well as subsequent residences) and I also remember the day we came back to US soil. I also remember an event from when I was in 2nd grade (and I was 7 - younger than Jennifer when Holly ran) very vividly as well. Children can and do remember many different things. And for you to assume that Jennifer's recollection of these events in her life, is just plain demeaning. You are in essence stating that because she is a 'hysterical' female, that she could not have remembered it that way. And if she says she was abused, isn't it better to be safe than sorry? Not if you are an MRA apparently.
He also goes on and on about Sadia Lelinger and her child Fatima. Read more about Sadia and Fatima here.
December 29th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
.......Holly’s own mother strongly believed that Holly was not a fit mother – I wonder why? That was rhetorical, I know the answer – it lies in the realm objective truth, standing in stark contrast to the emotional.
If you would take the time to actually 'read' Jennifer's blog, you would discover that Holly was abused by her parents (mother and do not recall if it was bio-dad or step-dad). This 'might' explain why Holly's mother would say something like this. Maybe trying to keep her own abuse of her child private - as all abusers do.
Norman L. Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 1:02 am
"Medal of Courage by the California Protective Parents Association"
The majority of these medals should of course to to fathers (whatever the status of a given marriage), as the father has traditionally been considered the protector of his children, and in fact is the protector against any excesses by the mother. (see Baskerville).
Norman L. Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 1:03 am
the above should say the "The majority of these medals should of course go to fathers"
Actually this is not quite true. Consistently in nature it is the female of the species who 'protects' the young. Fathers 'provide' for the young and the family. This is a far stretch from 'protecting', especially when there is documented and admitted abuse as there is in the Collins' case.
Ivo Vos Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 3:52 am
One of the biggest problems with emotional truth, or ego-oriented truth, is that, based on that truth alone, we would never be able to rise out of our biological existence level. Luckily for the human kind, there exists something called the human male, normally called a man.
How 'patriarchal' of you Ivo Vos.......
December 30th, 2008 at 10:54 am
She's already posted in response to this and Glen is attacking her again. She also said the got a huge amount of threatening emails from Glen followers. I can not imagine anyone threatening her, nor do I even see a way to reach her or contact her.
Again someone who just cannot see, Jennifer's contact information is in several spots on her page. I might just have to take away TF's award for this one ;-)
December 30th, 2008 at 11:12 am
The real issue here is disrespect for the law. Irregardless of whether a father agrees with contact orders or child support he must do as he is commanded by the family court over lord or suffer torture and incarceration. No reason is considered good enough to evade this very special American style of incentive. If this mother was being truthful about abuse then why didnt she have it investigated, instead she just split? She broke the law, to jail she must go, with taser blasts guiding the way to her gang rape in the shower. Her children should be stripped from her as she is publicly humiliated, she should be forced to work a minimum wage job and pay the support of a hundred thousand a year earner for children she never sees while the father teaches the children about all the abuse they suffered at the hands of their mother.
This one will win the 'Misogynistic' Award of the day. Okay this young lady says she was abused by her father. The answer to that is to force her to be with her father, strip her away from the only person who has protected her? Then we will top that with having the protector jailed, humiliated, and forced to labor at a debt that will never go away? Then we will brainwash the abuse victim too?
Oh I know - this poster is comparing this to himself!!!! Yeah okay - more ocean front property in Arizona for ya'.
John Boy Says:
December 30th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Women's identities in general and some in particular are much more heavely wrapped up in being a mother then men are as a fathers. For some women being a mother is their only area of prestige and status and the children are the only thing they have power over. Losing custody, even partial custody, can be absolutely devestating emotionally.
In fairness, men's identities are sometimes too wrapped up in their work which is why too many of them go "postal" but we will save that for another day.
This same underlying dynamic happens in many many divorces albeit they do not reach this level of conflict. This solipsistic behavior is what drives many women to fight without compunction for every penny and every minute extra of custody they can lay their hands on whether or not it is in their childs best interest or not. This is what makes divorces bitter and the healing process impossible. This women thinks she is a hero but is really a goat.
Can you tell yet how tired I am of this drivel? But I still continue to deliver the misogyny run rampant at that site. First paragraph this commenter states that when a woman loses any form of custody she is devastated because she has lost control over the children. Could it possibly be because she has lost the ability to PROTECT that child? When the mother and father were still living together, the mother was able to safeguard the child from the father's abuse and in many cases, take that abuse on her shoulders rather than exposing the child to it. Now she cannot do that simply because the uneducated courts force her to send the child to the abuser - unsupervised.
'Postal'? Okay I would love to see the sommentary on this one. Any wonder what it will contain? Excuses excuses excuses.....
A goat? Can you not come up with something a little more creative? Even porky is better than this......
To be continued in the next post (too many comments for one post :-)............