Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Chapters 22, 23, and 24 pages 222 – 257 – REFUTED! – Part 2 by Ruth Pace March 25, 2011Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright nasty, bigotry, contradictions, Disrespect, embellishing the truth, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, misrepresenting one's credentials, misrepresenting one's employment, passing assumptions off as truth, passing speculations off as truth, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, religious intolerance, speculation, spreading untruths, stupidity, trailer parks, whining
I agree, more whining, more digs aimed at her birth sisters.
She starts out the chapter by saying that prayer and meditation from an aunt and uncle helped strengthen her spirituality. Influenced her in inner healing. Really? I don’t see much evidence to this. Her spirituality? To what? To have that confidence in one’s own spirituality that there is no need to trash another person’s religion? HA! We see Joan trashing the Catholic Church left and right and her sisters’ (me and Gert) Neo-Pagan paths. Inner healing? HA! All over the book and to this day, Joan writes about her tormented inner life.
On page 222, she relates how she saw two Liverpool, England musicians in concert in Buffalo, New York. These 2 people knew our sister Kathy in Liverpool. Joan writes, “I wondered why Edith (Kathy) didn’t take me to see them in Liverpool.” Oh whine.
Well, let’s see, why didn’t Kathy take her to see them? Does Joan mean to see them perform or see them socially? As the poor writer that she is, she doesn’t make the distinction. But there are lot’s of reasons why Kathy didn’t take her to “see” them. Maybe they weren’t performing when Joan was there. Maybe they were out of the country, performing in Germany maybe. Maybe one of them had the flu. Maybe one of them had a death in the family! Did Joan ever bother to ask Kathy? And maybe put the dam TRUTH in her book? NO! And quite frankly WHO GIVES A SHIT? And what does this have to do with Joan’s adoption, Joan’s adoption reunion, and Joan’s adoption reform work? NOTHING!
This is an example of why this book is a piece of shit! The book is peppered with these kinds of questions! Questions from Joan’s tormented mind – but she never gives her readers the TRUTHFUL answers to these questions. Joan just loves to SPECULATE on people’s motives of their day to day lives. She should stop that shit and pay attention to her own miserable life. Maybe put into practice what Aunt Helen and Uncle Dom were trying to tell her.
But Joan doesn’t want to do that – she doesn’t bother to do proper research – and tell the truth. It’s much easier to write a speculative question, because it’s a clever ploy – to show that Kathy was a negligent bitch to Joan – she didn’t take Joan to see a couple of musicians. You know, Kathy knows a lot of musicians in England, seeing as she is a musician herself. So Kathy is supposed to take Joan to meet every single musician that she knows. On the outside chance that they may travel to the States and perform in Buffalo. Yes, everyone on the planet must plan their lives to please Joan. Introduce her to EVERY person they know because if they don’t, she will feel slighted and insulted and whine about it in her book. And it’s a clever ploy to put another insulting dig against one of her birth sisters without the reader being aware of what she is doing.
On page 244 Joan writes this about me: “Brenda (me) was a big comfort. She loved baby Aaron (Joan’s son) and came to see us often.” Remember this when she writes all over the internet how I hate her kids. Notice how Joan contradicts herself left and right – that’s because she can’t stick to the TRUTH!
Another thing she likes to do is LIE about me concerning her kids is that I am jealous of her because she has two kids and I am infertile. In June 1985, I suffered a miscarriage, after several years of trying to conceive. Yet, she writes that I’m taking her son to outings in 1985. And both of her kids to the beach in 1989 and 1990. She just can’t stick to one story.
On page 248, she writes about the backlash of her doing an interview in the newspaper on adoption and getting a few facts wrong. This topic is covered in Gert’s post and I have already written about it. But she says on page 248 “There was no one to help me cope with my feelings, except my year-old son.” Um, what was I? Chopped Liver? I thought she said that I came to visit her often! She didn’t say between page 244 and 248 that we suddenly stopped speaking to each other.
On page 253, summer of 1985, she writes, “Brenda and I frequently took 18-month-old Aaron on outings.” Later on in the book, in the years 1988-90, she says the same thing, as we did go to the beach a lot with her kids. But on the internet, on The Huffington Post, she said that she didn’t have a relationship with me for more than three decades. Do the math people: 3 decades = 30 years. 2011 minus 30 is 1981. But it’s right there in black and white on page 244 we’re at the beach in 1984, and on page 253, we’re taking her son to outings in the summer of 1985.
On page 252 she relates how she goes to Charleston, South Carolina to visit her husband, who had gone there for a better job. She says she wasn’t impressed with the city. Well, she is entitled to her opinion, but on page 257, she states she didn’t like the houses in Charleston, because they were “poorly made with staples instead of nails.” What? She is a construction expert? Let’s see, she made this expert opinion in 1985. In 1989, Hurricane Hugo blew into Charleston. While two-thirds of the city’s houses suffered varying degrees of damage (Wikipedia), the city was not leveled. So I guess Joan’s expert assessment on building codes goes in the trash.
Joan goes on to say that her husband suggested a double-wide trailer. She writes: “Bad enough we were already poor; I didn’t want to live in a trailer park to become trailer trash. Maybe that was his goal, but it wasn’t mine.“
Trailer Trash? Trailer Trash? Where does she get off putting people living in trailer parks as trash? What a disgusting, stereotypical, discriminatory thing to say. Does she forget that her own birth brother and his wife, lived in a trailer park when they first moved to Arizona?
In a comment to my post What is the REAL reason behind Joan Wheeler’s rant on the Huffington Post? March 9, 2011, Gert listed the National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, “Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Clients.”
In Item 07 – Privacy and Confidentiality article d, we find the following:
Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate domination of, exploitatin of, and discrimination against any person, group, or class on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical disability.
Joan likes to spout off and brag that she is a “social worker,” but in her usual contradictory self, she also says she is “unemployed, due to disabilities.” If she’s unemployed, then she is NOT a social worker. She also brags that she is a member of the National Association of Social Workers.
WELL, in her putdown of people living in trailer parks, she is in violation of that code where it says “Social workers should act to prevent and eliminate ….discrimination against any ….CLASS…”
Okay, it talks about social workers and their clients, which Joan doesn’t have any clients, because she’s not working, but if Joan is feeling this in her heart and personal life, how would she treat a client if she had any? Just how would she treat a client that lived in a trailer park, considering she considers people living in trailer parks as trash. Perhaps we should count our blessings that Joan is NOT a working social worker – she’d be very detrimental to her clients with her bigoted way of thinking – and heaven help any client who ADOPTED a child. Yes, yes, I’m indulging in a bit of speculative thinking myself – but we all know dam well what Joan would do. It’s right there in her book – she has chronciled herself putting down people in meetings, classrooms, her own professors and classmates while getting her social work degree, even the Association of Social Workers. I guess I’m not really speculating after all – just telling the truth, using Joan’s own words from her own trashy book. After all, it’s right there in black and white on page 257: trailer trash.
The Social Worker’s Code also doesn’t include a client’s income, but it does say CLASS, which in this case would be poor people. And Joan already said that her and her husband and year old son were POOR, so in other words, she was putting herself down.
After Joan puts down residents of trailer parks, Joan then says “I wanted a better life.” I can’t fault her there. Everybody wants a better life. That’s why they GET OFF THEIR ASS AND GET A JOB! TO WORK TOWARDS THAT BETTER LIFE!
In writing about her birth brother in 2003, when the family goes to Arizona for his funeral, Joan writes in her book about how “rich” he and his wife were. No, they weren’t “rich,” they were upper middle class. And their beautiful house was the reward of years of WORKING AT JOBS!
In 1976, when my brother and his wife moved to Arizona, they filed for bankruptcy, sold their belongings, packed up their little Toyota Corolla, and drove across the country in search of their better life. And through hard work, they achieved it. And yes, at first they lived in a TRAILER PARK! And they weren’t TRASH! But again, as we see over and over and over again throughout this TRASHY book, Joan M. Wheeler puts down her birth family as trash. The only trash from the Sippel family is Joan herself and her book.
Joan doesn’t want ADOPTEES to be discriminated against – yet turns around and says this discriminatory statement against residents of trailer parks.
My first apartment in 1971, was a room in a boarding house. I was working as a cashier for Twin Fair, a K-Mart type store. I then roomed with an older woman, while I took classes in 1972 to become a nurses aide in September 1972. In early 1973, I moved back to my father’s house to help out with the kids, while working full time nights at the hospital, where 38 years later, I am still working. During 1973 and into 1974, I saved my money and in May 1974, I got my first real apartment. In 1975, I moved into a larger apartment with my first husband, and each subsequent apartment was a bit nicer than the last. In May 1987, my present husband and I moved into a rented HOUSE, which in 1996, we bought off the landlord.
I’m also looking for the “better life.” And am working towards it. My husband and I are secure in our house, doing renovations as time and money permits. Our long term plans are to have the renovations done in about 10 years, and then turn our attention to the acquiring and landscaping of the empty lot next to us.
What’s Joan doing? Living in fantasyland. Waiting for a movie to made out of her trashy book. Sorry Joan, not even Oprah is going to feature this trashy book on Oprah’s Book Club – because when she sees how you put down trailer people, she’s going to see you for what you are – a bigot, and a liar. Someone who puts down and insults and lies about her own birth family. And don’t even try to ride in on the adoption coattail – just because Oprah recently introduced her adopted out birth sister to the world. Oprah isn’t stupid, nor is most of the world – we all see Joan for what she is.
And what will Joan do? Now that her meal ticket is gone.
addendum: March 26, 4:40am. by Ruth Pace
The following is from an adoptee forum. And I have a question for the author: Romany, have you Deeply Read the above and what your buddy Joan has said about poor people being TRASH?
Title: Re: Single mother’s…Thanks Huckabee for your insight..
Post by: Romany on March 06, 2011, 03:17:35 PM
The trouble is – people like him divide the world into “good” (educated, moral, productive, financially sound) and “not good” (uneducated, immoral, unproductive, poor). There are no educated, immoral, productive, poor people just as there are no uneducated, moral, unproductive, financially sound people – or any other combination. The “good” people have all the “good” attributes and the “not good” people have nothing. Morality (his version) leads to good things and immorality (his version) leads to bad things because that’s what his god tells him.
And according to her book Forbidden Family, Joan Wheeler also divides the world into “good” people – those who do not live in trailer parks, and “not good ” people – those who do live in trailer parks. I don’t even want to touch Joan’s “morality” because I dont’ think I can – she doesn’t have any morals.
Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Chapter 22- More of the same, payback’s a bitch and what is Joan going to do! March 16, 2011Posted by Ruth in Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, denial of reality, embellishing the truth, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, payback, payback's a bitch, stupidity, whining
Introduction by Ruth Pace
This post was written by Gert McQueen May 10, 2010. Due to our busy lives, and other distractions by Joan (posting other crap on the internet that needed to be addressed, and other events in our lives, this post and others, have been in storage. But now we get to back to the business of Refuting the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler.
Chapter 22 a new family; its more of the same stuff we have read before, another redundant chapter. It starts off in early 1982, after adoptive father dies, she states (pg 222) that ‘…only one from her natural family was there for her, Ruth, who also helped in defending her from Gert’s (that’s me) continued harassment through letters and phone calls.’ Well, it is obviously that Ruth would be supporting Joan at this time because they were in it together over my daughter. As far as these letters and phone calls are concerned, I haven’t a clue about that; it was not I! In 82 my family was in the process of moving, had moved and where getting on with our lives, with my daughter in foster care, by my own hand.
(Ruth’s note: Actually, I did not defend Joan, because Joan went against my instructions: NOT to bring strangers into a family matter. We did have to appear in court together because we were both involved).
Pg 223 Joan relates how she meets husband to be Colby, a medieval re-enactor, whom she is fascinated with, pg 225 she finds herself pregnant. We have to read a ‘blow by blow’ of the huge tormented fights between Joan and Dorothy (adoptive mother). I have found it interesting that these two women can’t live with each other and can’t live without each other! I also find the word tormented is used a lot by Joan and Dorothy. This book is really a study in the horrors of a mental illness that is shared by them!
Even though Dorothy would not attend Joan and Colby’s wedding she sends Joan a $3000 check for expenses. It must be nice to have a bank roll anytime you want it, that must be why Joan has spent her entire life with this crazy person. What the hell is Joan going to do when Dorothy dies? The extended adoptive family of Wheeler, whom I never met outside of this book, must all be a piece of work, but yet, Joan believes that it is the birth family that always does dirt to her. My theory? It’s either Joan or some member of the Wheeler clan or Dorothy herself.
On pg 228 Joan relates how Dorothy sends her harassing letters. You know the thought just hit me! Maybe it’s been Dorothy all along that had sent all those letters claiming it was I! Remember that letter where, point-by-point, I addressed the ‘letter’ I was supposed to have written? Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4 November 10, 2010. Perhaps Dorothy had been behind the scenes right from the beginning, putting words in Joan’s mouth to say what I said. You never know when dealing with paranoia; just because they aren’t there doesn’t mean that they aren’t watching!
On pg 228 Joan is advised by the doctor to ‘cut off communication with Mom or risk getting so upset that harm or loss of the baby could happen.’ Sounds like good advise, but no, these two women need each other like the air they breathe, what is Joan going to do? And it looks like all of 1982 and 1983 it was Dorothy that was sending Joan letters. On pg 229 Joan wonders what is wrong with her adoptive family members because they can’t accept her relationship with her natural father. Joan states ‘this was my private life, not theirs.’ Well guess what! Joan is finally getting some pay back! Wasn’t ‘this was my private life’ what I told her when she interfered in my life? Pay back’s a bitch!
(Ruth’s note: NOBODY is entitled to a private life – only Joan. MY private life, was (and is) constantly compromised by Joan. From 1994 to the present. Yet Joan keeps screaming for HER privacy!).
Pg 230-232 shows us a long letter from Joan to Dorothy, they can’t leave each other alone, Joan is repeating to her mother the same shit that the mother has said to Joan, it is counter projecting, they feed off each other, what is Joan going to do? Pg 232, Joan starts to question activities within the Medieval reenactment groups because of the outdated characteristics of the time periods they perform. Funny thing about history, it just won’t fit your personal modern views of things! And they don’t square with her modern feministic adoption reform activist mindset and modes of operations. So another Honeymoon phrase is about to end.
She details an anonymous letter, on pg 233, that she received, she states she never knew who wrote it, but I find it very interesting that on pg 234, the letter writer said ‘while you (Joan) wore these dresses (that her adoptive mother made), your birth siblings wore rags.’ Why do I find that interesting, because Joan is, quite fond, of referring, to her birth family as being dirt poor and having rags to wear. Could it be that this letter is the source of those comments? Did Joan take the words from some unknown ‘relative’ and used that as proof that our family was so poor? Or is Joan regurgitating the same hateful lies that Dorothy has told Joan all of her life! Could this letter been from Dorothy herself?
(Ruth’s note: while we did wear hand-me-downs, they were not quite rags. Yes, not as nice as the hand-made dresses that Dorothy made for Joan, but not rags. Since it has been Dorothy, who according to Joan in various places in her book, keeps “ragging” on about how dirt-poor we Sippel kids were (even telling a fish tale of how Dorothy and Edward sent over a xmas tree and presents for us – bullshit – ), it is clear who wrote the letter).
On pg 235, now newly married, with little money and a baby on the way, there are no problems in the way, for Joan and new husband Colby, to go on a trip to see music groups, all they had to do was ask a relative! Must be nice! ‘C’s mother cosigned a loan for us, my mother helped us pack…. we drove down to Baltimore…toured Washington DC…’ Damn it must be nice to be grown adults and have older parents to pack for you and give you the means to go on a vacation! What is Joan going to do when reality hits her?
But for the moment it is back to real life, a baby is born in 1983. We, the readers, have to learn all about ‘excruciatingly painful labor’ and ‘postpartum depression’ and ‘I missed the baby inside, even though I had him in my arms’. Joan is not the first person to ever have a baby! So is this the ‘new family’? Will it be more of the same? Will there be more paybacks? And what is Joan going to do!
In chapter 23 Joan takes on the Catholic Church, some people just never learn! Trying to make any sense out of church procedures or doctrine is such a waste of valuable time and energy, but Joan, still in disbelief that the church had to bend the knee to the State Health Department and the Federal government of the USA, must fight on. She can’t understand why the church would lie about her amended baptismal certificate when church doctrine says that lying is a sin. News flash! The Church always lies! Joan lies! What planet is Joan on? She states, pg 240, ‘…I know God isn’t responsible for all of this (the amended baptismal certificate etc)…it is organized religions, with their rules and doctrines, which are subjected to a higher power – our government. Wasn’t this country founded upon the separation of church and state?’
What the hell?! She really is all screwed up. The separation of church and state has nothing to do with legal documents. Anyone or any organization that resides in this country, or any country for that matter, must obey the rules of the land, that’s common sense, a shared community must have rules that everyone and every organization lives by. The government of the land is not a ‘higher power’, just a civil power. The Church does not take kindly that a civil power would be the ‘higher power’ for they regard that to be their right and privilege. Joan apparently has not heard of ‘give unto Caesar’? Joan, in all her wisdom, says that the government of the land ‘should not interfere by requiring church officials to change baptismal records to accommodate an adoption, it is unethical, immoral and irresponsible…’ Imagine that, Joan saying that interfering is unethical, immoral and irresponsible! Since she herself is not the ‘government’ than it must be okay for her to interfere, for that is what she always does, interfere with other people’s lives. Pay back’s a bitch! These two paragraphs sum up the entire chapter that mostly was more of the same kind of self-indulgence of Joan’s personal woes and misconceptions. This was a totally redundant chapter.
Chapter 24 starts off with Joan being accused of child abuse and her assumption that I am ‘retaliating’ against her. First you know what they say about the word assume? When you assume you make an ‘ass’ out of ‘u’ and ‘me’! So why would Joan assume that I, in retaliation, would do such a thing! There is a wisdom that says ‘you always accuse the other of what you would or did do’. And of course Joan states that she did indeed call child abuse on me, ‘…since I (Joan) was responsible for having her (me) investigated through the same Child Abuse Hotline.’ Joan goes on to state ‘…only difference was Gert’s calls were based on revenge, not concern…’ Again Joan is quick to assume that it was me (Gert) who called when in fact, not only did I not, but a person’s name is never given out. I did not know that it was Joan who called on me until I got into Court, because I pursued the false accusations. Perhaps it was Dorothy, she had called Joan every name in the book and disowned her for getting pregnant before marriage, did she not?
Joan’s sanctimonious attitude is getting a bit too obvious at this point in the book considering all the ‘dirt’ she has done to others and all the ‘dirt’ she has done to her adoptive parents, Dorothy in particular, for her statement, pg. 243, to be believable, ‘…if our relationship (her and me) was to end I could accept it, but I couldn’t accept her calling in false child neglect reports for revenge.’ Fact remains that Joan’s calling abuse onto me was proven false, she apparently never gave it a thought that she herself could actually be wrong! So for her to attempt to use ‘concern’ over ‘revenge’ is another means of taking the light off her and unto someone else. Pay back’s a bitch! What is Joan going to do!
She has other concerns too, her own marriage and financial woes. It’s too bad that Joan didn’t pay closer attention to husband/father material or to saving money or getting a job, she could have saved herself a lot of grief. Instead we are treated to more of her tormented life that is filled with, pg 247, ‘…depression, being irritable, focusing on what she missed out of, had no money for rent or food, stayed home, government cheese and butter lines and food stamps, no diapers, waiting for unemployment benefits, then finally going on welfare…’ Welcome to the club! So, where was adopted ‘mommy’? So, where’s the husband? He went south without his family, nice guy! Pg 248 Joan laments that she has no one to ‘…help me cope with my feelings…cursed the failing economy…cursed my mother-in-law…cursed my husband for leaving…’ Where did Joan learn this lament? From Dorothy, we are hearing Dorothy speak here! What is Joan going to do when Dorothy dies! Pay back’s a bitch!
And where was her adoption support group? Are they helping her? Pg 249 ‘…wasn’t there for me…they viewed my personal story in the paper (Oct. 1984) as a egotistical gesture, not a means of getting a message out to the public…was criticized for being an ineffectual leader…’ Its common for newspapers, when doing ‘human interest’ stories to misquote or misled the words and actions of those they interview. Its always a mistake to think that newspapers will do you right, they are in the business of selling papers, like Joan selling this book, and what sells is not necessarily the truth but the sensationalism of a story.
Even our father, who was interviewed for the story, was misquoted, but, before she was to speak with him she jumped to conclusions, as she always does, and, pg 249, she ‘…was insulted…should have terminated our relationship at that point…father went public with clear intention to oppose me…yet nothing (she) said was meant to hurt or ridicule him…’ Amazing what happens when you don’t think before jumping into the fire! But that’s Joan for you; she never puts the brain in gear first, then wonders why everyone is out to get her! It’s called paranoia! And she is so ready to dump the birth father at the first opportunity, sounds like learned behavior to me! What is Joan going to do! Pay back’s a bitch!
(Ruth’s note: Joan agreed to be interviewed for an article on adoption in The Buffalo News. Apparently, according to Joan, the reporter misquoted her. I don’t think the reporter misquoted her at all. As I recall, Joan was quoted as getting the details of our mother’s death wrong, and that was why our maternal aunt called her up and bitched her out. Sounds like Joan. Because even in 2010, on her blog, Joan continues to detail our mother’s death wrong.
Joan then tells on page 249, that my father was in another article on adoption in The Buffalo, relating a birthparent’s view on being reunited with her. Joan trips up here. She quotes the paper, but puts it this way: “My father said..” but then on page 250, she says that my father said that the paper misquoted him. So her first statement should have read “The newspaper had my father saying…” For such an accomplished author, Joan sure makes a lot of contradictory mistakes.
So what did my father say? According the paper, “It was difficult to assimilate an adopted person into the existing structure.” And “Biological bonds don’t necessarily lead to a strong relationship…Don’t try to fit into that family. It doesn’t always work.”
Misquoted? I don’t think so. Sounds just like my father. And guess what people? He DID say this. I talked to him about the article and he didn’t say anything about the reporter misquoting him. And I totally agree with what he said BECAUSE IT’S THE DAM TRUTH. Joan and I share a biological bond with each other – do you see us all lovey-dovey?
Oh, but Joan has to go off the deep end and claim in her book that she was insulted by my father’s words. Nobody can have an opposing viewpoint to her without her reading insults into every dam word. Grow up Joan. Lots of people disagree with me – I don’t get insulted and go off bitching and moaning and claiming personal insults.
Oh, but on page 250, she relates a conversation with Dad, “I see your point, but I disagree,” she tells him. Gee, I didn’t see my father going off on a psychotic rant because gasp Joan disagreed with him and claiming Joan insulted him. But remember folks – Joan can disagree with YOU, but don’t you EVER disagree with HER! It’s right there in black and white on pages 249-250 – my father is not allowed to disagree with her, but she can disagree with him.
Gert does have a point about reporters misquoting people, but I don’t think that’s what happened here. — back to Gert’s post, which continues talking about the newspaper article:
In response to an adoptive parent saying there was a ‘fringe benefit’ to adopting foreign babies, Joan speaks with authority and says, pg 250, ‘…this wasn’t love, this was obsessive ownership of an innocent child….’ That certainly sounds like Dorothy speak to me! On pg 250 Joan explains, to our father, her version of why he had placed her up for adoption. She maintains ‘…the push was for you (dad) to give me (Joan) to two parents, to separate our family…’ She maintains that it could have been arranged differently with an open adoption where all would be known to each other. Joan does not understand the way the world operated in the 50’s. She is putting today’s notions, actually when she claims to have had this conversation it was 1985, so the 80s onto the 50s. It doesn’t work. Hollywood has been doing that ever since it began. You cannot put today’s language and social styles onto other time periods and be effective. 1950 views of family/adoption were very different from the 80s and today and no amount of telling yourself a fantasy everyday is going to change that reality. Joan doesn’t want to accept the fact of reality of the time period of her birth and the real circumstance that her father had to make for all of his family.
(Ruth’s note: and for the umpteenth time, in the 1950’s, THERE WERE NO DAYCARE CENTERS. NO WELFARE SYSTEM LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PRESENT OR EVEN IN THE 80’S. And as for Joan’s constant whining about KINSOLVING and GUARDIANSHIP– again, Joan refuses to accept what she has been told over and over and over again – THERE WAS NO ONE, NOT EVEN KIN WHO COULD HAVE TAKEN HER IN! Between my father’s parents being ELDERLY, one working outside the home, the other DEAF AND WITH ONE LEG, other relatives busy with their own numerous offspring, nobody (and that means KIN, was able to take in an entire family of 5 kids OR splitting them up permanently between relatives, it was decided by my father, WITHOUT coercion from the Catholic priest or other relatives, to give Joan to two parents. And as for the adoptee whine that an adoptive couple could divorce and the child would be in a single parent home – NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE FUTURE WILL BE – YOU MAKE DECISIONS ON THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES AND HOPE FOR THE BEST. THIS HAPPENS IN ALL-BIOLOGICAL FAMILIES TOO. ADOPTEES – GET OVER YOURSELVES).
On pg 251 is an example of neurotic sadomasochistic behavior, ‘…the growing bright spot was Mom. She lived in fear that I’d leave her again, but I reassured her that I wouldn’t. The pain of our recent past melted away as she lavished love on her only grandson.’ These two woman cannot live without each other. What is Joan going to do when Dorothy dies?
So she gains a copy of her adoption records and again reads into it what she wants it to be, not accepting it for what it actually is. She ‘learns a truth’ ‘…my natural father never signed a legal document that guaranteed him confidentiality, anonymity, or privacy. I noted that my adoptive parents weren’t required to stay away from my natural father. The only word of caution was to my natural father to not interfere with my life after adoption… the court document stated to refrain from doing or causing to be done any act or thing whatsoever which will in any way interfere with the rights, duties and privileges of said child when so adopted…’
Here are some important terms that Joan never has understood, to refrain from doing or causing to be done any act or thing whatsoever which will in any way interfere with the rights, duties and privileges of said child when so adopted…’ Gee, I remember that she did not refrain from doing or causing etc to my stepmother and father, when they were adopting, nor myself and my husband, when we were adopting.
From Joan’s reasoning she believes ‘… that the interference and disruption is for the natural mother’s protection not the adopted child’s.’ She believes that ‘…secrecy and anonymity were forced on natural parents…because closed adoption was designed to protect the reputation of single mothers and their children from the stigma of illegitimacy and to protect adopting parents from interference…’ And then she goes on a rampage. ‘…I’m not illegitimate. Why was I punished…why this label and stigma… babies aren’t illegitimate…this is a fabrication of a puritanical society hell-bent on scapegoating mothers and their children’. Joan really has no concept of the ways of the real world.
Here’s a huge fact, everyone knows who the mother is; it is the father that is the questionable parent. Get with it! It has nothing to do with ‘…a fabrication of a puritanical society hell-bent on scapegoating mothers and their children’ as Joan rants about. It has everything to do with establishing parenthood for purposes of heritage and inheritance. If there is money, land, social standing, and many other things, knowing the father is key to everything and it is true in every culture, every religion, every time period, except perhaps in today’s decadent culture. Joan is very confused on the real purpose of marriage, it’s called a contract. When there are children within the marriage there are issues of legitimacy for the sake of heritage and inheritance. There are reasons that children born out of wed lock are called illegitimate, they are not entitled to the name and heritage of the father’s side of the family, that is the whole reason for marriage in the first place. There are many reasons that children are adopted, as there are many reasons why parents, on both side, natural and adoptive, stay away from each other and not interfere and there are reasons why adoption records are secret and protected. But Joan shall never get it! What is Joan going to do with reality?
(Ruth’s note: Since Joan is in a perpetual state of denial regarding reality, she will wait until reality jumps up and bites her in the ass).
While Joan continues on with her struggles with adoption issues, her marriage having all the markings of eruption, she goes south to her husband. She sees that, without home or job, the real possibility that she will continue to be ‘…poor…but she didn’t want to live in a trailer park to become trailer trash…’ so she goes back to Buffalo while the husband flies back south to provide better for her and she is pregnant again. What Joan has never learned is ‘To know you have enough is to be rich’….Tao Te Ching. But she doesn’t know that so…What is Joan going to do! Pay back’s a bitch!
Ruth’s note: to dispel any confusion (or actually to add to the confusion), Joan’s adoptive mother Dorothy Wheeler uses two names: Doloris and Dorothy. We were introduced to her in 1974 as Dorothy. I always knew her by that name. When I found out years later that she also goes by Doloris, I asked Joan about that. Joan didn’t know why either.
As proof that Mrs. Wheeler goes by two names, I offer this screenshot, from public records, from Erie County.
off topic – Prayers offered for Japan March 11, 2011Posted by Ruth in Dreams, Inconsistent Angel Things.
Offer up your prayers and candles for Japan
Victims of the earthquake and tsunami
and for Mother Gaia
Japanese for “blessings” – wishing shukufuku for the Japanese people. One of my longtime dreams is to learn Japanese. This is a start.
a painting of Japanese chrysantemums, the symbol of the Imperial family of Japan
Tags: adoption, adoption reunion, blaming people for your own mess, books about adoption, books about adoption reunion, contributing the deliquency of a minor, emf press, emotional abuse, false child abuse calls, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements
Publisher of EMK Press,
It is my understanding that you have received a submission, in October, from one Joan Wheeler for a book your publishing house is producing on adoption reunions. Joan Wheeler has published a book called Forbidden Family.
I am a birth sister to Joan Wheeler. I and other sisters, on a blog, are refuting that book because it is full of lies, misrepresentations and exaggerations of family members and others and is nothing more than a hateful rage against everyone in her life. Our blog is called, Refuting a book of Lies; Forbidden Family@ ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com. We also have a ‘book review’ of it on Amazon.com. I encourage you to look at them both before you accept and publish anything from Joan Wheeler.
Here is what she said to me:
I wanted to let you know I received your letter concerning your birth-sister’s submission to our adoption reunion book. The book is still in production and want explore all aspects of reunion, not just for adoptees but the experiences of birth family too.
This book is not about pointing fingers but about the emotions that swirl during a reunion from all the sides. We hope the book can be used as a tool to create a healthy and successful reunion for everyone, that by seeing a different perspective than their own, readers can learn what it feels like to be on the other end of the emotions reunion brings.
Reunions aren’t always about happy endings; separation takes its toll on everyone. I’d like to respectfully ask you to share your story. Reunion is complex and I think your perspective could be valuable.
And here is my response to her:
To LewEllen Singley
Thank you for your recent letter regarding my comments to your Press about publishing anything from Joan Wheeler, a birth sister that was placed in adoption.
I must point out, to you, that my reasons for informing you was so that you, and your publication, would have an opportunity to research and investigate the legitimacy of any statements from Joan Wheeler because, frankly she is a liar and anything she has to offer would not be of benefit to the book you feel ‘can be used as a tool to create a healthy and successful reunion’.
In your letter to me you state ‘This book is not about pointing fingers but about the emotions that swirl during a reunion from all the sides.’ Fine, but do you really want to publish the words of a liar? The adage ‘if the shoe fits’…fits here. Joan Wheeler’s book, Forbidden Family, is nothing but a long painful account of the author’s mental illness and her ‘mental impressions’ of what happened to her and not restricted to ‘reunion’.
Personally, I have no interests in any aspect of the adoption scene. All my ‘emotions that swirl’ from every second of ‘reunion’ with this adoptee has been nothing short of pain! My main concerns are that I am refuting and condemning a book that is full of lies, rage and hate by its author and restoring the honor to myself and my entire family from the hate and lies of 35 years by the united adoptee. But, your suggestion that my ‘perspective could be valuable’ is somewhat appealing. So, here is my perspective that you may publish, if you choose.
Reunion of birth siblings with adopted sibling; not for the faint of heart, you could be burnt.
Within a very short period of time after the adopted sibling was found, by birth sisters, the adopted sister began creating intense episodes of interference in birth family members’ affairs. Adopted sister would never accept a ‘no’ from any family member but inflicted her views and when not accepted, adopted sister retaliated in various forms of anti-social behavior to reunited birth family members.
My reunited adopted sister was, and still is, so against any form of adoption, that she thought it was her ‘right’ to get in between the adoption processes of others. The first was to interfere with the process of my father’s adoption of a stepchild. The second was to interfere with the process of my own adoption of my own child. When the reunited adopted sister was told to back off, it’s none of her business, the united adopted sister retaliated by causing major trouble.
In the case of my father (who was birth father to reunited adopted child) the reunited adoptive child began a campaign of projected internalized negativity toward every member of the united family because she could not accept the fact that the father that ‘gave her away’ was now ‘adopting’ another child. The reunited adopted sister saw everyone as ‘out to get her’.
In the case of myself, the reunited adopted sister, believed I was ‘harming’ my child by ‘adoption’ and when I told her to leave us alone, she proceeded to interfere in my parental authority with my minor children. I had to forbid the reunited adopted sister from having any contact with my minor children. In retaliation she called child abuse on me. That false case was quickly dismissed because I was already in an intense background check for the adoption proceedings. Shortly after that episode she called in a second false child abuse report on me, claiming sexual abuse, when one of my children ran-away after I moved my family away from reunited adopted sister. During that episode reunited adopted sister lied to family and police about the whereabouts of my minor child and eventually filed for custody of my child. After I placed my own child in protective custody, of the county, to keep her away from reunited adopted sister, I had a court hearing that proved I was innocent of all charges and the case was expunged. These events and the damage that resulted was 30 years ago, 1981 and 1982, but the reunited adopted sister, in her book that she published in 2009, lies and misrepresents everything and retells more lies about it. Why?
Because…‘she alone is the adoptee’ and the birth family members ‘harmed’ the adoptee and they must be exposed.
I attempted two reconciliatory attempts, in person in 1992 and a phone call around 2005. Both times the reunited adoptive sister smiled to my face and then betrayed me again. In 1992, by condemning my religion and calling my mental state into question to family members. In 2005, lead me to believe that she ‘loved me’ when indeed she thought I was ‘looking for information’. In her book, this united adopted sister fabricates outrages fantasies about these two events to prove ‘her’ belief that I am ‘out to get her’.
Since the publication of her book, in 2009, I have spoken out against it, because of the malicious hateful rages and lies within it and the need to restore my family’s honor that has been sullied by this book.
And I am only ONE member of the reunited family. Other birth family members have been accused, by the reunited adoptee, of various forms of harassment to the reunited adoptive sister, when in fact the family members were the victims of harassment and abuse by the reunited adopted sister. Reunited adopted sister, stole, from reunited birth family members, money, personal properties and reputations and then wrote a book of lies to victimized us all, again.
Moral of the story; know the background of the adoptive family that adopted the united adoptee and know how the adoptee was raised, before REUNION. For, even though you may be of the same blood, the adoptee is NOT a member of your family. Once adopted, by non-blood, the adoptee cannot relate with blood family members because they were NOT raised with them and therefore have not the same common backgrounds and mind sets. It was our family’s bad luck to have a reunion with someone who happens to be mentally impaired. Reunion, proceed at your own risk.
So LewEllen, you can publish my statement or not, doesn’t matter to me, I don’t care. All I care about is that this particular ‘reunited adopted sister’ caused severe damage, still is causing severe damage and certainly her story is not going to help your book to be ‘used as a tool to create a healthy and successful reunion’ because she is mentally unstable. Read her book and then tell me differently.
So will I, Gert McQueen, have a say in a book about adoption reunions? And will I, Gert McQueen, share space in the same book with Joan Wheeler? Just think of the possibilities!!!
I have the snail mail and email addresses…any ONE interested please let me know. Anyone who has anything to say about adoption reunions with this particular adoptee, Joan Wheeler, is more than welcome to contact me or Ruth and we will help get you in contact to submit your story for this publication. Of course, I can’t guarantee acceptance, but at least you would have your say on YOUR experiences with this particular adoptee. I say…GO FOR IT. SAY WHAT YOU HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO SAY TO JOAN WHEELER, AND SAY IT IN A BOOK!
I just might submit something myself!
Tags: harassment of an adoptee's birth family
the following didn’t show up as I had hoped. but it’s a cute little game. Perhaps Joan should play it and get her f’ing frustrations of life out in a healthy way instead of putting slanderous and filthy lies about her birth sisters all over the internet
<table border=”2″ cellpadding=”5″ cellspacing=”45″ bordercolor=”#8FB2CE” background=”http://virtual-bubblewrap.com/images/bubblebadgebg.jpg” bgcolor=”#FFFFFF”><tr> <td valign=”middle” bgcolor=”#FFFFFF”><p align=”center”><font color=”#FF0000″><b>I pop bubble wrap at 1.80 bubbles per second!</b></font></p> <p align=”center”><font color=”#0033CC”>I popped 196 bubbles in 1 minute and 48.8 seconds<br /> at <a href=”www.Virtual-Bubblewrap.com!http://www.virtual-bubblewrap.com”><b>www.Virtual-Bubblewrap.com</b></a>!<br />Can you beat my score?</font></p></td></tr></table>
Joan Wheeler lies again about her birth sisters on the Huffington Post site March 4, 2011 March 5, 2011Posted by Ruth in a. What is demanded from Joan Wheeler - the purpose of this blog., Announcements and updates, Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, adoption, adoption reform, being downright nasty, contradictions, embellishing the truth, false accusations, First Amendment: Free Speech, fish stories, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
by Ruth Pace
On March 4, 2011, Joan Wheeler continued her character assassination and smear campaign against her birth sisters. Why? Because Gert and I dared to post a comment on the Huffington Post forum. Which is our RIGHT as Americans.
Answering an article entitled “Adoptees are Americans,” Joan Wheeler had made references AGAIN to her birth family. She has no right to be posting about ME or MY family. In her comment, Joan said that she was adopted when she was 4 months old. In my answering comment, I said that she was adopted when she was 3 months old. Joan answered and pointed out that she was 3 months old when our mom died and was adopted out a month later. I saw that she was correct, and posted again, admitting to my mistake. I do this, see, because unlike Joan, I ADMIT TO WHEN I AM WRONG!
However, Joan decided to take things to a further level. Instead of correcting me and leaving it at that, Joan just HAD to start her lying again. After she corrected me, she goes on to say that Gert and I are stalking her. And she says that she has not had a relationship with us for more than 3 decades.
Call it stalking if you want, but yes, we monitor what Joan posts on the internet, BECAUSE WE AS AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT IS BEING SAID ABOUT US AND OUR FAMILY. If Joan does not like that, the solution is obvious: JOAN NEEDS TO STOP POSTING ABOUT HER BIRTH FAMILY!
Why do we take this stand? Because whenever Joan posts about us, it usually lies, inuendos, misreprsentations, false accusations, and exaggerations.
Case in point: right there in her return comment to me, she says “I have had no relationship with them for over 3 decades!”
THIS IS A FALSEHOOD! This is the year 2011. 3 decades is 30 years, which takes us back to 1981. Well, for crying out loud, I was one of her bridesmaids in the year 1983! She admits to this in her lying book Forbidden Family. And in her book, she relates outings to the beach with me in the years 1988 – 1990!
So when I commented, I pointed this discrepency out to her. What was her response? She goes on the attack – because in her faulty brain, she thinks that I, and my sister do not have the right to correct her. She can correct me, but will not accept a correction in turn. So she posts several posts on the Huffington site and slanders and libels us again.
Sorry Joan, but I am an American. I have the right to comment on the internet when someone lies about me or my family. If you don’t like that, then stop lying. Get used to the fact that whenever you post a lie, it WILL be answered and refuted!
Joan’s problem is that she has diarrhea of the mouth – everytime she tells a story she embellishes it. Witness the fact that she says she has had no relationship with us for over 3 decades! She touts herself as being an author – but she hasn’t learned the basics of truthtelling! She demands the truth in adoption and birth certificates, but does not deal in the truth herself!
When Joan posts on the internet about adoption, we are silent, because we don’t care about her adoption reform work. It doesn’t bother us one whit about her passion on adoption. But when she starts posting about us, or our family, you better believe we sit up and take notice – because as AMERICANS, we have that right. And we claim that right.
Joan, accept it – we are watching. If you post about us, it better be the truth – because we will always come right back at ya!