jump to navigation

Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler Chapter 22- More of the same, payback’s a bitch and what is Joan going to do! March 16, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
trackback

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.

Advertisements
%d bloggers like this: