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!
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 1 November 10, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, adoption, birth certificates, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part One by Gert McQueen, April 22, 2010
John Adams, before he became the 1st vice President and the 2nd President of the USA, defended some British soldiers against some citizens of Boston, in what became known as the Boston Massacre. He won the case for the soldiers because of the facts of the case. In his address to the jury he said…
“Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” from David McCullough’s book, John Adams.
In chapter 18 Liverpool 79, Joan tells of another trip to visit birth sister Kathy, who has told us, in another post, of that visit, from her own mouth about what actually did happen…facts are stubborn things.
Here are a few adjectives and phrases that Joan uses to describe her natural father, her birth siblings and her perceptions of us in our relationships with her: the tyrant (pg178), I am the throw away baby (pg180), why does she hates me (pg 180), leader of this great band of mixed-up, tormented kids (pg 180), what crime did I commit, her behavior now baffled me (pg 180), knew she despised me (pg 183), introduced me as ‘the American’, I felt betrayed, unloved, I was frightened (pg 184), I loved a sister who didn’t love me back (pg185). According to Joan these are facts, but are they? …facts are stubborn things.
The beginning efforts to write her book came from and with a friend in the Division of Youth, in 1980, where Joan had a part time job. On pg 190 she states, ‘Without warning or training, I took a job as a Youth Transfer Agent with the N Y State Division of Youth. I’d be working with teenagers between the ages of 13 to 18 and most of these teens were youth offenders.’ Remember this! It is because of her association with this Division of Youth where Joan gets her ‘authority’ to interfere in my and my children’s lives later on. Remember this also! In 1980 I remarried and my new husband and I were beginning the process of adopting my children! … facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 19 Tucson; she has now saved enough money to visit birth brother Leonard. Amazing isn’t it that she has all this ability to travel and visit while everyone else in the family must work to keep roof and food! She says she arrived, for a two-week visit, on August 20, the day I remarried; my honeymoon was a weekend camping trip that included my children! …facts are stubborn things.
My brother, amongst many things, belonged to a reenactment group, SCA, Society of Creative Anachronism. Most that are in these groups are in it for entertainment and historical reasons and most groups do not allow any form of ‘religious’ overtones in their ‘character personas’. When she leaves Tucson she has a contact name of a member in Buffalo’s chapter of Medieval reenactment groups. Remember this! Because this is the beginning of how, when and why she gets her authority to condemn my religious beliefs and question my mental health some 12 years later! She like, so many others, confuse SCA activities with real and true religious reawakening and reconstruction! … facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 20 is a redundant chapter, (about birth certificates) we have heard this so many times before, totally unnecessary. But it does prove the facts of Joan’s inability to accept the ways of the world, be they semantics (pg 201) of the legal system or the facts that people and institutions do not behave the way Joan thinks they are behaving. ‘I (she) knew the clerks (in the vital Statistics offices) lied’ (pg 199) ‘an underhanded compliment meant to insult me’, ‘felt guilty…that’s how this man wanted me to feel’ (pg 202) Pg 203,‘Some people have argued that I set myself up for pain’…sure looks that way from here! And the greatest of all, pg 203, ‘I began to think less and less of my own personal situation and more and more of how our laws and social practices were imbedded into our culture and what changes were needed to make this a more humane system.’
Remember I have already told, in another post, of how, when Joan was shy and new to the militaristic crusade of adoption reform, when she upset my stepmother over my father’s adoption of her daughter, Joan was not quite sure of herself. But now she is! She overcame her shyness and she was very insistent that she is right and everyone else is wrong. Oh sure she was not thinking of herself, when she called me an unfit mother, for giving up my child for adoption. Forget the fact that I was adopting him! She was thinking about making things more humane, ha! You should have seen her in my kitchen, ranting and raving about how wrong I was to ‘give up’ my child and what harm I was doing to him. So much so I had to kick her out of my home! Sound familiar, doesn’t she tell us that our father kicked her out of his home too! …. facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 21 cancer and sibling rivalry; I have no way of addressing the situations about Joan’s adoptive father’s illness etc. but I certainly can and will address (pg 213) ‘…trouble brewing between my (her) eldest sister (me) and myself (her).’ It had nothing to do with ‘sibling rivalry’ but all about interfering trouble that was ALL Joan’s doing… facts are stubborn things.
From our very beginning, in 1979, my second husband wanted to adopt both my children, they were 14 and 15 when we married. It should also be noted that my family had been in family counseling for over 2 years before and during our marriage, so that, as a new family, we could all integrate more smoothly. We had already been investigating adoption and upon my wedding, August 1980, the kids believed that as my name changed so would theirs. We went through the usual background investigations that come with adopting, we had an attorney and because of their ages the children had to speak with the judge and give their own reasons for or against being adopted.
At that time my daughter was having a normal major identity crisis and wanted to spend time with her natural/birth father. While I thought it would be of no help I allowed my daughter to live with her natural father. It did not prove successful and after some intense disappointments with her natural father she returned home to me and my husband. She came to the conclusion that she wanted to keep her own identity, not go through a name change, because she was going to marry soon anyway. She did when she was 17. While my husband was disappointed that my daughter did not want to be adopted it did not alter how he felt about her; he loved her still and treated her as if she was his. My son had no objections and wanted to be adopted. Their natural father gave permission and signed the necessary papers; he wanted to be freed from total responsibility, a responsibility my husband was willing to give, in fact had been giving. The judge spoke with them without the parents’ presence. The judge said to us later, referring to my husband, ‘that he wished more fathers would be attentive to their children has this man does’. My son was 16, in 1981, when he was adopted. … facts are stubborn things. – (Ruth’s note: as I was a constant in Gert’s and her children’s lives – and they lived 2 blocks from me at this time period – I can attest that this is all true!)
Raising teenagers is never an easy task and when there are stepparents there are always additional elements but when you add a meddling interfering relative that has an obsessive agenda you have a receipt for disaster. Enter Joan into my family where she had no business. … facts are stubborn things.
So where are Joan’s credentials? Was she an attorney? What vast years of wisdom and experience did she have when (pg 213) she came barging into my home, obstructing my parental authority, our family’s core business, confusing my minor children with her faulty reasoning, asserting that her decisions and recommendations were in the best interests to my children and that I was to instantly follow them? (Ruth’s note: Gert already has quoted Joan stating on page 190 that when she took her job as a Youth Transfer Agent (driver) she was “without warning or TRAINING.” And at this point in time, Joan was not a mother herself. And remember her occupation: DRIVER – it is important in a few pages.)
Joan states: ‘…(my son) was 14, a bit too old for stepparent adoption.’ (Ruth’s note: can Joan EVER get dates and ages correct? Yes – my nephew was born in 1965, therefore, in 1981, he was 16).
I answer: Where does she get this nonsense? A person can be adopted at any age.
Joan states: ‘When they told me about it (my son’s adoption) I (she) was hurt and angry and very protective of his rights…I tried to get them to see that an older child’s identity would change and his birth certificate would be sealed….but they wouldn’t understand.’
I answer: Oh we understood all right! What right does she have to get in the middle of another’s adoption proceeding? Who asked her to ‘protect’ my son’s rights? I thought the judge and adoption laws were doing just fine without her. Oh I forgot, Joan does not understand nor trust the legal systems of this country. As far as his ‘identity’, he kept his first name and changed his middle and last names; that was his choice and decision. He has never had an identity crisis of any kind and never had any problem getting into the military, (unlike Joan who used her adoption/birth records as a means not to enter military service), or obtaining marriage licenses or anything else he needed, his birth certificate is NOT sealed (he has both) or any other kind of troubles.
Joan states: ‘instead of listening to me they accused me of being too sensitive…they insisted I was obsessed with adoption, they were going ahead with the adoption…’
I answer: If the shoe fits, no one can talk to Joan about adoption because only Joan is the expert, so yes she is too sensitive and obsessed.
Joan states: ‘…(he) would adopt only the older teen…he wouldn’t adopt the younger one’
I answer: I have already told the background of this. Joan doesn’t repeat the truth of things because it just will not ‘fit into’ her version of the story, she has to sell the book! … facts are stubborn things.
On pg 214 Joan states: ‘that was just the beginning’
I answer: It sure was! and before we get any further it must be said that there were many layers of different situations happening at the same period of time in which Joan has convoluted, combined and other wise mixed together, as well as leaving out some very valuable pieces of the puzzle, that she was intimately involved with and responsible for. That being said, after I kicked her out of my home, for her disruptions about our adoption plans, I paid no attention to her, until she began the next episode of interfering in my family, a year later, but before we get to that I must give some background facts. … facts are stubborn things.
Again, on pg 214, Joan states ‘…(she) had been subjected to sexual advances from (me)’. She continues on with her take on it ‘…(she) was told to keep quiet’. Bullshit! Joan is using this crap as her ‘reasons’ for interfering into my family, but I don’t want to get too far ahead here…so
Let’s talk again, remember I discussed this in another post, about the so-called sexual advances that Joan said happened between her and myself, but also let’s talk about the actual sexual situation with my husband and us. That right, my husband! Oh did Joan not say anything about that in her book? Oh dear me, that must be that BIG SECRET she didn’t write about that I should be so afraid of her telling! Gotcha, Joan! You can’t blackmail me and hold me hostage to your warped mind! For the record: there were no sexual advances by me to her in 1976, she has fabricated that lie to be able to use it later on in her fabrications to cover up the real and actual sexual encounter that she herself was involved in and to take the light off herself and put it on my husband and myself. … facts are stubborn things.
It does surprises me that Joan hasn’t mentioned the experiment between the three of us in her book, at least as far as I can see she hadn’t, but then again if she mentions it than she can’t blame me for her own bad judgments and meddling now can she. Truth is that one night, long before Joan decided to involve herself within our adoption proceedings, my husband and I had dinner with Joan at her apartment. One thing lead to another and all three of us decided to explore the ‘girl on girl’ aspect, it was nothing really, not anything I cared to explore further, nor did my husband, nor Joan herself, to the best of my knowledge. Was she abused? Taken advantage of? Told never to talk about it? No, she was willing. There now you have it, if it isn’t the truth, why should I admit to this? Will Joan deny it, perhaps, but I got it out and she can’t blackmail me! Joan fabricates things so as not to involve herself. The whole episode regarding my daughter, in which Joan does not tell of her actions, is to make my husband and myself out to be the big bad guys. In fact it was Joan’s fabricating and involving outsiders that took my daughter away from me. Joan does not tell of her own deeds or the whole story of what happened…but I will! … facts are stubborn things.
Jumping ahead a bit, to get continuity, on pg 220, even though she is not writing about it, she seems to have, that girl on girl episode, on her mind, as she writes, trying to fit untruths in her version of the story, because she wonders, in print, if she committed adultery. If I had made sexual advances to Joan, as she says I did back in 76, and then in 81 she starts to question whether she herself was a lesbian or not and whether she was an adulterer would mean I must have been married when I made the so-called sexual advances to her in 76. I was not married in 76 when she says I made advances, but now in 81 she says I abused her, I violated her. Bull shit! This is her faulty reasoning and her neglect in not telling of her own involvement in sexual activities. She uses this method of thinking and non-thinking to justify her actions when she claims my daughter is being sexual abused by my husband. Oh, but of course, that’s how she gets back at him! Oh no, we shall go back to this page later, because this is too precious not to explore further. … facts are stubborn things.
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 2 November 10, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, being downright nasty, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, passing assumptions off as truth, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 2 by Gert
Now, before going back to pg 214, we must clear up some things regarding my daughter. She had some issues dealing with her natural father’s rejections, my re-marrying and subsequently having a new father in the house. Both my children had not had a father in residence for over 10 years before I remarried. Couple that with puberty and two aunts, Ruth and Joan, who were closer in age to her and more willing to take what she said about her home life as ‘not within the norm’; what teenager likes the rules at home. My daughter had a pattern of various forms of ‘running away’, from finding school mates that were inappropriate, to hanging out with the older kids, to wanting to belong to a Black church group, to finding a woman who had a mental illness who wanted to adopt her, to wanting to have a baby. Yes we were strict, we had to be. Yes we had problems, we were in counseling! But remember this, this was the beginning of the age, culturally, where the parents’ authority was being undermined by not being able to discipline there own child. The child had the rights, the parents’ only right they had was to pay the bills! I had a counselor who would not tell me, when I asked where my daughter was, when she ran away, because of my daughter’s confidentiality, but I had to pay the bill! And yes not everything was perfect and peaceful and pleasant at home. Yes there was domestic violence, but there was no sexual abuse of any kind regardless of appearances and teenage opinions. …. facts are stubborn things.
So on pg 214 Joan states that my daughter told her about changes in family behavior, skinny dripping in particular and Joan takes it upon herself to see ‘huge red flags’ and so she ‘…suspected her (my daughter) to be in danger of sexual abuse by her step-father….with a former co-worker from the NY State Division of Youth…discussed and agreed there was concern and made the phone call to child abuse hotline.’ And as she said ‘the next few months were pure hell’.
What Joan, again, does not write about is that she was warned by Ruth not to involved authorities, they had no real evidence to any abuse, that to do so would cause real trouble, but Joan never listens to anyone but herself and yes it was pure hell. But it is not true, as Joan states, ‘…that (my daughter) was removed from her home and placed in foster care.’ That all happened because of Joan’s actions with a runaway child, my child and much later than when Joan states it happened and how it happen! On pg 221 she states that we moved hundreds of miles away and that my child was placed near me for visits and that all this happened in 1981, wrong, wrong and wrong. Here then is the real story…. facts are stubborn things.
As mentioned before my daughter had a runaway problem, we had to keep close tabs on her at all times. My second husband’s family was based in the country outside of Binghamton NY and we, as a family, had traveled there and visited many times since 1979. As a family we decided to move from Buffalo NY to Binghamton for quality of life issues, we found jobs and moved there August of 82. It was over a year since we adopted my son and that we had any contact with Joan. Of course my daughter did not like this move. Here’s a fact of life, she was a minor, she does not dictate what the family does, the parents do and Joan and Ruth did not like the fact that we took the children away from their ‘roots’. Too bad! I will not now as I did not then justify my decisions I made for my family and no one, blood relative or not, has the right to interfere with my minor children, period, end of story. …. facts are stubborn things.
So we moved and within one week my daughter is a runaway. This is when ‘it was pure hell’, in the fall of 1982 and it started with Joan taking the words of a runaway minor and calling child abuse on the parents, her own sister! Don’t believe all this self-serving crap of hers on pg 214, its all bullshit. As far as the phone calls at that time, yes there were some phone calls, I was trying to find my daughter! But did I do all that Joan says I did like ‘every two hours until 4 AM every day of the week’, is she nuts? I lived hundreds of miles away, still had to go to work while I searched for my daughter and I had another child to care for. It is only in Joan’s diseased mind that sees other doing what she herself does. …. facts are stubborn things.
To make a very long painful story short, my daughter runs away, missing person’s report is filed, family members are called and are asked to make calls to Ruth and Joan, we the parents are lied to, my sisters knew where she was, she was with them. When I find out that my daughter is back in Buffalo, at her old school, we travel back there to collect her. There is a physical confrontation between parents and child in the school where daughter says ‘rape’, police are called, and daughter is taken away and given in temporary custody to Ruth. Because of different counties I have to go back home and then file a PINS (person in need of supervision) with Family court in county where my child is residing. It is during this time period that Joan calls the child abuse hotline, not earlier. (Ruth’s note: Joan called child abuse on Gert twice – the first time before the family moved from Buffalo, then again after Karen ran away). While waiting for Family court dates I am investigated no less than on three separate charges of child abuse. When finally arriving at court and am granted the PINS and request that she be put in a foster home in the country so as to lessen her means of running away. So let me be perfectly clear here: once I found my daughter and was in court it was I who asked for her to be place in foster care, for I knew then that no one else could touch her. I was lucky, my daughter was one month shy of 16. If she were 16 or older I would have lost any hope of gaining control of her behavior for the laws state that at 16 a person can do as they please, but, the parents still had to pay the bills! …. facts are stubborn things.
I then asked for a home study to be done on my two sisters who had sued me for being an unfit parent. How interesting that after my family had passed investigations to adopt that all of a sudden we were abusers and unfit! My sisters were proved to be unsuitable to raise a child. My child was placed in a foster home near where we had already moved to, in other words where we already lived, where my child ran away from, not the way that Joan portrayed it on pg 221. The results were proven that my husband and I acted in every way ‘rightfully to protect our minor child’ and were ‘not guilty of any form of child abuse’. I still have the original 16-page document if anyone cares to check my account of this tragedy. But the damage that Joan started and did was long lasting. …. facts are stubborn things.
My daughter stayed in the foster home for about a year and then she ran away again, this time not from me but from Social Services and Family Court. In early 1984, at the age of 17, I petitioned the court to give my daughter her emancipation, which meant her freedom. She became a full-fledged adult at 17, not entitled to child support, which also relinquished me from any debts related to her. She married shortly after that. …. facts are stubborn things.
Unfortunately the damage that my daughter did, by the word rape, which was put in her mouth by my sisters and carried to the abuse hotline and to the court by Joan, destroy my family. Did Joan win anything here, did she stop any abuse? No all she did was destroy a family. To this day my children, both of them, hate her as does my former husband, his family and I. The stress of those days killed our marriage, all that man wanted was to be a father to my two children, but because Joan is so wrongly obsessed with faulty thinking about adoption she had to kill my family…. facts are stubborn things.
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 November 10, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: adoption, being downright nasty, blaming people for your own mess, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 By Ruth Pace
On page 214 Joan relates her version of a very painful episode in our family’s history. And of course, Joan twists everything around, trying to be the “heroine” of the situation, AND getting details all wrong – I mean, for such a “truthful” book, I find very little truth in 4 paragraphs on page 214. First she says that my niece Karen (Beth) was 13 years old. WRONG – she was 15. As I have pointed out many times on this blog and just recently in the post Facts are Stubborn Things Part 1 Joan keeps getting dates and ages wrong. On page 204, she says that Gert’s kids were around 14 and 15 years old.
Getting back to page 214, Joan rehashes her “sexual abuse” supposedly by Gert. Which had nothing to do with Karen’s situation. Joan relates that on a camping trip the family went skinny dipping and Karen confided in her that she did not want to swim in the nude. HALF-WRONG! Karen did not confide this to Joan, she confided it to ME, and Karen already (several months ago) posted a comment right here on this blog stating to that fact. And as to Joan saying that Karen was “forced” to swim naked – WRONG! She declined to swim naked, she kept her swimsuit on. The family was experimenting in skinny dipping, the children were not forced into anything.
At all times, Gert let the kids make many of their own decisions, as long as those decisions did not go against the rules of the household – and those rules were reasonable, and not abnormal in any way – rules such as doing homework, chores, no drugs or booze, etc.
Joan says “The way I saw it, my 13 year old niece was in danger and I acted out of love for her. If my sister and my husband weren’t harming Beth/Karen the truth would win out.” Like this is an excuse to call child abuse on someone? NO, she did NOT interfere out of love for Karen, but for revenge against Gert – because as Gert has said, she threw Joan out of her house and life for her interference with the adoption of her son, and no, Joan is WRONG when she says on the top of page 214, that Gert’s new husband “would only adopt the older teen; he wouldn’t adopt Beth, (Karen) the younger one.”
He asked to adopt BOTH kids. Karen declined. She wanted to retain her biological father’s name. Gert and Jim were fine with Karen’s decision.
As to the skinny-dipping episode, geez, are people who live in nudist colonies automatically assumed to be child predators? It’s just an alternative lifestyle, and means nothing. And there are lots of places in Europe – Sweden for one place, who have NUDE BEACHES, where entire families swim in the nude! If Gert and Jim and Gert’s son were comfortable skinny-dipping, fine. If Karen was not, fine. What’s the big deal?
I am going to clarify just what happened in 1982 to our family. Gert knows some of the story, but not all. Because when Karen ran away in early September 1982, I filed for custody of Karen. This put a tremendous strain on my relationship with Gert. We did not speak to each other for 10 years. In 1992, when Gert came to Buffalo for a family reunion, we reconciled. Lest anyone think that we did not reconcile and have only “come together” for writing this blog – to “gang up” on Joan – nope. In 1997, when Gert’s first husband died, I put her and her kids up in my house. She has been back for visits in Buffalo a few more times, and each time we have gotten together for dinner or lunch. We have been in touch via snail mail, email and telephone BEFORE the publication of Joan’s filthy book and the inception of this blog. And when I say that Gert does not know the entire story of what happened with me and her daughter – I mean that she knows the gist of it – but not all the details. When we talked about it – we didn’t go into detail, because we just didn’t feel the need to rehash it all – she got a lot of the story from Karen herself – so we two just didn’t go over it all – we weren’t dwelling on the past – only the future – and our newly repaired relationship.
So just what did happen in 1982? And it was not Joan who acted out of love for our niece, as she states on page 214, but ME. I had always been very close to Gert’s 2 children from the time they were born. Around 1979, Gert moved to an apartment only 2 blocks from me. The kids were always at my house. Gert had met a man who would soon become her second husband. I liked him at first, but soon after he moved in with Gert, there were several instances of him hitting her. I did not like that he was hitting my sister, I didn’t know how to help Gert.
After about a year of his living with Gert, my niece started to complain to me of certain things about him and Gert. I wasn’t sure what was going on. My ex-husband Abdo and I had moved to a different section of the city, so I was not as close to the situation as I once was.
Gert has already related some of Karen’s problems as a young teen: she had run away from home once before, was going to see a counselor, and hooked up with a friend, whose mother wanted to adopt her! I remember one evening, Gert called me on the phone for help. Karen was at this woman’s house and refused to come home. The woman told Gert that she was keeping Karen. My friend Francine and I, accompanied Gert and Jim to the house and retrieved Karen. Gert made a stop at a police station, where a police officer laid the law down on Karen.
Next thing I knew, I’m getting reports about bad it was at home from Karen. Could she come and move in with me and Abdo? Karen told me that she wanted to run away again. I told her NOT to run away. I told her if she did, seeing as she was only 15, her mother would slap a PINS (Persons In Need of Supervision) warrant on her. I told Karen to discuss the situation with her counselor. I told her that until she was 16, there was nothing to be done, unless there was actual child abuse going on, and Karen had already told me that that was not happening. I also told her that she should stick it out at home until she was 16, and if she still wanted to leave home, that she should tell her counselor, and ask to be emancipated, and check into a group home that was located in Hamburg, NY. Once that was done, I would be in a position to apply for custody of her. I also told her to obey the rules of her home and to discuss everything with her counselor.
I wasn’t sure what was going on. Could there be some trouble in Gert’s house other than Jim occasionally putting his hands on Gert? Karen didn’t say that Jim had hurt her, she was uncomfortable when Gert and Jim went skinny dipping during a camping trip. Karen kept insisting that she didn’t “like” Jim. I didn’t know if this was just a typical 15 year old resisting a new step-parent, or was something really go on. So I had a talk with my friend Francine and with Joan. I told them both what Karen said. I asked them both, that whenever they visited Gert’s house, to keep an eye open – to see if there was anything we really should be concerned about. I told them that Karen had not said that anything in particular happened, she was concerned about her stepfather hitting her mother, and was worried about it happening to her – or worse.
Joan immediately began saying we should call child abuse on the family. I asked her “Why?” We have no real proof that anything is really going on. And if we do call and there hasn’t been anything happening, then things are going to get out of control. Just leave it alone. “
Joan then suggested that she talk to her boss at the Department of Youth. I again told her no. I told her not to bring strangers into our family business. Again, I told her to leave it alone. “Just go over and visit as you normally do, and keep an eye on the situation.”
But did Joan do what I wanted? Oh, NO! JOAN, the EXPERT – went and talked to her boss anyway! As I feared, he went and called child abuse and everything blew up! (a quick note here – we have only Joan’s word that this is what happened – because now, 28 years later, I suspect it was Joan herself who called child abuse on Gert).
I was at work one night and I got a phone call – from Gert – asking if I had called child abuse on her. I was so surprised that I couldn’t talk – I stuttered, “I can’t talk about this right now – I’m at work.” (and yes, there were people standing around me, and I was expected to be working, not on the phone). Gert said “By your response – I know you did it.” And she hung up on me.
I called Joan up the next morning and that’s when she told me what she did. I yelled at her – “Gert is hopping mad – I told you to leave it alone. Now we are cut off from Karen, and if she really needed our help, now we can’t give it.”
It was a few days before I could talk to Karen, I don’t remember if I called her, or she called me. But she told me what happened. She also was mad that child abuse was called. She was taken by surprise – she had no idea child protective services was coming, and they interviewed her at the kitchen table. The child protective services worker determined that there was no threat in the house.
The result of Joan’s meddling was that Jim and Gert decided to move away from Buffalo – and yes, Gert is correct in saying in her post that I was mad that she was taking the kids away from me – I had known those kids from the day they were both born. In some ways, I was their second mother – although I never undermined Gert’s authority. I was not only mad, I was hurt. But there was nothing I could do. Gert was their parent, not me.
Gert and Jim did not move from Buffalo until the end of the school year – but Joan, and I, were forbidden to see the kids, or talk to them. I fed those babies their bottles, I changed their diapers, I saw them grow up, I was part of their lives, and now, I was OUT! And all thanks to Joan and her “expertise.”
I knew this was going to happen. You can suspect child abuse all you want, but unless you absolutely KNOW that a child is being abused, calling child abuse on an innocent parent is only going to cause problems. It will tear a family apart, and it sure did – not only with Gert’s immediate family, but in our extended family. My father was angry with me, my step-mother was concerned about me. She knew I was trying to do the right thing.
To back up a few months – when Karen first told me she wanted to runaway and come live with me, I talked to my stepmother about it – she suggested we talk to Dr. Kenneth Condrell, a Buffalo child psychologist. Dr. Condrell’s mother Mary, was a friend of ours from the Greek church where we all worked the Bingo games together and served on the church’s Women’s Committee. It was Dr. Condrell who advised me in every step I took, including NOT calling child abuse, but giving Karen options, such as continuing with the counseling. I even discussed the situation with the pastor of the church, who advised me to follow Dr. Condrell’s advice. These men, Dr. Condrell and the pastor of the church, knew my father and my stepmother, as they were parishioners of the church. And they knew me. They didn’t know Gert or Karen, but they only gave general advice, they did not advise me to interfere in any way in Gert’s family, but to give love and support to Karen, and keep all lines of communication open.
Since my stepmother and I were on the same page as me and Dr. Condrell, now she was against her own husband. My father’s stand was that we, (Joan and me) should have minded our own business. I told him that child abuse (if true) is EVERYBODY’S business and he should be more concerned as to his grandchildren. I told him that I didn’t want child abuse called, but that it was Joan who jumped the gun. I was always on shaky grounds with my relationship with my father, and this was not helping in that area. But I stood my ground. I did what I thought was right.
When the school year ended, Gert and her family moved to another city in the state. During the summer of 1982, my husband Abdo and I were having some problems due to his drinking and he moved out, taking an apartment 2 blocks away from me. We continued to see each other though. Many nights he slept over.
One day in September 1982, I got a phone call from my father that Karen had runaway from home again. He asked me if I knew where she was. I told him no, I hadn’t heard from Karen since before the family moved from Buffalo. My father wanted to know if she was at Joan’s house. I told him that I didn’t know. I called Joan, and she said that Karen wasn’t at her house. I got a nasty phone call from Gert, accusing me and Joan for encouraging Karen to run away from home, and accused us of hiding Karen from the family. I tried to tell Gert the whole story, but she wouldn’t listen. She was so angry, but there wasn’t anything I could do at this point.
Several days later, Karen showed up at my house. It was in the evening, and after I made us some dinner, I placed two phone calls – the first to Child Protective Services that Karen had finally showed up. They told me to keep her for the night and they would be at my house the following morning. The next call I made was to my father, and I told him that Karen was now at my house. He told me to send Karen to her mother. I told him that I had already called CPS and they would now take care of everything. Karen only told me that she was with friends for the few days she was missing. She refused to tell me who they were, and to this day, she has never told me.
The next morning, a worker from CPS came and Karen told them that she was now afraid of her stepfather, that he had threatened her. She didn’t want to return home and told the CPS worker that if he sent her back home, she would run away again. She said she wanted to live with me. The worker said there would have to be a custody hearing in the county from where she ran away from and gave me temporary custody. I was told that since school was in session, Karen had to be registered in school.
I registered Karen in the school she attended the previous year, and a friend of her brother’s called him and told him he had seen Karen in school. The following day, Gert and Jim arrived in Buffalo and came to the school. She was called out of class and came down to the office where Gert’s husband assaulted Karen. The police were called but he left the building before they came, and Gert and her husband went back home. In the three weeks that followed, while we waited for the custody hearing, Gert’s husband called my house and Joan’s several times, and threatened us. I paid no attention to him, but Joan was scared. Maybe if she had listened to me in the first place, all the fighting would not have occurred.
In the meantime, a home study was done on me. The CPS worker in Buffalo told me straight out that it would be a long shot if I was granted custody. I was single, worked nights, there was no adult in the house overnight to supervise Karen. Even though Abdo and I were working through our problems, and even if he moved back in permanently, we were not legally married.
Joan and I drove Karen to the custody hearing when it was scheduled. Gert said nothing to us, but glared at us. Gert had recommended to the judge that Karen be placed in a foster home, and that was what happened.
What might have happened if Joan had listened to me? I don’t know. I’m not a psychic. But I do know that things would not have happened the way they did.
Gert – November 10, 2010
Even after all these years, after writing about it myself, having talking it over with Ruth, recently, it STILL HURTS! And even in that pain, I have still been able to reconcile that pain with my daughter and my sister Ruth, because they were able to reconcile with me. Joan never has and in the book she will tell you that, in 1992, it was still all my fault and worst because I did not APOLOGY to her and her adoptive mother for the letter that I wrote. Joan never sees the damage that she does nor takes responsiblity for her own actions.
On point needs to be clarified. When I and my husband found out that my daughter was in the school in buffalo, we went there. The principal had not phoned me as she had promised days before if she had seen my daughter. My husband and I were in the hallways watching for her as she came from a class, the hall filled with students. She saw me, ran the other way, my husband ran after her, grab her ankle and they fall down. I ran to them, and was tackled by a security guard and my glasses flew off my face. We were all taken to the office, where certain things were said by my daughter which caused the police to take her into custody away from me. I then had to go to family court to place her into foster home. I then counter-sued the county and my sisters. A home study was done on both of them and they did not pass and guess what…I WON MY CASE!
I have a 16 page document PROVING that my husband and I were INNOCENT of any wrong doing including, any form of assault in the school hallway and any form of child abuse!
The end result of course was the end of many relationships within our family and it all could have been avoided if Joan kept herself out of my business and my family. Less anyone have any doubt as to why I HATE Joan…this is why…she is a destroyer of people and families.
She could very easily end this by GIVING ME THE BOOK which means that she has to destroy it, pull it from the selling market, get herself out of the public venue of be a great and wonderful adoption reform person because she is NOTHING but pure evil.
the incident in the school was ugly.
the incidents of the child abuse calls were ugly.
the aftermath was ugly.
the whole dam thing was ugly.
It could have all been avoided if Joan had just listened to: Number One – COMMON SENSE – anytime a teenager says “they don’t understand me at home” should be taken with a grain of salt. Number Two – when I said “don’t call child abuse unless we know that’s what’s going on.”
But does Joan have any dam common sense? Her whole book shows incident after incident where she instigates arguments, and has the dam UNcommon sense to fucking write about it, and thinks she’s the heroine in each episode of The Joni Show.
She wanted to be the heroine in this painful episode – she wanted to “save” Karen – and look what happened. She made it worse than it was. She made enemies of Gert and her husband, and I, yes, I admit to some intefering, albeit going about it with the advice of a priest and a child psychologist, got labeled along with Joan as a destroyer of a family.
The whole thing was totally unneccessary – but Joan, who lives everyday in the fantasy world of The Joni Show, to this day thinks she was the superheroine and she “saved” Karen. riigght!
Gert – November 10, 2010
As I have just finished up writing about another chapter in Joan’s vile book I have found this statement on pg 453 that Joan says…
‘Many people can’t stop blaming me for their inner turmoil’
this is Joan’s reasoning why people, be it me, or anyone in our family, or other people like the abusive violent man whom she ‘tried’ to ‘save’ are always blaming her…because they have not dealt with their inner turmoil! No ONCE has Joan taken responsibily for any of her actions! It’s always the other guy!
this is Joan’s great wisdom and divine relevations of other people’s minds and motives…they just have not dealt with their demons! And Joan has?
why has she written this vile book? so she can ‘show them’ everyone who has ever touched Joan and disagreed with her has PAID A DEEP PRICE. Don’t be the next….
there will be more truth telling coming up on this blog…don’t miss it…we are not done…not by a long shot…Joan will be exposed for all she has done and the best part about it is…using her own words! She is so brain dead she doesn’t see that she has condemned herself by the very book she wrote.
Give me the book, Joan!
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4 November 10, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: adoption reunion, being downright nasty, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, dishonesty, domestic violence, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4
by Gert, with an introduction and additional comments by Ruth
On pages 218-220, Joan tells us she received an outlined letter from Gert and types out the letter on those pages. This letter is highly suspect. Certain things in this outline letter just don’t jive with the facts of the events that happened at the time. What I have done, is type out EXACTLY what Joan has in the book, and have included Gert’s answers, point by point.
Gert starts her post out by addressing Joan’s accusation that she wrote Joan a letter after child abuse was called on her about her daughter.
Did I write a letter to Joan? Yes I did. Did I write the one, in outline form, that Joan presents on pg 218, no I did not. First the reader ought to go over various parts in Joan’s narrative of how and what kind of language her adoptive mother uses when describing things. One notices a pattern of language and angry responses that are typical only of that mother. Joan has me saying words and expressing myself in ways that I never have and still don’t do or use today. To the best of my memory I wrote one letter to Joan. And don’t forget, I left Buffalo in 1982 never to return. I didn’t get a damm about Joan so why should I have continued to harass her, let alone her mother. Unlike Joan I had a life to live, a job to go to, children to support and I wanted nothing to do with her, ever… facts are stubborn things.
Joan says that her mother said I kept calling her, not true. I called to tell the woman what Joan did to me, but what does Joan tell her mother, its about what Gert did to Joan. It’s all about Joan. She is ‘boiling mad with rage at (my) insensitivity in badgering her mother at this time’. (when Ed died). Excuse me! Joan can destroy my family, take my child away from, label me a child abuser, and then have the gal to say I’m insensitive!
Ruth: Now here is the outline letter that Joan alleges Gert wrote. Each numbered point is followed by Gert’s response in blue. Ruth’s notes are in italic.
Gert (supposedly) to Joan, in 1981. (but the incident with Karen was not until 1982 – again we see Joan plays fast and loose with dates).
1. I’m sorry your father died.
1. I don’t recall ever knowing when her adoptive father died. I didn’t write to express my sympathy.
2. You have no business butting into my family life the way you did. How dare You. Beth (Karen) is perfectly safe here. She just doesn’t want to follow family rules.
2. true, if the child obeys house rules there are no problems. It is not up to Joan to decide whether or not my house rules are up to standard.
3. Karen has no problems relating to family. She joined a club at school in which there is a mother, a father, and all club members are sisters and brothers. I told her I didn’t like it. I told her that I’m her real mother, her brother is her real brother and she has a stepfather. She sees her real father on a regular basis.
3. This is purely Joan-speak.
4. Karen doesn’t like it that I divorced her father so that’s why she’s hanging with this club at school. She insists that this school is her family.
4. again a form of Joan-speak, redundant
5. Now, because of you my daughter was removed from our home and now I have to prove to the court I am a good mother! It will take months, if at all, that I get my daughter back! You meddling, controlling fucking bitch!
5. true it was because of Joan that my daughter was taken away from me. If Joan did not harbor a run away there would have been no problem.
6. And to think I loved you enough to find you! You have been nothing but trouble since I met you. You don’t drive and I have to pick you up and drive you wherever we go together. You say the wrong things all the time.
6. Joan-thoughts. I never said anything about her not driving and that I have to pick her up etc She really does have a problem with this issue of her not driving, but I never said this. (Ruth’s note: please see my detailed note below about the issue of Joan not driving).
7. You try to fit in but you are an outsider. You were not raised with us so you have different ways of thinking.
7. guilty, its true
8. We are street kids, we think on our feet. (Ruth’s note: another dig against the Sippel Sisters – all over the book, Joan portrays us as inner city ghetto white trash.)
8. never said such a thing. I was not raised as a street kid, I was raised in the country (foster home) and have country values; values that Joan knows not. (Ruth’s note: I also was raised in the same foster home with country values – which included manners, and to respect people, something that Joan, who was raised in a better-off suburb was never taught).
9. You are a sheltered, naive, spoiled little brat who got everything you ever wanted (Ruth’s note: and Joan herself admits this several times in the book).
9.guilty, its true
10. I told you I like the finer things in life and now you’ve gone and ruined my life! You are cruel to turn me into the authorities. And for what? Because you don’t think that Roy should adopt Mark? I told you, I told you repeatedly that it is none of your business what we do in our house! No, we don’t care that Mark’s birth certificate will be changed! He’s 14, he knows who he is!
10. What? Finer things in life? What the hell does that have to do with what I am angry over? Yes, guilty, it is and never was any of her business about anything within my family including my son’s adoption.
11. And no, Roy doesn’t want to adopt Karen because she doesn’t show any love or respect for him. We don’t care about adoption laws and we don’t care that I have to sign relinquishment papers so that Roy can adopt Mark. This is our business and not yours!
11. wrong, wrong, wrong. Joan has said this same kind of shit in this book about other members of the family because she was adopted out, no one loved her. Bullshit! There never was any question about love and respect about adopting or not adopting my daughter, this is pure Joan speak and it is totally untrue. Signing relinquishment is a Joan speak and a Joan issue. True, it’s our business never hers.(Ruth’s note: what Gert says here is absolutely true – Jim (Roy) wanted to adopt BOTH kids – but Karen wanted to retain her biological father’s last name. She loves that name. Even years later after she divorced her husband, she went back to using this last name).
12. We had to throw you out of our apartment because you made a big deal out of the birth certificate thing! I don’t care! Adoption is YOUR problem, not mine!
13. While I’m on the topic, don’t say anything more to me about adoption! I should have left you alone where you were. I would have been better off without you! We all would have been better off without ever knowing you!
13. probably true
14. So Roy and I go camping and swimming in the nude. Big deal! We take Mark and Karen with us and Mark is fine taking off his clothes. Karen doesn’t want to do it and she thinks we are forcing her. We are communing with nature, as a family, and she is the one who doesn’t want to conform to a family structure. And you have to interfere.
14. a form of Joan speak, I wouldn’t have gotten into this with her. She is the one who is hang-up on the skinning dipping issue. Again, that was a family issue not hers.
15. I see no reason why you had to go to the authorities! You took my daughter away from me! — Look at everything I have done for you! You ungrateful, conniving, little bitch!
15. true but I wouldn’t have continued on with it.
16. I can kill you for what you’ve done! Me and Roy, look out Joanie, because we are gonna pay you back for what you’ve done!
16. purely Joan speak, was I mad as hell, of course, but the give away is that I never called her Joanie!
No Gert, the give-away that this outline letter is concoted by Joan (probably using some of the real letter Gert wrote and then “Embellishment by Joan”) is the telling fact that I, Ruth, am not mentioned ONCE in this letter. Go back and read Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 where Gert tells what happened in 1982 from her perspective. She says over and over again that it was Joan AND Ruth who were to blame for her family being split apart. So if Gert wrote this letter, she would not be only blaming Joan, but both “Ruth and Joan,” and she would be wording it “You and Ruth.”
And what’s with all the exclamation points? Nobody writes a letter like that. This is just Joan’s blowing EVERYTHING up!!!!
Now as to the subject of Joan “not driving.” This is pure nonsense. Joan says in her book that she learned to drive “at the late age of 22 (1978). On page 211, we are in the time frame of the winter of 1981-1982,(and this outline letter was supposedly sent a few days after Joan’s father’s death on February 15, 1982). On page 211, Joan makes this statement, while describing DRIVING to the hospital to visit her father: “At one point, I made a wrong turn one block away from the hospital and got stuck in a snowdrift for an hour and a half.”
To back up a bit: in May of 1981, I moved from the West Side of Buffalo to the East Side. While I was living on the West side, Gert lived only 2 blocks from me. There was a neighborhood movie theatre and in the early part of 1980, they were showing the Charlton Heston/Stephanie Zimbalist movie “The Awakening.” It’s about the re-awakening of an ancient Egyptian Queen. As Gert, Joan and I shared a love of Ancient Egypt, we all went to see it, at a late night showing. When the movie ended, Gert and I WALKED home and Joan DROVE home. Joan had a car – mommy and daddy bought it for her.
When I moved to the East Side in 1981, Joan visited me there and DROVE there. What we have here is Joan mixing up events again. Perhaps Gert had said something to her about not having the time to always drive her around when we first met her in 1974. Because in 1974, I didn’t drive yet either. But by 1980 – Joan WAS driving and was most definitely driving in the winter of 1981-82, because she says so in her book on page 211. So why the hell would Gert write this? Answer: Gert did NOT write this – JOAN wrote this – to make Gert look like the villian here. For shame Joan. And once again, we see that when a chronic liar keeps lying – the thing that trips them up is they can’t keep the lies straight! It’s too much to remember what lie was told, what version of the “facts” were told on one day, and what version of the “facts” were told on another day. Perhaps one day Joan will finally learn to tell the truth and stick to the REAL facts – because whether Joan likes it or not, FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS.
Gert – November 10, 2010
As I reread this section I realized that I could have said alot more about that letter..alas…there is so much to say so little time to spend on Joan…truth is by the time I had gotten to that ‘outline’ in the book I was burning out…Joan does have that tendency on people, and I wanted to be done with that chapter.
I do want to say that Joan does have me speaking words and phrases that I don’t use and while I certainly so swear I don’t usually call people a bitch or worst as Joan has me saying in the book.
I wrote about this chapter back in april and since then I have read, thought about, and written much more of the book and I’ve gotten to know Joan alot more than I ever wanted to know her. I’ve come to see how she writes, thinks, what favorite words and phrases she uses and most importantly, her world view and how she projects onto others and puts words in their mouths.
So I could say more about that outline but, enough for the moment…there’s lots more coming..
oh and btw, Joan…give me the book!
What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler July 22, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, bigotry, birth certificates, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, falsified birth certificates, faulty memory, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
by Gert McQueen
Guess who’s NOT coming to dinner? And is it affection or an invitation?
‘If love be not in the house, there is nothing’…Ezra Pound
See updated info at end of this post
Do you really need a document to prove your inner self? For what is a document but a piece of paper that states certain facts, vital information if you like, the who, what, where, when and why…why, because you exist therefore you MUST have documentation! Chapter 13, Adoption and Birth facts switched on documents.
The basic question is, just what is a birth certificate used for, what is it’s primary purpose? Quite frankly for identification purposes and it is the business of Vital Records and Vital Statistics to make the rules governing such documents…not Joan. Everywhere you go, for anything you want to do in the world, you must have ID, and a birth certificate does that basic job. If you are adopted well information must be ‘switched’, that is simply the way the law works that’s the way it is and golly gee perhaps Joan ought just accept it.
Pg 117 Joan shows again her propensity for being smarter and wiser than any form of officialdom. She was in ‘disbelief’ and ‘livid’ ‘that New York State Officials actually typed in’…. those dumb officials don’t they know that they can’t do that!
Joan’s describing the adoption papers is loaded with a sick sort of drama; twisted minds make twisted lives and twisted tales. It’s really hard to read. She uses a form of second-guessing in this drama; ‘was she (adoptive mom) possessive and hostile because she wanted to believe she gave birth to me?’ and the adoptive father ‘he wasn’t my father because he created me in the old fashioned way…but because the Surrogate Court…declared him so by legal adoption.’ By ‘the old fashioned way’ she must mean by the usual sexual means of producing children. Why does she beat around the bush here why not just get to the point, she usually doesn’t have a problem spelling things out, so why not here? Is it because she hadn’t explored the ‘old-fashioned way’ yet? (Ruth’s note – no Gert, she had been exploring the “old-fashioned way” since she was 16).
She maintains that the records are ‘falsification of the truth’…no it’s the legal means of adapting to a new reality i.e. from birth to one set of parents to adoption by another set of parents, no falsification at all. But Joan, who is a upstanding moral person! feels that ‘there is something morally wrong in the way the truth had been altered, and hidden…couldn’t understand why birth records were legally altered when I (she) knew that falsifying documents are illegal.’ Oh dear me! Does that mean that the department of vital records did something illegal? Joan is always tying her self up into knots over things that are just legal fictions to prove the change of name from this to that. But to her, it is always ‘a slipup…must have made a mistake…’ The reason the adoptee doesn’t see the pre-adoption birth certificate is because it is up to the adults that are making the adoption of the adoptee to inform that child when appropriate. She’s always making something out of nothing and she is off fighting bureaucratic and her families.
Pg 120 Joan tells us that she is ‘hungry for identification with people like (her)’, she starts to make contacts, with other adoptees, but ‘their words stirred up feelings of isolation, anger and resentment’…she ‘wanted to enjoy life’ but she now ‘had THIS to deal with – THIS being … adoption and reunion’. (the capital letters are hers) Drama! So her dramas lead her more into loneliness and sadness and looking in all the wrong places for love as she explored the ‘old-fashioned way’ in ‘a few one-night stands’, and then she starts to date a 18-year-old Black guy that lasts ‘for two years’.
Reality check! The times were the mid-1970s, Joan was a very immature sheltered girl who had no experience living with the racial tensions and riots that swept across the country. I, like many others, did. Interracial couplings were NOT the norm, they were scandalous and NOT for every family. The movie Guess who’s coming to dinner appeared in 1967, most families in America were NOT like the family portrayed in the movie. In real life the late 60’s and early 70’s were filled with much violence as the Civil Rights movement was stabilizing. Many whites might have been okay with mix-race couplings but many were not and the same can be said for the Blacks, if they did they were a minority keeping a low profile, something Joan knows nothing about. In many families the idea of crossing racial lines was just not done and the issue was entirely up to an individual family as to how they reached those decisions. When a child goes against the established core values of their family and the wishes of the parents, for shock value, for acting out, for rebellion, the situation never works out well.
This is what Joan did, she did it for rebellion reasons and she gives ‘lip service’ to it when she says ‘…years later that perhaps I used racial issues as a smoke screen – something to focus on instead of what was really bothering me.’ Again, too bad for me that she didn’t come to that conclusion sooner before she interfered with my parental authority and told my 13 years daughter that ‘your mother doesn’t know anything, don’t listen to her, if you want to date a Black boy do it’! But that’s a story for a later. She says that the interracial relationship and adoption issues ‘drove a wedge between her parents and herself…they fought bitterly.’ That is her adoptive parents.
As I stated in a previous post, as very young children, my parents and us 4 children, lived in the same house with a Black family and we were raised not as racists or bigots. My father, in particular, always allowed us to make our own decisions and if we were happy he was happy. My sister Ruth has had long-term relationships with other races and they were and are accepted within our family. My personal views were that it was not right for myself, or my children, even though they, my children, were free to have friends of different races and religions. As a parent I have the right to make the ‘established core values of the family’ and no one has the right to contradict them to my minor children, as Joan did.
On pg 122 Joan tells of a phone conversation with me, ‘the eldest…which made her an authority figure’, in which I tell her that ‘it’s your choice and you alone will have to live with the consequences, but you are young and don’t know what you’re doing…you can’t dislocate yourself from your family…society isn’t ready for it and you have to live with the rules of society’. That’s correct, I said it or something like it and it was sound advice, then and now. But to Joan, she ‘…hung up the phone in disbelief…Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.’ Not true! I was stating my own personal opinion and speaking as a parent myself. It is only Joan who feels the need to find someone to point the finger at to say that they are the cause of her problems. So Be It!
So she gets back to having more dramas. ‘There was a Reunion in Progress but no one knew how to proceed.’ Did she? no she just lets more of her inner life talk to her and she comes up with ‘my families hated blacks, therefore, they hated me. I was a sinner in need of repentance….’ and on and on and on. She ‘was getting caught up in the world’s social causes, she didn’t see what these causes were doing to her.’ Personal note: Joan never gave anyone the opportunities to continue with the ‘in progress’ because she was so argumentive and aggressive in her positions and would not allow others, particularly the adoptive and birth families, to have their own opinions and views on any social issue, it was always about Joan.
Pg 123 ‘then I suffered gastrointestinal problems, sinus infections and backaches.’
Pg 126 adoptive ‘mom was admitted to the hospital with stomach ulcers.’
Pg 129 adoptive ‘father was admitted to the hospital with another bleeding ulcer.’
What does that tell you?
Also, while deciding whether to go to Egypt for a year she ‘was terrified of the Arab society in which women weren’t held equal to men…(was advised) to be aware that an outspoken woman in an Arab country would be a target for ridicule, assault and rape…I wasn’t sure it would be worth it…’ If she couldn’t take the pressure of family responses to her dating a Black man, in this country, what planet was she on when thinking she would be safe on Arab turf in the first place?
On Pg 124 Joan finally tells us the real reason she wrote this book! She makes contact with someone at ALMA who wanted to have her story in his up coming book A Time to Search. ‘The idea of being in a book excited me’ but was told later that he ‘can’t use your story after all…your reunion took place outside the realm of ALMA and its registry’. So Joan says, ‘the nerve of him…my story wasn’t good enough because I didn’t have a reunion with ALMA, I’ll show him, I’ll write my own book, my story was unique enough to stand on its own, that’s how the seed was planted in March 1976, two years into my reunion.’ So much for altruistic reasons!
Then there’s more drama with adoption issues and interactions with birth family members that she can’t figure out how to take and makes things up according to her own views. Pg 128. In 76, during a visit with our brother he tells her that he is moving west; now she is ‘losing him’. My brother drives her home one night and in the driveway ‘…he leaned over and kissed my cheek. I was stunned. I didn’t grow up with sisters and brothers….I didn’t know how it felt to be kissed by my brother…it felt odd.’
Then she tells of a visit with me in which she states ‘…that after the kids were in bed…we drank…wine…she (that’s me) rolled a few joints.’ Here we go again, tell the world that I smoked a few joints. I wished! But she continues on with the story ‘…we talked about…then the discussion turned intense. She sat close to me on the couch. She made advances that I interpreted as sexual. I was confused, drugged and drunk. I missed Momma, as she did, she told me not to tell anyone.’
Jesus Christ Almighty! So here it is folks, I, big sister, confused her, drugged her, got her drunk and then made sexual advances to her, and mind you, I told her not to tell anyone! Never happened! First she admits that she was ‘stunned’ when her brother kissed her on the cheek, ‘it felt odd’. True she did not grow up with other siblings so she hasn’t a clue about affection between siblings. She can’t figure out that we siblings also had feelings of joy and affection for her and that sometimes a hug is just a hug, a kiss is just a kiss! Everything that happens to Joan happens from the Joan filter!
At this particular time frame, summer of 76, I was going through some pretty intense stuff in my life and Joan was not part of it! My fiancé, not my boy friend, and I were to be married that year, he was to adopt, oh dear me, adopt, my children and we were to have more children. But he got cancer and this particular summer he was sick, sick and sick. In addition, my ex-husband at the time was badgering me weekly to ‘hurry up, get married, and adopt those kids, so I don’t have to pay the child support’. My world had started to crumble that summer. My fiancé died in November. I was numb for almost a year, just doing my job so I could support my children and going through the motions. Joan meant nothing to me! And she was getting ready to go to Liverpool, England and she gave little thought to my troubles and me.
But, Joan is good, in a sleazily way, I have to give her credit; she is laying the groundwork here for some event that comes later on, or else she has taken ‘liberties’ and combined one event onto another, either way, what she has said is not a true representation. But oh, what a storyteller she is, too bad most of it can’t be relied upon. I cannot of course comment about events and stories she tells about my other siblings and other family members. If I wasn’t there, at any event, gathering etc, I cannot comment, that being said, I truly have to wonder about the authenticity of other ‘events’ and hope that my sisters make their own observations known here.
Pg 128 she relates ‘…my college roommate, Lucy…we spent some time with…(Ruth) and her…boyfriend and his brother…we went dancing…’ Wrong, lie! According to Ruth, it was not Lucy it was the black boyfriend and at a bowling alley they got into an argument and he threatened her. He had already beaten her up; she was terrified. When they got home, Joan slept on the couch and the boyfriend stayed in the car, for Ruth didn’t want any problems with her neighbors.
Pg 129 Joan relates that ‘…my adoptive mother and I threw a going-away party for B and M (brother and his wife).’ According to Ruth, this is a lie, she herself has answered this issue, but for the record here and now, the party was at our father’s in Sept and Ruth has pictures! There is some doubt as to whether Joan herself was there but certainly her mother was not. Joan’s adoptive mother NEVER was at our father’s home. Ruth was never at Joan’s adoptive home. (Ruth’s note: I was at the house perhaps 3 or 4 times). I was only at that home a couple of times and we have no real knowledge about whether or not our brother ever was at that home. Kathy was already in England and never was in that home. We have no real knowledge about the so-called visits that Joan retells that occurred at our father’s home with our stepmother and other siblings.
I have been quite suspicious, as I read, of all these ‘visits’ between natural father and adopted parents that she relates; they seemed so out of character of everyone in light of how Joan relentlessly portrays the emotional instability of her adopted mother. So what does this prove? That Joan’s ‘recollections’ are flawed, at best a combination of several different events put together to make a whole that ‘fits in’ with Joan’s sense of reality. Her recollections are not to be trusted!
UPDATE Dec 2015; as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler says about me and family. After the first book was pulled from publication by the publisher, May 2011, she has ‘self-published’ another ‘revised’ version.
Did Joan’s 10 year old son write that letter I got in June 1993? Or did Joan herself? December 12, 2009Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family.
Tags: abuse, contributing the deliquency of a minor, cowardice, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies
in my post evidence of harassment of me by Joan Wheeler June 1993 I posted a letter that was supposedly written by her 10 year old son to my fiance, but stuck in an envelope addressed to me. The envelope was definitely in Joan’s handwriting. I no longer have the envelope, or I would scan and post it.
Anyway, I got to thinking, and I dug out a letter that she wrote to my sister in England. It was typed, but had a note written and printed in Joan’s hand. I got the funny feeling that it was NOT Joan’s 10 year old son who wrote this letter, but JOAN HERSELF. I cut Joan’s handwritten note from the typed letter she sent my sister, and glued it to the letter that her son supposedly wrote, and scanned it. This is what I have posted above. A lot of similarities don’t you think? the T’s, the A’s and the R’s and the E’s. and very similar to the blacked out manilla envelope I recieved in 1998. So just who is sending letters to whom in the mail?
AND THE MOST TELLING POINT THAT JOAN’S SON DID NOT WRITE THIS LETTER, IS THE SALUTATION “DEAR JOHN.” IF MY NEPHEW HAD WRITTEN THIS LETTER HE WOULD HAVE WRITTEN “DEAR UNCLE JOHN.”
God have mercy on your soul Joan. In an attempt to break me and my fiance up, and to railroad me in court for annoyance phone calls — yes, she knew that I would call her up when I got this letter, and she said wait. She hung up. I thought we were disconnected. I called back. She hung up again. And a third time. She had called the phone company a couple of weeks earlier, complaining of annoyance phone calls, and had them install a trap on her line. She then engineered this letter so I would call her and she would “get” me making annoyance phone calls. She set me up! And posed as her own 10 year old son to do it!
Words cannot express how I feel. This person, who would stoop so low as to pose as her own 10 year old child, called child abuse on herself the following year, posing as me, and saying that my fiance molests her daughter. This woman is insane. She needs to be locked up! She is no Sippel. She is hell-spawn.
UPDATE, APRIL 2016, as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler says about me and family. After the first book was pulled from publication by the publisher, May 2011, she has ‘self-published’ another ‘revised’ version. In this ‘version’ called ‘duped by adoption’ she has increased her exploitation by including PICTURES and REAL NAMES and much more personal information violating again the families. Joan has no decency NOR shame. There is NOTHING in this book for adoption reform. She is totally against adoption and her two families. To learn more see…
evidence of harassment of me by Joan Wheeler June 1993 December 12, 2009Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family.
Tags: contributing the deliquency of a minor, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies
In my post titled evidence of harassment of me by Joan Wheeler June 1998, I show scans of the manila envelope she sent me. I am now posting a scan of a letter that she sent me in June 1998. The envelope was addressed to me, Ruth Sippel, in Joan’s handwriting. But inside, with no explanation, was a letter written by her son, to my fiance. He says, “Dear John, I miss you. I don’t realy know what to say all that happeining is that I’m looking for a date for the dace. Love, Dennis.”
So. If Dennis didn’t really know to say to John, why was he writing to him? This was clearly JOAN WHEELER manipulating her own 10 year old son to writing a note that he must have believed that his mother would sent to John. Instead, she sent it to me. And this wasn’t the first time she did that. Just a few days earlier, I recieved a greeting card in the mail. Again, it was addressed to me, in Joan’s handwriting. But inside was a Father’s day card made out to John, and all the handwriting was in Joan’s handwriting. Her son and her daughter “suppposedly” signed the card, but it was in Joan’s handwriting. I had torn up and thrown it away immeditely, or else I would have scanned and posted it here. The only reason this letter is still around, is because it IS in my nephew’s handwriting, and we wanted to save it.
Now I ask you: what kind of mother manipulates her own 10 year old son, just to harass her birth sister?
I have also provide here the closeup of the handwriting on the blacked out manila envelope I received 5 years later in June 1998. Pay close attention to the following. The letter T in both Dennis’ letter and the return address are more like crosses. The R in the word dear in Dennis’ letter is almost the same as the letter R in New York. The small letters E are an almost exact match. And the small A in the word all is identical as in the word Buffalo. My nephew was 10 years old when he wrote the letter and 16 when he wrote that return address. Nice mother Joan to involve your children in your harassment games.