abuser, adoption reunions, Brian Maloney Williamsville NY, champ the defender, co-dependency, confrontations with Joan Wheeler, cyberbullying, family honor, Forbidden Family a book of lies, intimidation, sins of omission and suppress of one's own misdeeds
Joan Wheeler NEVER was a sibling of ours, she is ‘the adoptee’! (from that book)
As she is so fond of always telling us, we don’t understand her because we are NOT the adoptee! Okay, then she has NO right to always TELL the stories of OUR lives! So WHAT that we were born of the same parents…does that make a difference in the nature versus nurture theory? Let’s find out, by revisting that libelous book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler
The original post can be seen @ Nature vs Nurture by Gert McQueen March 11, 2010
This is a reposting for those whom may not have seen it the first time around, plus, until Joan removes the two hateful libelous blogs against the birth siblings, the two false blogs where she hids behind and Brian Maloney takes down his site against us, we shall continue bloging about her words and deeds and Brian’s.
Nature vs Nurture by Gert McQueen March 11, 2010
Are we solely a combination of our parents or a product of our upbringing and environment or a combination of both?
While genetically Joan is a Sippel/Herr she is the product of the Wheeler family dynamic. This can be understood via the studies done where identical twins are separate at birth and raised differently. It is the nature verses nurture argument. By nature she is a produce of Sippel/Herr genes, but never knew anyone with those genes until age 18 and was not nurtured by the Sippel/Herr family dynamics.
She was nurtured, by Edward Wheeler and Dorothy (her maiden name is unknown to me) (note 2012 I now know it was Cannell) genes, via that family’s dynamics; even though she has none of their physical genes.
Now I will grant you that Joan did not have a pleasant childhood, by her recollections in her book and what I know of things. Even though I am extremely skeptical of the accuracy of her depictions of her family life and other events, that I never was part of nor ever knew about, I will grant a large degree of benefit of doubt in her favor, of the descriptions of their homelife. Why? Because I did met the adopted parents and heard many stories about them and made my own conclusions, as an adult, about them. They were not easy to live with I’m sure and there has to be a great deal that happened to Joan before the age of 18 for her to HATE the adoptive parents so.
Over the years Ruth and I have experienced first hand the type of pain that Joan can dish out. Joan had to learn that somewhere! She did NOT learn it from us, Sippel/Herr, so it was learned behavior from the adopted parents. And if that is why Joan hates adoption, so be it, but, it has NOTHING to do with the birth family, no matter hard Joan and others wish it to be!
From Thich Nhat Hanh: Buddhist Monk – ‘People have a hard time letting go of their suffering. Out of a fear of the unknown, they prefer suffering that is familiar.’
In Chapter 4 of this libelous book…
Joan shows, from a very early age, some sort of anger and resentment whenever there are issues of adoption. She shows a very intense love/hate relationship with the adoptive mother, in my opinion one that borders on a form of non-sexual sadomasochism because it appears as if they both get some kind of pleasure from inflicting and from enduring pain and cruelty. How else would you describe the back and forth between adoptee and adoptive mother that is always present in this book?
(Ruth’s note, March 17, oh yes, I have personally seen this in action many times. I will address this in my next post).
Joan also has a tendency to approve or accept something when it suits her purposes but then rejects the same things when they fail to work for her or to her benefit. Example pg 20 she doesn’t like confidentiality between parent and professionals but then on pg 22 she likes the confidentiality because it’s between herself and a doctor. It is this same kind of doublethink in her head that caused her to believe that she could interfere with my parental authority with my minor children and get away with it, but this is not the place for that major transgression.
Cardinal rule is that no one has the right to override parental authority. Both her birth and adoptive parents had parental authority over her and her life. I, a birth sib, did not override that authority; I waited till she was of age, she did not do the same when it came to my minor children. Joan violated my parental authority and I shall get into that in other posts.
Pg26 Joan wonders about the ‘innocence of a child…firm foundations…what happened to them? where did we go wrong?’ Obviously that adopted family’s foundation and relationships were built on lies and fears; which produced hate and when you hate … nothing works. Joan’s adoptive parents were 10 years older than her natural parents. That is significant when trying to see the whole picture. These two people had a worldview that was different from that which the natural parents had and the adopted parents raised Joan with that ‘older’ worldview. This is nothing new, that is why we have these different ‘generations’ and how they different from each other. So when Joan was growing up in the 60s and 70s her parents were still living and viewing life from a 1920/30 time frame. Our parents grew up in the 1930/40s, it makes a huge difference in childrearing. Add to that the paranoia that the adoptive parents had and you can see just ‘what happened and where it wrong’. It had NOTHING to do with the birth family and us siblings.
And paranoia is really what these adoptive parents had. Even if Joan is exaggerating and fabricating, which she has a great tendency to do, she describes her adoptive mother as being obsessive, intimidating, controlling with ‘violent rages’. Any wonder why Joan behaves this way?
Pg 44 she describes a yelling scene of the mother’s, leaving home and then on pg 51 the same woman is having a calm scene with none other than myself, the birth sister, in her own kitchen! Now really if you didn’t live with that kind of mood-swings all the time how else could you describe them. I had a friend that was manic-depressive with wild mood-swings. I’ve seen the inside of a mental institution, as a visitor, both with my friend and my stepmother and have seen the swings up close and personal.
All the way through to pg 49 is a family dynamic that is full of fear, rage and hate. The adoptive mother uses a lot of ‘transference’ upon and with Joan that is placing her own fears onto Joan who then learns how to do the same thing. Then Joan transfers her fears onto her siblings and imagines us doing all kinds of things to her. She is the product of the Wheeler family dynamics. If you really listen to Joan’s words today as she describes what we are ‘supposedly doing’ all you hear are the same things that her adoptive mother has said to her.
Chapter 8 about our first meeting, at first glance, seems reasonable, probably is fleshed out with more embellishment than needed, but frankly I don’t remember much about it, that was so long ago and I have ceased to be amused or fascinated by Joan, she is NOTHING special!
Chapter 9 official paperwork and more hate from the adoptive mother. On pg 62, Joan makes the faulty reasoning mistake of NOT understanding legal terms; she states ‘I was surprised the Office of Vital Statistics would make the mistake of referring to my adoptive parents as my ‘foster parents’. Oh, she is so wise in legal matters at the age of 18 to think that Vital Statistics has made a mistake! She’ll make that same error years later when my husband and I adopt my own birth son (but that’s another story for later). Legal adoption papers identify parents as ‘birth parent’, ‘foster parent’ and ‘adoptive parent’. She says that our language is confusing–wrong–English is one of the most precise languages there is, the words mean actually what they say.
Foster means ‘to bring up; to nurture’ and in the sense of legal adoption terms it does mean ‘temporary’, until the adoption becomes permanent, someone must be responsible; therefore a fosterling is established. The adoptive parents, in this case, became the foster parents while the process was going on. Just as in my own case, the one where Joan interfered, in my parent/child relationship saying I ‘gave up’ my child. She didn’t want to understand that on the legal process I was the birth parent, the foster parent and the adoptive parent, but that is another story.
Why make things so complicated Joan? Biological, bio-mother, bio-father, natural parents, hey you forget bionic-parent! That’s what my 2nd husband said he was when he adopted my son. Don’t you ever have a sense of humor? And for the record I will state here and now that he also wanted to adopt my daughter. After the age of 14 children must give their permission to be adopted, which she did not give. My daughter was 14 with an identity crisis (she wanted to know her natural father before becoming adoptive, long story for later) but that is the only reason she was not adopted not for the reasons Joan states later in this book of fiction, but I’ll get to that later.
Pg 63 she states about the birth certificate ‘that the only thing unchanged was my birth date January 16, 1956’. Hey folks that is false, her birth date is January 7, 1956. So how can this book be the truth when she lies about her own birthdate? And, she covers up the date on the documents that she published in this book of fiction. Then she says ‘I was disgusted that my identity had been legally changed without my consent’. Well you know she was just an infant, those adults should have known better and asked her for her consent! But then…she sees the light and reality but now she feels ‘devalued and helpless, like a piece of merchandise handed over in a business deal….what mattered was the powerlessness I felt’. Someone take her out of her misery! This is the bottom line in Joan personality…she is powerless!
I doubt very much Joan’s assertion about whom her family doctor was; that he was or knew her birth mother and family. Seems highly unlikely that the adoptive family would keep that doctor. The Wheeler family doctor was not the Sippel family doctor. I was born in 1947. Dr Paris delivered me. I only know a Dr Koslowski as a family doctor up till the time I was 18 when I was married with child and obtained my own physician.
Pg 64 Joan says…that on a hospital card that records vitals of her birth it says ‘Del Spon’t’ which means ‘delivered spontaneously’. No it does not mean, as Joan writes, that she ‘was born quickly without hours of labor’. What it means is that our mother delivered her baby herself in the hospital room, without help, where she was on complete bed rest till the fetus was ready to be born. That was the reason mother went back to the hospital in December 1955, to hold the baby till closer to full term. It was after Joan was born, on Jan 7, 1056, that the cancer our mother had was found. It has always been my understanding that she had advanced ovarian cancer, there were no adequate treatments in 1956, there was no hope for her. She died March 28, 1956 of organ failure, which is the normal progress of the body’s process of dying. So Joan’s assertion that Mom died of kidney failure is wrong.
Joan knows no boundaries, has no boundaries. She has no discretion and went so far as to obtain some kind of medical records from the hospital, prior to HIPA, (patient privacy laws enacted by US Federal government, April 2003) about our mother. I don’t know those details but Ruth does and she will bring out those facts to refute Joan’s lies and misrepresentations.
(Ruth’s note: oh yes, I will address this in my next note). Joan’s assertions that she received written permission from our father, to obtain those records, is doubtful..Joan can NOT produce the hand-written note from my father! Gee…why am I NOT surprised? Joan NEVER provides the documentation for her assertions of the truth of her statements.
to be continued for there is so much more to write about