Return of the Chameleon [Overcomers]

User Tools

Site Tools


Return of the Chameleon

For the next page, Abuse in Church Contexts, click here. For the previous page, Chameleon and Me, click here. To jump to the start and the index, click here.

Return of the Chameleon:

Chameleon had been “doing” random strangers throughout 2008 and telling people that it was part of an open-marriage scenario. So, in Fall 2008, I walked out on her.

However, in January 2009, Cham­e­leon contacted me and told me that she'd “changed”.

The problems with her had hap­pen­ed due to drugs, she said, and she was no longer tak­ing them. Every­thing was going to be O.K., but she need­ed my help with a Court issue. If I could do that for her, we could still have a life to­geth­er.

I helped her with the Court issue and, on February 01, 2009, I moved her and her child­ren to Scran­ton, PA. And I moved back in with her.

In May 2009, Cham­e­leon brought home a Catholic girl, age 21 or so. She'd found the girl in a bar.

They went into her bedroom, where Cham­e­leon pressed the girl, who was reluctant, to use a “Hungry Beaver” vibrator on her. This was a device I'd purchased for Cham­e­leon in MI as a gift.

I confronted Cham­e­leon about the Catholic girl subsequently. She said that she'd brought the girl home to evan­gel­ize her.

I noted that I'd heard everything and that it hadn't sound­ed very evan­gel­i­cal. Cham­e­leon got angry and said that I shouldn't have been listening through the door.

But, actually, sounds carried in that place. The fact that the beaver had been hun­gry could be heard right through my own bed­room door.

Days later, on May 19, Cham­e­leon brought home a man with the intention of having sex with him. I escorted the man out and confronted my putative wife.

Cham­e­leon didn't say this time that there had been a reason to bring home a stranger. She did say that she hadn't planned to have sex with him. The fact that I'd caught her straddling and kissing the other man as he pulled down her bra tends to cast doubt on the claim.

Cham­e­leon was terse and evasive in the discussion. Enough is enough. I took the wedding ring back and called off the pretend marriage once and for all.

I don't know what she was thinking.

Perhaps she genuinely believed that I was O.K. with polyamory. She was able to con­vince her­self, as well as others, that black was white or 2 plus 2 is 3. But I'd bro­ken up with her just months before over the poly­amory issue.

Cham­e­leon's behavior was similar, come to think of it, to the Fourth Way. She'd offer challenges, but meeting them was never enough. Maybe I was used to that from growing up and thought it was normal. I know I was a “rescuer”. That is a common trait of Adult Children of Alcoholics. They usually end up with people out-of-control like their alcoholic parent.

I'm about 6' 2“ in height. Cham­e­leon was 1' shorter. She had a forceful personality, though, that made height a moot point. She'd set out to be the focus of attention at any church group, party, or bar gather­ing and usually suc­ceed.

Chameleon was going through a child custody battle during this per­iod. At the end of the year, on Decem­ber 17, 2008 (not long before to moving her and her children to Scranton), I drove 9 hours to sup­port her at a custody hear­ing. The hear­ing itself took place on Decem­ber 18, 2008.

A month later, on January 22, 2009, Chameleon phoned me and said that she was stand­ing in a Child Pro­tec­tive Services office. She explain­ed that she'd been placed in a Pen­nsylvania child abuse regis­try.

There was a letter on her com­pu­ter, she said, that she need­ed me to email to her so that she could pro­vide it to Child Pro­tec­tive Services.

I did as Chameleon requested. I ended up with a copy of the let­ter in my Outbox due to her request. I have a copy that contains annotations that I completed with my editor November 18, 2021 and made available to the courts discussed here and to law enforcement. This copy has 6 pages and is available to government agencies and courts upon request. The page numbers below refer to that copy.

It was a letter I had helped her write. I helped her word how to point out flaws in the argument of the case worker. I thought I was doing “God's work” and actually helping the children. However, the letter does contain quotes from the case worker's concerns that shouldn't be diminished as I tried to do while helping Chameleon write. I don't believe I need to disclose all of the identities at this time but I will summarize and respond to parts of the document here. I also want to apologize here to the case worker for the way I helped Chameleon represent the case worker in a poor light to her superiors. I now believe I was misguided in how I handled the facts. The case worker documented at least the following “risk assessment narrative” as quoted by Chameleon starting on page 3: “Primary caretaker is unable/unwilling to control impulses”. The case worker also says that Chameleon never had any money, food for the children, or proper necessities (page 5).

Even with my help, it seems clear that the facts in the letter do not support Chameleon's responses as much as the case worker's concerns. For one thing, Chameleon states that the case worker using Chameleon's mother as a source is invalid, saying “I have been estranged from my mother since I was 16.” However, this is not true. Chameleon's mother was housing her and asked her to leave due to being irresponsible such as by repeatedly leaving care of the kids with her without notice, even when Chameleon was present. At times, Chameleon would seem to have long bouts of crying but not shed any tears. I understand someone can cry until their tear ducts slow down, but that wasn't the case apparently since there were no tears period. That had happened only a few months or so prior, not years. Leah states that her daughter Chameleon is a potential sociopath who makes up false stories. This part is He Said-She Said and is offered simply for what it’s worth.

On page 4, Chameleon states that one of her mother's “Untrue Statements” is “That I am involved in prostitution—this is not true; this was a rumor that was proven in court as a false statement on December 18, 2008 in front of Judge Alexander. My mother has a history of making slanderous statements about me and my life however has very little to no contact with my children and myself.”

On the contrary, I used to babysit Chameleon’s child­ren on such occasions. I also attended the Court hearing which Chameleon is referring to here; I drove 9 hours (plus stops and slowdowns) at Chameleon’s request to do so; that to the best of my recollection, the “rumor” was not proven in Court to be false; and in fact, Chameleon seemed to acknowledge at one point that she was engaging in prostitution. In court I didn't recall her exact statement, “I thought I could make some extra money,” from the traumatic conversation where that was likely the only clear and true statement among her manic rantings. After writing this book, I sent a message to the Michigan court asking if I can withdraw my permission that I gave her to use my testimony and asking how I could help them place an addendum on the court record noting my concerns with what I recalled afterward.

In a sense, Chameleon had been treated unfairly in the prostitution context from a legal perspective. I went to Court to support Chameleon and to ensure that the process was fair.

What had happened was that I made statements to Leah, Chameleon's mother, and to Ron, a churchgoer who housed Chameleon for a time as charity. Leah or Ron relayed the statements to Ron’s wife, a woman named Char.

I told Leah and Ron that Chameleon was “probably” engaging in prostitution. Leah and Char relayed my remarks to others as statements of fact. They may, additionally, have suggested that they had primary knowledge of the prostitution as opposed to the statements of fact actually being hearsay.

I testified to the effect that Leah and Char had no primary knowledge related to the prostitution issue and that their statements had been hearsay.

So, one part of the prostitution issue was “proven to be false”. However, Chameleon had stated directly to me earlier in 2008, face to face, that she “like[d] sugar daddies” and that she knew it was wrong. She said, “I thought I could make some extra money”.

Chameleon talked about “sugar daddies” in email as well.

We shared the user of her computer using one username. One day I went to and it was already logged in as her and I saw the e-mails. Then I talked to my roommate and he revealed the other stuff.

“The other stuff” was that Chameleon was doing pretty much any adult that she was able to get into bed, male or female, and telling everybody that “Jake is fine with this”. In fact, I wasn't fine with this, but I drove 9 or more hours in December to support Chameleon in Court regardless.

Chameleon may have sent the appeal letter dated January 22, 2009 to Child Protective Services or printed it from their office. She had me e-mail the document to her when she was out. She stated that she was on the Central Register (which she called the “Central Registry”). I'm not certain how accessible it is but being on that list would inform legal entities and possibly even churches, employers, and neighbors that she should probably not have children under her care. I don't know whether her appeal to be removed from the Central Register was successful or not.

On page 4 the worker, as summarized by Chameleon, says that Chameleon has “no parenting skills.” Chameleon's response is as follows:

In contrast, my mother testified in court in July of 2007 in front of Judge Idee Fox in Philadelphia Family Court that I was a “wonderful mother”, a “caring and compassionate mother”. She stated that I was “the most patient mother she had ever seen”. In addition, I have been taking parenting classes of my own free will including James Dobson’s “Dare to Discipline” I have read many books including “Sheparding a Childs Heart”, “Bringing Up Boys”, “Strong Willed Child or a Dreamer” and others. I also have 5 years professional experience working in a Child Care Facility and have 10 years experience working in nurseries of the churches I have attended.

On the contrary, Chameleon never had a job for more than a year the whole time I knew her (10+ years). In Michigan, after losing a job, she told me, “I'm not very good at keeping jobs, but at least I'm good at getting jobs. I'm a good job getter, lol.”

Chameleon only attended Church off and on during the 10 years since I met her, and that was when she started attending church. She would go off into an unsafe lifestyle for months at a time. I'm not certain she even attended church regularly for more than a year at a time other than when 1BC Perkasie was paying her way through college. The cycle became shorter and more damaging to others over the years, not more stable. The characterization that she was some kind of model citizen or reliable minister is laughable. Though her stories of redemption and unreasonably quick dives back into church service seemed exciting and spiritual at the time, they were ill-advised. However, there wasn't anything really, short of asking her to leave which happened at least once (at 1BC Perkasie), to slow down her involvement and rise to publicity within any church community she attended. The Bible advises against having novices in leadership. In addition, others and myself were too quick to want her return and her charisma to be used for good. When I saw her do the same thing at a bar, I said to myself “Hmm…”–It seemed like the same process of becoming the center of attention, and not really spiritual at all.

Chameleon went on (or claimed to go on) a missions trip to Peru with Steamtown Church in Scranton around all the time inappropriate behavior in Scranton occurred. It is not really that much of a mystery that someone would do public service who isn't altruistic (acting in the interest of others rather than in self-interest). Someone could have various reasons for doing so, such as improving self image, public image, or even a free vacation or granted, likely a mixture of the three. It doesn't have to be spiritual or general altruism. In fact, I'm certain that she doesn't understand the concept. In Michigan when I wouldn't go along with certain things I tried to explain at length to her that I was acting on principle. For example, acting on principle means acting against one's impulses in order to benefit a spiritual or social good. I can tell you that she specifically stated that she doesn't understand the concept. She kept saying, “Why would you do anything you don't want to do?” This was one case where she quoted counsel she received and either twisted it or had received bad counsel.

Regarding Chameleon's statement that she read this and that parenting book, that's great she got that advice and I hope that the effect of them on her children through her has been positive. However, I've seen her use the counsel she was given, including mine, as tools to manipulate others not to improve herself. Not understanding the concept of altruism isn't something that is cured by stopping a dangerous lifestyle to act in a socially acceptable way. That could easily be in self-interest. Since beginning to attend church she received money and sometimes free housing for much of the time for at least ten years, from church people not just sexual encounters. Considering she got worse not better over the years (at least in public effects), I do not recommend that Chameleon have children under her care. If you have morals you might assume others do but that isn't always true. Some people are eager to use you and have no qualms about it. Chameleon only seemed to have remorse about the Scranton behavior after I convinced her I wouldn't be “gaslit” (told what I saw wasn't what it was) and pointed out to her that she should seem to have remorse but doesn't. The seeming not the doing seems to be what is important to her, and sometimes not even either until it is pointed out. Trying to appear virtuous without achieving virtue is called virtue signalling. Because of her tendency to manipulate using morals and psychology, I do not recommend buying her next redemption story or making your physical or spiritual well-being or that of others depend on it, such as by placing her in a formal or informal church leadership role or even a confidant or spiritual mentor as many have.

For the next page, Return of the Chameleon, click here. For the previous page, Early Chameleon, click here. To jump to the start and the index, click here.

@@@ # chameleon_me meta

More: See 2021-08-26 e-mail with subject starting with “Information to potentially complete”

And the following:

- Chameleon and Rubens went to high school together. She came back from NYC with her head shaved and using her biological father's last name. Her claim for why she had her head shaved was “I was on so much drugs I thought I was an alien.” Her claim for why she had been using an illegal alias was that she preferred it, and that her brothers used the last name. She says she convinced the DMV in NYC to give her a license under a different name without proper identification. Both of these points are parallel to Early Chameleon.

- In Chronological order, next is Return of the Chameleon

  Jake taken by Chameleon 2002

Cham­e­leon took the preceding photo using a Polaroid camera that we shared after learning that we had a mutual interest in Polaroids. It's good for a Polaroid snapshot.

For the next page, Abuse in Church Contexts, click here. For the previous page, Chameleon and Me, click here. To jump to the start and the index, click here.

chameleon_tfc.txt · Last modified: 2022/11/04 12:12 by poikilos