jump to navigation

A new discovery by Joan Wheeler…not! July 29, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Lessons in Life, mental illness.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

by Gert McQueen

On Joan Wheeler’s site, which can be viewed without actually going onto the site, she posted, July 27, 2010, Newly Discovered Family Keepsake: 1956 Baby Shower Card. From want she posted she didn’t seem to find this discovery a pleasant one. Why you ask? Because it reminds her of her closed adoption and the damage it has done to her. Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn.

Joan Wheeler is an adoptee and my blood sibling, has again voiced her opinions on how adoption destroys people and of course she uses her own life, full of torment, as her reasons and proof. Hey, she ought to know, she wrote a book on the subject! She relishes being the victim, it is the AIR she breaths. Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn. It is utter stupefying how warped Joan’s mind works. Oh the whining! Oh the deception! Oh the frigging DRAMA. And the gnashing of teeth, the pulling of hair, the self-flagellations! That is Joan. Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn.

For the life of me, I don’t understand what Joan’s life has to do with adoption reform and how detailing her inner torment is a HELP to people. Would, could, anyone explain that to me? And she wants to talk about the effects of adoption on her siblings! What is she all-knowing? She really can not see any positive aspects of adoption. She is the victim, she is the adoptee. Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn.

 And yes, the blood siblings know the effects that having a reunion with an adopted nutcase has caused our lives since 1974. The heart aches and the hurts that SHE has done to US (blood siblings) to punish US for her frigging adoption! Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn.

She needs to get a serious spiritual component in her life. She ignores the fact that she, like all of us, have been given life for a reason and it was not to live life as a victim! Ignorance is not bliss! Ignorance is dangerous, but knowledge (in this case adoption reform) is even more dangerous when mistaken and misguided. This is were Joan is and where anyone who listens to her will end up. She is dangerous and ignorant, what knowledge she has is mistaken and misguided! She is in darkness because she WANTS to be there. She can’t help anyone because she can’t help herself. She lacks humility, gives no respect and has proven herself to be an ass. btw. an ass is the symbol of stupidity.

 She needs to go work on her soul. Who will be at Joan’s death bed? What wisdom and truth will Joan have when it’s her time to go? She can’t escape it you know. She needs to learn her lessons now. She needs to make the best of a bad bargain and get over it. She doesn’t have forever to be a victim. 

I can speak on and on about Joan, but in all fairness we will use Joan’s own words to prove our points. We have been doing that right along with the ‘refuting’ of the book on this blog. So here is Joan’s ‘new discovery’ post (J: is Joan) along with my comments which begin with G: And some notes from Ruth!

After the introduction and showing pictures of baby cards Joan writes.

J: Evidently, as a child, I stole their hearts away.

G: every new baby does, that is one of the ways of being in the human family. Did she not do the same with her own children? Oh I forgot, they were not adopted, she gave birth to them, that is why she has treated them like dirt! Right from the get-go, in relationship to the baby cards, she is mocking the joy that a new baby brings to a family. Joan can not abide anyone having any joy over her life, not birth or adoptive families nor her own children, no one can have any joy related to Joan’s existence.

J: Definitely, they knowingly stole me from my family.

G: Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn. No one stole her, how absurd a statement is that! After much thought and consideration, by adults, that were for the betterment of her life, she was freely given and freely accepted. She was not stolen. There was no crime committed. This is Joan’s view point on a system that she can’t control. She is a professional victim and can only see life from those glasses.

 J: I gained an adoptive family, but lost the family that I had.

G: She really ought to get a grip on reality! She didn’t lose. Would she have rather been placed in an orphanage or sold on the black market? Or how about being left abandoned on some street corner? It’s all about her, she lost. What about the birth family? Joan doesn’t realize that infants can’t make decisions and sometimes life sucks! No one ever promised her a rose garden.

Ruth: Nobody on this planet was ever promised a rose garden – you’re born – that’s it. Infants and children all over the world are at the mercy of the adults in their lives. Then they grow up and MAKE A LIFE FOR THEMSELVES- Question to Joan – did YOU provide a rose garden for YOUR own children? Hell no, in MY opinion, YOUR children had a worse life than YOU!

J: It is inhumane what was done to me and my siblings in the name of adoption.

G: How is it inhumane? There are many reasons for adopting. Her position of ‘open adoption’ could never work. The reason that it is called ‘closed adoption’ is for PROTECTION of all parties involved. No one can raise a child, knowing and believing that child is theirs, if some other parent (birth) is ALWAYS in the picture. A child can not comprehend such a thing as two sets of parents at the same time. It’s basic child development and psychology. Closed Adoption is very humane.

 Ruth: What did Joan’s adoption do to me and my other siblings? NOTHING! What the heck is Joan rambling on about? Oh, because she was taken away from us? Please, considering what a screw-up she is, the Wheelers did us a favor. We were without her whining and trouble-making for 18 years.

J: They did it – my adoptive parents – knowingly, willfully and intentionally. They did it out of love. And with Jesus’ blessings. Good Catholics they were. And for this I am to be grateful.

G: She sounds like a prosecutor in a court room! They are condemed because they wanted a baby and they went about it LEGALLY, according to the laws of the country we live in. And she mocks again, the love the adopted parents had and she mocks their religious traditions that upheld them! Being Catholic has nothing to do with being adoptive. There’s religious bigotry in the heart of Joan. They could have been of any religion. The point here is that Joan, and only Joan, condemns the laws of the country and her adoptive parents for the crime of adopting her. Now that I think of it, she probably would have been better off left on a damn doorstep, a true orphan, and the two families would have been better for it!

J: No question about it, for me, there is no way to get through this pain but radical acceptance of the reality.

G: Now there’s a novel thought! But not likely to be done. Joan likes being the victim too much.

Ruth: Good god almighty! It has taken her 36 years to FINALLY reach this conclusion. But as Gert points out, it won’t get done, because Joan likes to play the victim too much. She wants people to feel sorry for her too much.

 J: Do I need to mention that I have no forgiveness for the parents and extended family involved with the coverup of the truth at my expense?

G: Cover up! good God! cover up of the truth, what truth, she was adopted, she suffered because they didn’t tell her the truth! How many people are on the earth? Each of them have been lied to at some point. Get over it Joan. Forgiveness, she hasn’t a clue what that means. Do people who read her really want her help in their adoption problems? I’d run away as fast as I could. This is how she addresses her elders, by not extending a basic thank you for the very fact that they took care of her. How humane is that? She also hates the extended family. Looks to me like Joan hates the entire Wheeler family for the imagine sin of adopting her. She also hates the entire birth family for their involvement in the ‘cover up’. Hey, everybody did it on purpose, to piss Joan off!

Ruth: Right – I was only 3 years old when Joan was adopted, but I guess I had a hand in the coverup. As to the extended family – her birth cousin Gail who is the same age as Joan, bumped into Joan at an amusement park when the girls were both 10 years old. Gail was confused, because Joan looked like me. Her mother (who knew who Joan was) told Gail that Joan was indeed my sister, but not to tell me. Oh yes, Joan, blame a 10 YEAR OLD CHILD FOR THE COVERUP! Oh my god this is worse than Watergate!

J: I am not required to give forgiveness as it was not earned, nor even asked for, except by my adoptive father immediately after he spoke with my natural father on the phone in 1974 just days after I was found.

 G: Since when is forgiveness a requirement or something that is earned? The greatest gift a person can give themselves is forgiveness. This is a core problem in Joan’s character and soul. She doesn’t understand about forgiveness and letting go. She is so full of hate and anger for being adopted she can’t forgive herself. She is self-righteous in her crusade to rid the world of the injustice of closed adoption.

Ruth: And I will not forgive a low-life scumbag who tried to railroad me into jail, tried to break me and my fiance up, tried to get me fired from my job over false accusations, wrote stupid letters to the mayor of Buffalo, and keeps saying that I have a criminal record – which is false. Yeah, that be Joan I’m talking about!

J: For whose happiness did I enter their family? Theirs. I was manipulated and tricked into believing the life they fed me. I developed close attachments and love with aunts, uncles and cousins who later turned out to hate me (but other cousins and aunts and uncles were not that way). I loved my adoptive parents, but I was cheated out of life with the siblings I was never supposed to know. Meanwhile, my natural father lost his newborn daughter and his other children lost their baby sister.

G: Good God! She can’t even take ownership of her own life! Instead of being alive and happy she sees her life as one of a total victim who was manipulated and tricked. Is she the only person who ever felt their childhood was not perfect. Oh I forgot, she was adopted and so that means there were lies and coverups, oh the injustice of it all! Lying to the adopted child is manipulation and trickery!

Ruth: yeah, we lost our baby sister – she should have stayed lost. If only we had a crystal ball in 1974, we would never have gone looking for her. Reason: read my last comment. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg of the stuff she has done to us!

G: Here she is talking about the adoptive family, who hated her, why then does she hate the birth family? Oh I forgot, she was lied to and tricked by us too. She was cheated out of her siblings. That comes with the territory of being adopted, one family gives the child to another family. A child can not be raised with two sets of parents and siblings. While it is a tragic thing that occurred, death of our mother and our father having to place the infant (Joan) for adoption, it was NOT THE END OF THE WORLD. It could have had a much more healthy outcome if Joan wasn’t so warped in the brain!

J: Let this be a lesson to adoptive parents everywhere: be as honest as you possibly can with your adoptee.

G: You hear that adoptive parents? It is you that are the dangerous ones! And if you are not truthful and honest, your kids will turn out just like Joan! And if you adopt a child, like I did, you will have Joan come after you, in a heart beat, to condemn you!

J: Honesty is the best policy. For when there are secrets and spiteful rage to keep the adoptee from ever knowing the truth, the adoptee suffers at the hands of the very people who are suppose to love that adoptee unconditionally. Withholding vital information and preventing a minor child contact with full or half siblings is a cruelty worthy to be called child abuse of both the adoptee and her siblings left behind.

G: In the course of human development and discourse, humans dealing with other humans, there is NO SUCH THING AS UNCONDITIONAL LOVE. That is a fantasy. You, Joan want the truth? You, Joan can’t handle the truth! No human being can love another human unconditionally by the very nature of being human. If you want unconditional love, go to God!

Ruth: Honesty is the best policy? I can’t believe that these words are coming from Joan, considering how much she lies about me and just about everybody in her book.

G: Joan is such an expert she nows declares closed adoption to be a cruelty by the name of child abuse! Oh she ought to NOT tread on that business! Keep watching this blog for I shall tell all about Joan’s own dirty deeds regarding child abuse actions against my children! Shame Shame Shame, Joan.

J: Yes, today my elderly adoptive mother shares her joyous memories with me of the day she and my father “got” me. She talks of the baby shower that welcomed me into the family. I acknowledge her joys. This is her journey through life. I try to make her as comfortable as possible by listening to her.

G: Oh how touching! Too bad it isn’t for real! Unless of course a person, like Joan, has two personalities where in one post, this one we are reading here, she tells how she can’t and won’t forgive the adoptive mother and then turns around here and shares the same mother’s feelings and is made comfortable by Joan. Is there a bucket I can vomit in??!!

Ruth: oh did Joan forget about that cruel lie that her adoptive mother told her about when they first brought Joan home from the court? – Supposedly, when they opened up the swaddlings, they found the baby covered in body sores, that were caused by the poor hygeinic practices of my dead mother’s brother, Richard and his wife Ann. And Joan puts that lie in her book! I spoke to Rich and he said that when Joan was discharged from Millard Fillmore Gates Hospital, Joan had IMPETIGO, a contagious pimply rash and during the three months Joan lived with them, Ann tried her hardest to clear it up. Ann and Richard were eventually divorced, but Richard defended his ex-wife! So much for honesty coming from Joan.

J: I also acknowledge my profound sadness at what I lost: my entire family of birth. My father, my siblings, my aunts, uncles and cousins, and I lost my natural mother due to her early death, a death that lead to my father’s mistaken belief that the only course of action was to give me up to a completely closed adoption. We lived less than six miles apart, but this magical social construct of adoption robbed me of my family, robbed my siblings of their baby sister, and robbed my father of his daughter.

G: She forgets that she HAD the entire birth family when she was 18 but she blew it! Our father did not have any mistaken belief on the course of action regarding placing her in adoption. It is only in Joan’s diseased mind that this happened. Living six miles apart is worthless information. Facts were there was no adult to care for 5 young children. Get a grip on reality! And if anyone thinks that those that make the laws, that adoption reform people want to change, if you think that Joan is a good activist, think again. Who would take her serious? Just listen to her. Would you?

J: The only ones who got away with any happiness and security were my adoptive parents. They got the baby they could not produce on their own. Eighteen years of infertility and voila – a baby is suddenly available by the death of her mother. Take the baby and run. Have a baby shower and pamper that baby girl with all their love. And for what? For 18 years of lies to the adoptee and 36 years of hell to pay after I was found by the very siblings my adoptive mother so adamantly declared I should never know.

G: Here’s that dual personality again and gee it was only 3 paragraphs ago, go ahead and count them back, where Joan, speaking about the adoptive mother said she “try to make her as comfortable as possible by listening to her”. Flip-flap, flip-flap, love-hate, love-hate, sick sick sick And mockery again! Why did Joan post this on the blog? What purpose does it have for reform? Was it just another opportunity to tell the world how horrible a life she has? That’s right, Love! Joan can’t accept love, she spits on it. Hell is self made! Joan is still in her self made jail cell.

 J: The past 36 years have been filed with accusations that I have been disloyal and ungrateful. Why? For accepting the truth of my birth and adoption? Why is it always the adoptee who is expected to accept other people’s viewpoints and opinions? Is it worth it to be permanently separated by arbitrary laws and social constructs to create a falsehood within which the adoptee is expected to live? No, it is not.

G: She has to ask why! Her words speak volumes. No one can have any kind of intelligent conversation with Joan because she has already made up her mind, she is right, the rest of the world is wrong. And, don’t cross her or you will find herself on her shit list.

J: I have been told with flippant comments from non-adoptees that “that’s the way it was done back then”. So? That doesn’t make it right. I am the one to suffer the consequences of other people’s actions. My life as an adoptee was not worth the cocoon-sheltered childhood and the emotional and psychological abusive adult life I have had to endure because of adoption.

G: Perhaps it doesn’t make it right, whoever said that life was fair? Life is full of injustices, the key is to LEARN from them, not wallow in it. Yes, Joan it was your lot in life to suffer the consequences! There must be a REASON why her life went the way it did, for you to learn a lesson. You better learn soon, because you don’t have forever on this planet. As an adult you had the power of change, you could have changed your life at any moment, but you choose to stay a victim.

 J: Now I must slowly say goodbye to a misguided elderly adoptive mother, make her journey to life’s passing as gentle as possible, and struggle to comprehend the devastation left behind.

G: Seems as if she is still laying it on thick! Here is Joan, abused adoptee, having still to care for an aged and misguided adoptive mother. She’s laying the guilt on to that dying woman while she thinks she is telling the world that she is doing a wonderful thing. Joan is helping the very woman she hates! That must really piss Joan off! Joan is still struggling, always will, to figure out anything. What devastation is left behind? Obviously very soon she won’t have the other half of this sick relationship.

 So there we have it, more of the same. Yawn, yawn, big, big, yawn!

So if you are looking for some serious materials for adoption reform, Joan Wheeler is not the place to go!


What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler July 22, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

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.




Our OFFICIAL “Complaints and Reviews” of the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler July 19, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Lies in the book Forbidden Family.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

From: Gert McQueen

To Trafford Publishing June 22, 2010

   I have the book, that your company published, called Forbidden Family, by Joan Wheeler. I am writing to complain about the physical breakdown of  the book. I have had the book since February 2010 and in the past 5 months the book is physically falling apart. I am using the book as a  reference guide for what it was described for. I do research, which requires frequently handling of the  book. The cover of the book has a black film coating; it is coming loose from the edges and developing holes along the spine. The pages are beginning to come apart at the seams.  For a book to fall apart in only 5 months is unacceptable.                               Gert McQueen

—– Forwarded Message —-

From: Trafford Customer Support <CustomerSupport@trafford.com>

Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 1:17:23 PM

Subject: RE: Trafford Contact Us Form

 Dear Gert,

 Thanks for the email.

 I apologize for the inconvenience this may have caused you. Rest assured that we will look into this matter with our printers. As far as I know, all our printed copies are tested and approved by our quality assurance team before being shipped out to buyers.

 Should you need further assistance, please contact customersupport@trafford.com and any member of the team will be happy to help.


 Mitch de Silva

Customer Support Team


1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

phone: 1-888-232-4444 ext. 3

fax: 1-812-355-4082

Office Hours: Mon-Fri 8am-5pm Eastern

 Please include your Project ID number and title in your email subject line.

 Ruth’s Amazon.com review:

complaint to Trafford publishing: I am writing to complain about the physical breakdown of the book. I have had the book since February 2010 and in the past 5 months the book is physically falling apart. I am using the book as a reference guide for what it was described for. I do research, which requires frequently handling of the book. The cover of the book has a black film coating; it is coming loose from the edges and developing holes along the spine. The pages are beginning to come apart at the seams.  For a book to fall apart in only 5 months is unacceptable. – Gert McQueen

From Ruth Pace – 3 other family members purchased the book (one purchased it for Gert) in December 2009 and have the same complaints of its physical condition.    I have this to say about its content: it is NOT a book of non-fiction, or a “scholarly” work on adoption reform – the author goes out of her way to trash everyone in her life who has ever made her angry. I am her birth sister, referred to as Brenda in the book. Gross lies about me and my character are all over this book, including slanderous things – like I have been arrested and have a criminal record. This is patently false! Other family members have also been trashed. Speaking of trash – this is exactly where this book belongs. I gave it a star rating, as per the website, but it really gets a 5 razz review.

tags: adoption books, revenge writing

Questions about mental health. July 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Having Fun with Disfunctionality, mental illness.
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Just some general questions about mental health. If anybody has any answers to these questions, please let me know.
Could someone ever get addicted to counseling? answer: YES – Joan Wheeler is.
If so, how could you treat them?
How can there be “self help GROUPS”?
If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill herself, is it considered a hostage situation?
If you have an open mind why don’t your brains fall out?

How would someone with mental instablilities possibly think they could be a social worker or a counselor and help other people with their problems, when they can’t even help themselves? Can someone who is deep in “poverty” and can’t get out of poverty (like Joan) advise their clients who are depressed over their financial problems?

Why would anyone accept social help or counseling from someone who is an admitted suicide risk? Would they recommend suicide to their clients?

How can someone who is suffering from clinical depression help someone else out of their depression?

How can someone who can’t get their own original birth certificate be a self-confessed “expert” on getting birth certificates for other people?

1. Gert – July 14, 2010 [Edit]

Good points, Ruth,

I have often wondered what would happen if the ancients ever came back, to this time period. What would they find?

Did the ancients need ‘self-help’ groups? Did they have time to worry so much about nothingness? I don’t think so, they had no need nor time for all that talk. They were too busy finding food and surviving. Perhaps if more people did less talk about there troubles, real and in their heads, there wouldn’t be so much garbage flowing around, not just on the planet up in orbit around it! Perhaps if people just got down to learning how to live, go out and grow a flower or a vegetable, and look how to see a sunset or something, instead of needing to talk to others ‘like myself’.

In my town there is a whole page of the Sunday newspaper loaded with all the self-help groups. I feel left out! there is not one that I need!

2. RuthJuly 14, 2010 [Edit]

When I was first writing this post, I was laughing my ass off. Because some of it is funny. But then later on, I was getting some coffee, and started thinking, it’s really not funny at all.
Joan admits she is a suicide risk. Then touts her “social work” degree.
‘scuse me, if I would need help for depression, Joan is one social worker I would run the f*ck away from!
But the public is safe – Joan refuses to get a job anyway.

Gert – July 14, 2010 [Edit]

That’s right, its not funny, its a damn shame.
And for all the years of education that Joan has had, in social work, she ought to have gotten serious help and probably not from those professions that makes loads of $$ from sick people.

Joan can’t help herself let alone anyone else. Her book will not help anyone either, because it is full of the illnesses that are in Joan’s head.

But I still find these questions very funny.
If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill herself, is it considered a hostage situation?
If you have an open mind why don’t your brains fall out?         interesting isn’t it?

When did Joan Wheeler really start in the Adoption Reform Movement? July 13, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Lies in the book Forbidden Family.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

 By Gert McQueen, July 12, 2010

Joan Wheeler states, in many venues where she is promoting herself and her book, Forbidden Family, that she has been in the adoption reform movement since 1974. This is not fully correct, it is another one of Joan’s attempts to play with facts and hijack the truth, betting that people don’t question her facts.

During the years of 1974-78, she was in college and learning and dealing with her ‘reunion’. She was a very young, naive girl with a lot of anger and hate, searching for some kind of meaning to her life. That is hardly being ‘active in the adoption reform movement’. Yes she wrote editorials and articles to a newspaper, but again, that is not considered proper involvement, it was more or less her avenue to ‘vent’ her anger and frustations.

According to Joan’s own words, in her own book, Forbidden Family this is what she says:

pg 102, 1974, she took a college course called Family Dynamics, did a research paper and a family tree. These activities do not constitute involvement with any reform movement, all it shows is her personal interest in a particular topic.

pg 113, Joan made friends with a professor and his wife who had adopted children and they had a group called, Council on Adoptable Children. Joan gets a book called Search for Anna Fischer. Joan asked me, her birth sister, to sent her newspaper articles on adoption. These activities do not constitute involvement with any reform movement, all it shows is her personal interest in a particular topic.

pg 114/115 around Dec 1974 Joan wrote a letter to ALMA, and on pg 115 she wrote ‘I had no idea that I’d be involved from that moment on…’ THIS IS THE IMPORTANT POINT. She WAS NOT involved in the movement in 1974 because she only WROTE THE LETTER in December 1974.

pg 120 Joan finally receives newsletters from ALMA in Feb 1975, NOT 1974 and again, these activities do not constitute involvement with any reform movement, all it shows is her personal interest in a particular topic.

pg 124 Feb 1976 Joan goes to NY City for her first ALMA meeting, during which she learns that she might be able to be in a book about adoptees, but she did not meet their qualifications. That is the reason she decided to write the book Forbidden Family. It is only at this time, Feb 1976, would I believe that she ‘belonged’ to an organization for adoption reform. BUT, by her own words on pg 124, they didn’t want her and she began her own quest for recognition.

So was she or was she not a member of ALMA in 1976 when she went to her first meeting? 1976 is not 1974.

pg 125 Joan started a Chapter of ALMA in Erie PA, spring of 1976 but it was disbanned. This is another false attempt to get involved with the movement, remember she was in college and that to deal with, not a reform movement. 1976 is not 1974.

So when did Joan Wheeler really start in the Adoption Reform Movement? By her own words, not when she states she did.

1. RuthJuly 13, 2010

well said Gert.
Readers, do you see how fast and loose Joan plays with the “facts.”And the TRUTH!
If you want the facts, and the TRUTH about Joan Wheeler, never fear, The Three Sippel Sisters will not let you down!
If you want the facts, and the TRUTH about our family, we are here to tell it.

Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family deliberately falsifiies the facts July 11, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

by Gert McQueen June 22, 2010

Joan Wheeler’s book “Forbidden Family,” deliberately falsifiies the facts of her birth, life, adoption, reunion, problems within and without her adoption and reunion, her activities within the reform movement, her career or lack of in Social Work and her own mental instabilities.

Joan’s so called advocacy for adoption reform ought to be based on facts, if it is to be of benefit for true reform. As such her book and it’s contents falls under the scientific parameters of getting at the truth. Any one who is serious about adoption reform would want to have true facts at hand to accomplish that goal.

 Unfortunately Joan is in love with her own theories. She can not give them up even in the face of overwhelming evidence that her theories are wrong. This blog’s purpose is to prove that her theories are wrong by giving that overwhelming evidence.

The following may be a somewhat unorthodox reference, but it says it quite well, in my opinion. I was watching a DVD last night called Dorothy Sayrers Mysteries Gaudy Night 1987 BBC.

A crime detective in the story said:  ‘The only principal that has made science possible is the ethical one, that, the truth must be told at all times and if we do not penalize false statements made in error than we open up the way for false statements made by intent and the falsification of fact made by intent is the most serious crime a scientist may commit.’

This is what Joan has done, she has made … ‘false statements made by intent and the falsification of fact made by intent is the most serious crime a scientist may commit’ and it is our intent, on this blog site, to bring out her falsifications of the facts publicly.

Who knows better about the truth of my own life? Me, who lives it, or the pathological liar Joan Wheeler? July 8, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Joan Wheeler is so upset that I started this blog. I started this blog because in November 2009, I read a statement of hers on the internet that involved me. And it was NOT the truth. So I rebutted her statement. The owner of the website would not publish my comment. Because it was one of those anti-adoption forums and the web-host was a “friend” of Joan’s. So much for the militant adult adoptee reformers who keep claiming they want the “truth.” They only want THEIR truth published, not anybody else’s, and certainly not someone who is presenting an opposing opinion of one of their militant members. They don’t publish the real TRUTH, they only publish their twisted versions of their interpretation of the TRUTH.

I certainly know the TRUTH of my life. I know the FACTS. I know I didn’t get my driver’s license until 1976. I well remember what apartment I was living in – the back upstairs apartment of 293 Amherst St. I well remember meeting my first husband Abdo in May of 1975, and I was still living in an apartment at the corner of Elmwood and Allen. I walked to work, and used my BICYCLE to go places. I well remember using my bike to go to Abdo’s house on Grant St.  And when Abdo and I moved in together in July of 1975 on Amherst St., I then took the Grant St. Number 3 BUS to work everynight. I left my house at 10:00 to get the bus. During the winter of 75-76, we got stranded downtown and nearly froze waiting for a bus home. That’s when we made the decision to get a car. We bought it in March 1976. Even though neither one of us could drive. So how does Joan account for her saying in her book Forbidden Family that I drove her around in 1974? This is her truth? Nope, this is a falsehood. Or a faulty memory working here. So how do YOU people who bought her book know what she is saying is the REAL truth? She can’t even remember correctly the so-called “facts” she presents in her book. Can you trust somebody like this? I sure can’t. And I won’t.

So this is why I have this blog – to get out the TRUTH and the FACTS of my own life – something I know a hell of a lot better than Joan. Because she hasn’t lived my life – she doesn’t know my life – all she knows is how to lie.

Like telling people that I have a criminal record. Where is your proof Joan? I have proof that I do not have a criminal record. Joan also says that she has had multiple orders of protection against me – and I have submitted scanned court documents right here on this blog that proves that she did not. She relates a fantasy court battle in the year 1994, and an incident that occured at the water fountain when the court broke for lunch. I have submitted on this blog, court documents from 1999 that show we never were in court in 1994, it was in 1995, and it was not HER that institued the court case, it was ME. And I submitted my summons to appear at 2 in the afternoon, which is AFTER lunch.

Joan then reads my blog and complains that I am harassing her because I dare tell the TRUTH of what happened between us. And other TRUTHS. She keeps saying that I am harassing her, interfering with her, doing things to her.

It isn’t a matter of “doing” something to her. It is a matter of the TRUTH coming out. It will be the TRUTH that will do something to her. It is Joan’s own LIES being uncovered that is “doing” something to her.

People sometimes wonder why I can’t bury the past. You cannot bury the past when the LIE affects the present.

Therefore, I and my sisters will continue to write our TRUTH here, and if Joan doesn’t like it, or can’t take it, well, so be it.

There will be a posting in a few days from another Sippel Sister – Gert McQueen – stayed tuned for some more TRUTH-telling.

Joan Wheeler – The Forbidden CHILD indeed! July 2, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

At long last, my companion piece to Gert’s post “Forbidden family or forbidden child?”  I have just been so busy, and then in June I was very sick. Please click on the link to read Gert’s post first.

UPDATE…NOVEMBER 2015 as older posts are viewed this announcement is being placed on them. Joan ‘revised’ yet again her ‘story’, it is NOW called ‘duped by adoption’. To learn more see Gert’s second blog and a Facebook page.



NOW to continue

Gert’s post Forbidden Family or Forbidden Child starts with page 90, so I will start there too.

Joan had related a request from our sister in England to bring some souvenoirs when she came over to England to visit. Edith/Kathy asked or a cowboy hat and mocassins for an aunt and uncle of The Beatles’ Ringo Starr.

Joan starts her whining early in life. She didn’t know where to go buy these items. Never mind she was a member of the Buffalo Indian Dance Group, a Native American dance group. They routinely wore mocassins, and I personally saw Joan perform with this troupe. And she herself wore a full Native American costume, complete with all things: MOCASSINS! Where did she get those mocassins? Why didn’t she go there for some mocassins? And if she couldn’t find a cowboy hat, why didn’t she ask someone in the troupe to help her? The dance troupe came out of The Buffalo Museum of Science. I’m sure SOMEBODY would have known where to get a hat. But no, Joan relates in her book that time spent in stores made her nervous, and she became agitated and worried. WTF? She tried for weeks, but couldn’t find the items. Oh- and the “demands” on her were too high! All Kathy did was ask for a couple of souveniors. She wasn’t asking for her first-born!
Was it the fact that the souveniors were for a celebrity? (and actually they weren’t for a celebrity, they were for relatives of a celebrity). Was that what made Joan nervous? I hardly think so. She fired off plenty of fan letters to Leonard Nimoy (Star Trek’s Mr. Spock) and Peter Noone (Herman, Herman’s Hermits). She met Leonard Nimoy at the local annual children’s hospital telethon in 1971 or 1972. In 1975 she and I attended a local broadcast of Dialing for Dollars to meet actor Keir Dullea. She showed NO fear of celebrities. And she does say in her book that on November 5, 1974, she came home to Buffalo from college to attend a concert by Herman’s Hermits at Uncle Sam’s, a local disco. She had a backstage pass to meet the group. Oh, wasn’t she “nervous and agitated” to meet them? Nope. At the disco, she ran into me and our cousin Gail, and lucky us, we got to go backstage with her and meet the band! Gee, I don’t recall Joan being nervous and agitated to meet actual rock stars, and these weren’t even a rock stars aunt and uncle!

addendum – July 11, 2010

On Page 116, Joan is describing events at the 1975 Star Trek conventions. She says that during one of her bathroom stops (oh please, have some class – do readers of a book have to hear she’s going to the bathroom?)!!! Anyway, she relates how she bumps into the late science fiction author Isaac Asimov.  She says he hugged her and they posed for pictures. He signed his autograph for her. And they would meet again during future science fiction conventions.  She doesn’t say that she “nervous and agitated” meeting Isaac Asimov, or down the road in the early 1980’s when she and I met noted writer Harlan Ellison. And Ellison has a reputation for upsetting fans. While we were forming the autograph line, and Ellison walked past us, for some reason, he reached out to me and tweaked my cheek, saying “You’re so cute.” (He also has a reputation for being somewhat strange). When I approached the autograph table, I reached out and tweaked HIS cheek and told him, “You’re so cute.”  He was speechless. A fan reciprocrated his silliness! So I have the reputation of rendering Harlan Ellison silent. Joan was the next in line. Was she “nervous and agitated,” especially since her sister just rendered Ellison speechless? Nope!

So returning to the souveniors that Kathy requested:
What does Joan mean she tried for weeks to find the items? What stores was she looking in? Come on! This is an intelligent (?) young woman? But she sure knew where to get marijuana to smoke in her bedroom didn’t she? And she did NOT get the marijuana from us.

Now remember people, this was in 1974, and we had just met Joan. “time spent in stores made her nervous. She was agitated and worried.” So she was this way when we met her. OBVIOUSLY she was not raised right. She had a severe lack-of-social-graces, and was exibiting signs of mental instability. In the beginning, this was not obvious to me or others at all. But as time went on, and we were exposed to her “quirkiness,” we began to see that she was, well, “wierd,” is how we put it. We still didn’t attribute it to any kind of mental instability, she was just….wierd. BUT…..WE ACCEPTED HER ANYWAY!

Joan is very contradictory on her expectations of how her adoptive and birth families are and her wanting everyone to be. And these “fantasy” expectations of people continue to this day, and this includes people who are not related to her, whether by birth or adoption. By the years 1980 and 1981, her true colors began to emerge. But we are still discussing 1974 here.

Page 92 and page 97 shows just how unrealistic her expectations of people are. She starts with telling us an interesting history of my mother’s family tree. A few generations ago, there was even a marriage between the Herr family (my mother’s family) and the Wheeler’s.  And my mother’s sister Catherine was a life long friend of a sister of Edward Wheeler, Joan’s adoptive father.

On page 92, Joan says she is shown a photograph of my parents and us Sippel kids. Apparently, my Aunt Catherine had sent this photo to the Wheelers, because Joan had seen it in the past. She didn’t know who the family was, but now, she is shown the same photo by her birth family and she feels an agonizing sense of recognition, and was “instantly repulsed at the level of betrayal from the parents who raised me.”

Oh for heaven’s sake. Remember people, the Wheelers and the Herrs were distant relatives, and EVERYBODY in 1956 was sad because a woman, just 30 years old, very well liked and admired, with 5 little kids, one an infant, was diagnosed with cancer and within 3 months DIED. Perhaps that picture that the Wheelers had was their way of honoring and remembering her.

On page 101, she relates (and Gert brings it up in her post also) about how she sneaks around her parents home to find this photograph and says: “IT WAS MINE NOW, AND STEALING DIDN’T BOTHER ME.”  — remember this people, that STEALING DOESN’T BOTHER HER, because Joan steals several times more. From me, from our sister Kathy. Even stole beadwork off our dead mother’s wedding gown!

On page 93, Joan relates how jealous she is because Aunt Catherine’s kids and her Aunt Helen’s kids went camping together in earlier years. Um, the 2 woman were life-long friends, they grew up together. Why shouldn’t their kids go camping together? Just because Joan was adopted, Catherine and Helen should suddenly stop being friends?

On page 96, Joan relates how on a visit to an adoptive aunt, (after the reunion) stories were freely flowing about the connection between the Herr and Wheeler families. She relates how the Wheelers lived in the same neighborhood as her birth family (it’s a small world). My grandfather delivered coal to the Wheelers. Joan then wonders why this suddenly stopped when she was adopted. – but wasn’t she complaining because Catherine and Helen DID NOT stop their “connection?”

Well, the connections between the Herrs and the Wheelers suddenly stopped, because for one thing, the Wheelers bought a nice house in the suburbs. They moved away from the inner city neighborhood where they had their start. AND, yes, Dorothy Wheeler was possessive of Joan. But not all contact stopped, as Joan relates about the photograph Aunt Catherine gave the Wheelers.

But Joan can’t make up her mind about how she feels about these connections. First she complains that the connection between Catherine and Helen did NOT stop, then complains that other connections DO stop!

On page 100, she relates how 2 days before she left to start college (1974), I drove her to meet our Aunt Doris. WRONG. It wasn’t me, it was our cousin Gail! I didn’t learn to drive until 1976. In 1974, I was living in my first apartment, and I did not own a car, nor did I know how to drive a car. Get your facts straight Joan, if you are writing a “non-fiction” book!

Page 103 shows again, how she is full of a lack of self-esteem and sense of worth. She is invited to be part of a wedding party of one of her adoptive cousins. She bitches because she is asked to dye her hair to please the bride. I agree with her on this point, I wouldn’t want to change MY hair to please somebody else either. But she goes along with it, and feels out-of-place during the preparations of the wedding. She couldn’t get into the spirit of it. During the wedding reception she “senses” people talking about her. AHHH, the first hints of paranoia.

Oh, she knows what people are speaking about without being part of the conversation. She doesn’t say she HEARS them talking about her, she SENSES they are. Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. Not only do we see the first signs of paranoia, we see the groundworks of another one of her contradictions: she is ostracized! oh boo hoo, she is being ignored! She is being talked about – she is NOT being ignored, oh boo, hoo. Again, Joan, make up your mind. Joan WANTS to be the center of attention, then bitches when she IS! She wants HER privacy maintained (but cares nothing about my privacy, or anyone else’s), – she wants to be left alone. then bitches when she is left alone – she sees that as being ostracized! You just can’t keep up with her.

She then says, that after knowing the bride for 18 years, she would never see her again, because she was too embarrassed to keep up a relationship with her. Why? What was she embarrassed about? she doesn’t say. She blames her embarrasment on — people talking about her? Please, the bride didn’t notice. Brides don’t notice. They have their minds on a thousand and one things. I myself can not remember one word of my vows. I do remember the tears in John’s eyes. I remember one of my bridesmaids Sarah, taking pictures. She was behind the judge making fun of his wig and I was trying very hard to keep a straight face.  I don’t even remember half of what was said at Athen’s restaurant at our dinner that evening. Getting back to the wedding that Joan attended, the bride involved was probably sitting at the head table with her new-husband, she couldn’t understand every converstion in the room. Newsflash Joan: you are NOT in the thoughts and minds of everyone around you 24/7. Get over yourself.

Gert brings up the following point in her post: “The main source of trouble and later harassment is shown on page 99, it is the adoptive father’s brother John Wheeler. It is things that he does later, to Joan, which my sisters and I get the blame for. It is also quite interesting to note the family’s dynamics at work within the Wheeler family. The antagonism is palpable, the intimidations, the betrayals; all learned and practiced within the Wheeler family complex long before Joan knew she was part of our family. Joan is the product of her upbringing; …”

You know, what Gert observes and writes is the absolute truth! NOBODY in the Sippel family practices antagonism, intimidation, betrayal, theft. My goodness. I think back on my relationships with my siblings – let’s see, nope, no stealing, lying, intimidations, betrayals between me and Gert, me and Kathy, me and my late brother Butch, my step-brothers Jim and John, my step-sisters Joselyne and Mariel and my half brother Steve. Nor between any of those I just mentioned! There is in our family, as I find in a lot of families, the usual tensions between step-siblings. It seems to be a common occurance that older siblings are pushed out of the way in favor of the younger ones. But we are not talking about the dynamics of step-family members here on this blog, we are talking about the continual back-stabbing and other despicable things going on in the Wheeler family, or at least a couple of them, AND the main perpetrators of it all – Joan and her adoptive mother herself – Dorothy/Doloris Wheeler. (yes, she goes by two names – and they are both listed in the public records of Erie County Hall on her deed and mortgage records – remember this fact – it is important in an event of December 1994).

So getting back to the Wheeler dynamics – Joan doesn’t even get along with the extended Wheeler family – cousins she grew up with are now her enemies. Why is this? My goodness, to this day, I am constantly finding and re-connecting with cousins from my mother’s side of the family via facebook. Cousins I haven’t seen for years – some I haven’t EVER met – yet we’re getting along! A couple of them have been quite vocal in their affection for me. At a relative’s funeral in December 2009, three young men approached me – son’s of my late cousin Ida. I hadn’t seen them since their mother’s funeral in August 1990. I could see their love for me in their eyes. Why does this not happen to Joan? Because Joan continuously disrespects people and because in the Sippel and the Herr families, we were taught to respect each other.

To sum up what is wrong with Joan in just a couple of words: SHE RESPECTS NO ONE. NOT EVEN HERSELF. And when you do not respect others, you aren’t going to get much of a loving relationship. Joan got just what she learned at the feet of Dorothy Wheeler – she is on the outside looking in.

On page 110 she relates going to Jamestown New York for a family reunion. Gert already pointed out that inaccuracy in her reporting of how Joan got there. She claims Gert drove to Erie Pa. to get her and took her to the reunion. Gert and her children were not there, nor did Gert drive to Erie to get her. I don’t know how Joan got to Buffalo, but I DO know it was my cousin Gail who drove her to meet our Uncle Mike. (it wasn’t me, I didn’t know how to drive then). How do I know it was Gail? Because I remember Gail telling me that at the dinner table, Aunt Doris was smoking and Joan butted in and said “I have to ask you to stop smoking because I am allergic to cigarette smoke.” and Aunt Doris the Barricuda (family nickname) said, “This is my house, and I will smoke if I want.” When Gail told me the story, I laughed, and said, “gee, she didn’t have any problems smoking that marijuana with me last month.”

Also on page 110 she’s got me in the car with cousin Gail and her mother, Aunt Catherine. Again, I wasn’t there. For a NON-FICTION book, and a TRUTHFUL book, there’s sure a lot of discrepencies in it! And where was the car going? She says “on the drive home.” She doesn’t say until a couple pages of later that she was to be in Buffalo from college on Christmas break. All we get is she got picked up in Erie, then she’s on the drive home. How do the readers know why she’s not going BACK to Erie for xmas break when she doesn’t say for another page or two?  Poor and inaccurate writing skills are evident here.

Anyway, she goes on to talk about a conversation about Uncle Mike’s dislike of my father. I wasn’t in the car, so I don’t know about it. But on page 11, she’s got the car turning into her driveway and me getting out with her and telling her that she has misspelled the name Sippel on a Christmas card she sent me. I don’t remember this happening. It may have happened, but it certainly was NOT at that event, because, as I said, I wasn’t there.

On page 112, she relates her confusion as to how our mother died. She has been told over and over again that she died of uterine cancer. The immediate cause of death was carcinomatosis (cancer) and hypernephroma, kidney failure. This is listed on the death certificate. Joan says that she found a descrepancy in the information passed on through the adoption process. NOPE. This is NOT a discrepency. This is FACT! And she has been told this time and time again.

1. my mother got pregnant. 2. during the pregnancy she developed the cancer. – or else she had the beginnings of it BEFORE she got pregnant with Joan. 3. By the time she delivered the baby, the cancer was too far gone. 4. On January 19, 1956, she had exploratory surgery, where the cancer was found to have spread. There was nothing to be done, so they closed her up, and  over the course of the next few weeks, she went downhill. 5. The immediate cause of death is correctly listed – kidney failure. Her organs had started to fail. Her heart could have been the organ that failed first. If it had, Joan would be now obsessed with heart disease, which she should be concerned with, as my dad has had open heart surgery, and The Three Sippel sisters all have high cholesterol and the signs are there that we need to be extra careful with our tickers.

Joan’s obession with the kidneys is because she has had a lifelong problem with bladder and kidney infections. Why? I don’t know. She also has a lot of allergies. These could be because she was born premature and this is just the way she is. Why must she be obsessed with changing the cause of my mother’s death?

She goes on to say she had been worrying about uterine cancer and having PAP tests done every 6 months. What kind of doctor was she going to that didn’t reassure her? Why the need for PAP tests every 6 months? Look people, MY mother died of uterine cancer. When I became sexually active in 1972, I took care of my gyn needs as needed. I was NOT obsessed about it. When I tried and couldn’t conceive, I did make plans to start having tests to find out why. * Then I had my miscarriage, and I accepted it. (it may have taken me a couple of years and a session with a counselor, but I did accept it). And in 2001, when the need came to have a hysterectomy, I said, “fine. get rid of it. Never worked right anyway. Never let me have a kid. Out with it.I can now be free of the monthly mess.” NO OBSESSING NEEDED.  * note to Joan – making plans to have tests to find out why I wasn’t getting pregnant, then having just the basic tests done by a regular gynecologist does NOT mean I went to a fertility clinic/specialist and had infertility tests done. Joan reports this on page 302. Joan – get your facts straight about MY dam life before you go around reporting on it! Better yet – STOP REPORTING ON MY LIFE! Because I don’t see where MY gyn concerns has any bearings on YOUR adoption, your adoption reunion, or your adoption reform activities.

The next few pages she’s going on about her getting involved in the adoption movement. She says “the confusion and rage within me began to consume me and change me into a radical adoptee.” and “That militant part of me grew in ways that were unhealthy.”  Remember people, this was all taking place in Erie Pa. AWAY from her birth family. She is admitting that in early 1975, she was consumed with confusion and rage, and it was growing in ways that were unhealthy. So why does she in later years blame her birth siblings for her mental problems? And she admits to the whole world here that she is unhealthy in her mind!!!! Can someone who is unhealthy in her mind and who is a self-admitted thief, and sees no wrong in stealing be a proper spokesperson for the adoption reform movement? Can a person like this be trusted even in everyday life? Can a person like this be even trusted to write a truthful book? I don’t think so, and the proof is in the pages of her book.

For example, on page 115, she describes an event that happened on Valentine’s Day 1975. As we were both Star Trek fans, we made plans to attend the Star Trek Convention in New York. We were taking the Greyhound bus. She boarded the bus in Erie. The bus pulled into Buffalo, where I got on and took us on to New York. Joan states, “We spent the 12 hours on the bus…” No, SHE spent 12 hours on the bus, I spent only 8 hours on the bus. She was on the bus 4 hours longer than me. Nitpicking? Nope. When you set out to write a TRUTHFUL book, it better dam well be the TRUTH! This is just an another example of how Joan gets the little details wrong – like having me drive her around 2 years before I learned to drive. It just makes you not trust ANY thing that comes out of her mouth.

On page 113, she relates that she asked Gert to send her any newspaper or magazine clippings on adoption. She says, “Irma (Gert) complained that this wasn’t her thing, so she said she’d cut out a few articles to get me started.” She then goes on to say that she began reading the articles, so obviously, Gert clipped some and sent them to her. Gert says in her post, “”But she (Joan)  doesn’t understand family members non-interest in the adoption issues; she has to point out that I ‘complained that adoption wasn’t her (my) thing’. Is there a point here?”

Yes Gert, there is most definitely a point. The point is Joan is showing the whole world thru her book, her lack of RESPECT for those who do not share her obsession with adoption. And this anecdote shows Joan for the little sniping pisspot she is: her book is littered with little digs like this against her own blood-kin! Go back and read what I quoted from her book: “Gert COMPLAINS” BUT Gert must have sent the articles because she was reading them in college.

Here’s another little dig, aimed at me: I mentioned earlier that when “we” got out of the car (after the family reunion that I wasn’t at), and I corrected her misspelling our last name on a Christmas card, she says that when I said it, I must have tried to be helpful, but it didn’t come out that way and I sarcastically quipped it. Excuse me for being human. And making a mistake. And this mistake of mine has WHAT to do with Joan’s adoption, her renunion, or her adoption reform work? No, she went out of her way to point this flaw in me out to her readers. Because she has to start to show everyone that I’m a bitch. She is laying the groundwork for her accusations against me that I have harassed and interfered with her life “for decades.” Remember this people, how she starts the put-downs, the little digs against her blood-kin. She needs to point out our flaws here, to justify her lies later on in the book.

And I need to point out here, that she never brought this up to me. She never once said that I made her feel “ashamed and stupid” with that remark. I certainly had no intention of doing so, and if I did hurt your feelings Joan, I do sincerely apologize for it, right here and now. But I have to wonder – did this little incident grow in her “unhealthy” mind? Was it the basis (along with an incident in 1987) that made her want to hurt me over and over and over and stab me in the back, not once, but several times? – but we will get to those later.

~~~~~~~~~~~ picture time ~~~~~~~~~~

Here is me, my first husband Abdo (right), his brother Ali (between me and Abdo) and our good friend Tony. We were sitting on the hood of my first car. Abdo and I bought it in March 1976, before we even knew how to drive. Ali didn’t drive either. Tony was the only one who could drive. Ali, Abdo, and me were learning to drive together.  Now I ask you, if I didn’t own a car until March 1976, or even get my license until July 1976, how was I driving Joan around in 1974?

On page 116, she describes events we attended together in early 1975.  Like attending the afore-mentioned Dialing for Dollars show to see actor Keir Dullea. She describes us seeing Pink Floyd and Beatles’ movie marathons at a downtown theatre, we hung around Allentown, we went dancing at Uncle Sam’s. She doesn’t say how we got to those places. We took the city buses. That’s how we got there. And later, when we went dancing at Uncle Sam’s disco, it was when I was living with Abdo and she came along with us. Abdo and I had many friends with cars and we would all hang out together. So who drove us to Uncle Sam’s? I don’t know. It may have been Fayez, it may have been Farouk, it may have been Tony, or Jimmy (Mahmoud),  or even Steve (Abdullah). All I know is: it sure wasn’t ME, because I DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO DRIVE!

My first husband Abdo, his brother Ali, and our good friend Tony, on Abdo’s and mine, first car, April 1976. The only person in the picture who could drive at that time was Tony (far left).

%d bloggers like this: