jump to navigation

Telling the Truth Part 3 – Joan Wheeler – The Three Sippel Sisters September 20, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
trackback

This is the third and final installment of our Telling the Truth series. Go here for Part One: Telling the Truth Part 1 – Joan Wheeler – The Three Sippel Sisters by Ruth Pace, September 7, 2010 and here for Part Two:  Telling the Truth Part 2 – Joan Wheeler – The Three Sippel Sisters  by Gert McQueen, September 9, 2010 – in answer to a 5 part retro piece that Joan Wheeler had on her site. We do not care what Joan writes on her site, or at other place on the internet, except WHEN IT PERTAINS TO US AND  OUR FAMILY, OR WHEN SHE CONTINUES TO LIE ABOUT US. iF SHE WANTS TO SPREAD LIES ABOUT US, WE WILL TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT HER. – Ruth, September 20, 2010.

J is Joan, G is Gert, with additional comments by Ruth:

Part 4: The Buffalo News 3-Part Series Search for Yesterday (Adoptive Parents Dilemma) 1984    J: 2010.08.11 I’ll let this article speak for itself

 G:…I have no real need to discuss the article here, only interested in Joan’ words today.

J:  This type of negative publicity influences public opinion, including our legislators. Over the decades, there has been a tendency to make this an “either – or” topic: either you have a good reunion, or you have a bad one, with nothing in between. In the mental health fields, such as social work or psychology, we see that life itself is a collection of shades of grey. Life is a series of good and bad experiences with lots of ups and downs. People go with the flow. Same is true with searches and reunions. Many adoptive parents of the past are now viewing their adoptees with greater understanding of their losses due to the adoption itself and are more open to search and reunion.

G:…Joan makes herself sound like she has it all together. Far from it! This is how Joan manages to get people to see only what Joan wants them to see. Joan knows all the right words, how to pull the emotional strings of other adoptees, she is a con-artist. Even if someone really reads the book, like we sisters are, you will see the ‘real’ Joan emerge. She is soft-spoken, unless crossed, she is meek, unless crossed, she’s understanding, unless crossed. And, she is an unconscious maniac, has no problem laying it all out for the reader to see her violent mental outbursts. And, she is so brain dead that she doesn’t realize that real sane people, adoptees or not, see right to the core of who she is…a nut case. So yes, stay tuned here to this blog because we shall show you the real Joan.

J:  Legislation and public opinion toward adoptee and natural parents’ access to the true original birth certificate has slowly gained momentum. It depends on who you talk to.

 G:…certainly does depend on who you talk to. And heaven help the person that disagrees with Joan, for you shall reap the full extend of Joan’s wrath. Keep reading this blog to see how we sisters address every page of the disgusting book that Joan has written that is full of lies.

 

Part 5: Response to The Buffalo News 3-Part Series Search for Yesterday: Adoptive, Birth Parents See Reunion Problems: My Natural Father Speaks Out 1984     2010.08.13

J:  Appearances are deceiving, or are they?

 I honestly don’t know where to begin.

G:….Even without the article here I have comments. Yes, appearances are deceiving. Joan is not whom she presents herself as. And if she doesn’t know where to begin, why the hell is she reprinting these articles? Is her real purpose to help with adoption reform? I doubt it. No, the real reason is to show that she has always told the truth but it is other people that have misrepresented her. Bull Shit. She is writing this 5 parter because we the sister questioned her telling the truth.

J: Right from the start there are the two adoptive mothers who are defending their rights to someone else’s child:

“I don’t want to sound unsympathetic to birth parents”

She just did by dismissing their loss of their child.

“I wouldn’t want someone else to say ‘she’s my daughter’.”

Wow, such denial of the facts of life coming from an adoptive mother who probably was infertile so she thought adopting (taking) someone else’s child as her own was the best choice for herself and the child. Guess what? Her Korean girl IS some else’s daughter!

This “all or nothing” thinking is what causes problems in adoption.

“…chances for a reunion with her biological family are lessened. We didn’t adopt internationally because of that, but it’s a fringe benefit of adopting from another country…That’s one problem you’d almost never have to deal with.”

Really? This adoptive mother contradicted herself. She told me, via a phone call back in 1984, that the only reason she adopted foreign children is make sure her children would never have contact from their birth families.

G:…Personally these issues don’t concern me. But what I do see here is another example of how if Joan’s view is not accepted how Joan has an immediate negative reaction. Joan never accepts another’s reasoning. She never accepted the reasons that our father had when he placed her up for adoption, or years later when he ADOPTED a step-child. She never accepted the reasons I had for ADOPTING my own birth son with a second husband. In the case of her own adoption she ‘believes’ that our father was coerced into giving her away and she is very hostile about that. In the cases of adopting a step-child (my father and myself) Joan reacted extremely hostile to us, never once accepting the real reason that those two separate adoptions were done….for the LOVE OF THE CHILD. Stay tune right here on this blog for I shall write all about how Joan’s reactions and interference not only damaged and hurt two family but everyone else in the family! Joan is NOT an advocate to adoptive parents. If you are an adoptive parent you had better ran for cover, far away from her.       Ruth’s note – and if you are an infertile woman run far far away from Joan – because she HATES infertile women.

 J:  So, the adoptee’s right to know her own natural parents and siblings and country of origin is seen by her adoptive mother as a problem that is avoided because the chances of reunion are next to nill because the birth family is in Korea? How convenient for the adoptiveparents, or at least this adoptivemother. Notice that adoptive fathers are absent from this article, and even in the series presented in my previous post. Also note that natural fathers are absent from discussion involving illegitimate births.

How am I able to write about this now, nearly 26 years later? Because I took notes.

I’d like to know what that cute Korean toddler of 1984 has to say now in 2010 when she realizes that (by the will of her loving, forever, real adoptive parents) she was held in captivity because her adoptive parents didn’t love her enough to give her the freedom necessary to build her own self identity.

There are so many blogs out there now written by adoptees of color who were adopted by white people and brought to America. These adoptees do not like what was done to them. I sure do hope that this family has done quite a bit of healing for the adoptee’s sake, if not for the sake of the misguided adoptive parents.

G:…Golly gee, she kept notes…okay…but in the book she goes on a raging rampage and destroys and burns all kinds of pictures and memos of her life with her CHILDREN and does it in FRONT OF THEM.       Ruth’s note: She burned her children’s toys and baby pictures in front of them in the middle of the dam living room! She should be up on charges of child abuse – the mental anguish she put those kids thru and for almost burning down the house while the kids were in it! – f’ing lunatic!

Wait till I get to that part in the book and post that entry! Oh yes, Joan is a crazy person as well as a liar, for if she says here (2010) that she can write about something 26 later because she kept notes, then was what she wrote in the book, about burning everything a lie or is she lying now? Oh, she did say, in the book, that a copy of the manuscript for the book was not burnt. Must be these articles and notes were too precious to her to burn when she went on a rampage in front of her children. KEEP YOUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM HER.

And are you really hearing what Joan is saying here? How she mocks adoptive parents? She never sees the love that those people have for the children, only that they allowed the child to be ‘held in captivity’ and they were not given ‘freedom to build own self identity’. Joan is PROJECTING her life, her identity, her trauma, onto every child that has been adopted. Joan is NOT an impartial advocate and as such should never be counseled. Adoptive parents are ‘misguided’ and are not giving ‘healing’ to the adoptee. Stay clear of Joan!     Ruth’s note: quoting Gert “She never sees the love that those people have for the children,” How can she see the love there, she has no love for her own children, to burn their pictures and toys in front of them, to forge a letter posing as her son and send it me as bait for me to get her to call her on the phone and entrap me for annoyance phone calls. She used her own child as a pawn to get at me.

J:  “I think it would be difficult for any child to have two real mothers and two real fathers…”    Yes, it is a difficult path, but all adoptees DO have two mothers and two fathers and they are most certainly REAL. Both sets are real in the adoptee’s life. To deny that is to warp the adoptee’s sense of self.

The other adoptive mother said:

“But I’m not in favor of my daughter finding her mother and forming a relationship…I think it would take away from our relationship, and I feel there would be a strain on our relationship.”

I still meet adoptive parents today who feel this way. It’s that “All or Nothing” thinking again. The shades of grey are there in real life, but not in adoption. Or that’s just the way adoptive parents want it. The  adoptee needs both sets of parents, with or without a relationship, because, whether or not adoptive parents realize it, the adoptee already HAS a relationship with her natural parents. It is the bonds of biology, of genetics, of being hard-wired to have inherent qualities of temperament and talents and allergies and muscle structure and facial features. With such selfishness of these adoptive parents, it is hard to see any real love there. I see possessiveness and desperate attempts to claim “mine, all mine!”, but this does not speak well of adoptive parent attitudes of 1984.

G:… Joan should not talk about ‘shades of grey’, she has never understood that in real life. See how she ‘takes on’ the adoptive parents? Who is she talking about? Her adoptive mother! Everything related to Joan’s adoption and her views for reform are filtered from her experience with a crazy woman who adopted her. Okay, that was a tough break but it isn’t the end of the world. To promote a dual relationship with both adoptive and natural parents, simultaneously, DEFEATS the entire PURPOSE of adoption! No child, let along 2 sets of parents, can have a balanced healthy mind and life living like that. Certainly medical records are important to be shared but the whole purpose of raising a child, by one set of parents, is to have parental authority over said child. Having two sets of parents simultaneously would only create an unbalanced child.

This statement of Joan’s …”With such selfishness of these adoptive parents, it is hard to see any real love there. I see possessiveness and desperate attempts to claim “mine, all mine!” …comes directly from Joan’s personal life experience with the adoptive parents. NOT EVERY PERSON is like her adoptive parents, who were desperate people when they adopted Joan. Tough break! To use one’s own unhealthy life as an example for proof for adoption reform is not a scientific measure. At best, it only proves the selflessness of Joan and her own inability ‘to see any real love there’. That is not acceptable for adoption reform, to hate one’s own adoptive parents!

 J:  Like I said, this attitude is still alive in adoptive parents today.

“The birth parents don’t seem to realize the relationship has ended once the papers have been signed. I think it’s a real invasion of privacy when they attempt to meet the child.”

No, it’s the adoptive parents who don’t realize that the relationship between the adoptee and her natural parents continues throughout her lifetime, even if there is no contact. The adoptee feels the loss. The natural parents feel the loss. And we’ve seen natural parents coming out by the thousands, in America and in Korea and elsewhere, to put an end to “taking someone else’s child as your own.”

G:…Here is the proof that the real enemy to Joan is the adoptive parents who take a child away from the natural parents.  

 J:  “Giving birth doesn’t make the parents. It’s the caring and loving and growing with the child that does.”

 And natural parents have been coerced into giving up their children to adoption out of shame. They were prevented from the actual parenting of their own children because of that permanent separation. We know from organizations such as Origins and Concerned United Birthparents that these mothers desperately wanted to do the natural acts of parenting, but were forced out of the their child’s lives.

Being pregnant and giving birth are natural events and are most certainly the very essence of life itself. It is the adoptive mother in this article who berates pregnancy and birth because she was deprived of experiencing the very events she puts down.

G:…I really have no desire to have a debate pro or con over various issues related to adoption, I’m only concerned about Joan’s use of exploiting our families for her own self-gratification. It’s too bad that Joan does not see how stupid she sounds….Joan’s own children were denied the very ‘essence of life’ from her, their mother, because of Joan’s mentally unbalanced views of birthing and parenting. I shall bring this all out in my blog entries.     Ruth’s note: quoting Joan: :  “Giving birth doesn’t make the parents. It’s the caring and loving and growing with the child that does.” Oh yeah, Joan, I see where you cared and loved for your own children – going on a rampage in front of them, detailing in your book how you came home drunk in front of them. Yep, you sure cared for them!

J:  Hurray for Dr. David Brodzinsky — a former Buffalonian! — for his professional statements. Dr. Brodzinskihas gone on to be a prolific writer on the psychology of adoption. He is the co-author or co-editor of five influential books on adoption,  including The Psychology of Adoption (1990); Being Adopted: The Lifelong Search for Self (1992); Children’s Adjustment to Adoption: Developmental and Clinical Issues (1998); Adoption and Prenatal Drug Exposure: Research, Policy, and Practice (2000), and Psychological Issues in Adoption: Research and Practice (2005).

Still, Dr. Brodzinsky’s statement in this 1984 article raises concern:

“He doesn’t see the issue in terms of ‘rights’. Adoptive parents have the same rights or lack of rights as all parents have…”

 Auh, what about the adoptee’s rights? The International Adoption Reform Movement has made great progress since 1984: Bastard Nation, the American Adoption Congress, Council on Equal Rights in Adoption, Adoption Crossroads, Origins, Concerned United Birthparents, Senior Mothers and hundreds of adoptees’ blogs, mothers of loss blogs, oh, and The Evan B Donaldson Adoption Institute, to name a few entities out there promoting adoptees’ rights.

G:…adoptee rights!!! As children they have the same rights as every other child….to be cared for! And by that means there is NOTHING in the laws that govern civilized cultures that parent SHOULD OR OUGHT to LOVE THEIR CHILDREN. It’s all about physical/mental care and nurturing. No parent, natural or adoptive, owe the kid anything more and once they are of legal age they are, by definition, are adults.

J:  Now, about my natural father’s photo in the paper and his statements.

First thing that must be said: He did not want to be identified in my book, so I changed his name and any other identifications that could lead to him today. BUT, he chose to go public in 1984. He called the newspaper to defend himself. For what? I have always had respect and love for him, and especially his third and present wife, my loving step mother. Nothing I ever wrote put him  down in any way.

As a result of this article, at that time in 1984, my natural father and I healed a five-year period of silence between us. We continued in a growing and loving father-daughter relationship. He was actively involved with my two children, two of his many grandchildren, and we shared tender moments. My father tearfully relayed to me what happened when my mother died — a story he had not been able to tell me in detail until after 1984. He cried when he told me that he “gave the baby — you — up, up, … up for adoption.” I could see remorse in his face and in his heart.

G:…It is only speculation on my part, but, I can understand why he would have chosen to ‘go public’ in a newspaper article but not in a book. The same reason why I have stated for myself. Newspapers are ephemeral, that is they come and go. Books are a more permanent item. I didn’t speak out about Joan’s article writing or anything else she has done, until, she published it in a the book.

Our father says that he called to ‘defend himself’ and Joan doesn’t understand why. As he states, he abided by the law, again that is something Joan has no concept of…obeying the laws of the land and the privacy of others. And no, Joan has not always loved and respected our father or his wife. After reading Joan’s book and seeing how she portrays her relationship with Dad I have no belief in the words she has just written. Wait till I get to those pages in the book in my blog entries. Contrary to what Joan believes and what she constantly states, our father has no remorse about having placed his child up for adoption. Joan is a browbeater, a manipulator and she can easily lead someone into a psychological place, where she wants that person. Today, in August 2010, I state for the record, having just come from a physical visit with my father, that he DOES NOT HAVE TO MAKE ANY STATEMENTS EITHER WAY FOR ANY DECISIONS HE MADE IN HIS LIFE. HE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE MADE TO FEEL AS IF HE COMMITTED A CRIME BECAUSE JOAN BELIEVES HE DID. Today, Joan browbeats her dying adoptive mother, convincing her that she was WRONG to have adopted!

Ruth’s note: Many decisions were made about ME when I was a minor. Some I didn’t like at the time. Now at the age of 58, I can well understand those decisions. When I was 7 years old, I was very unhappy to have been placed in an orphanage – and I well remember crying myself to sleep many nights in the home. But what was the alternative? Being home alone? With no parent or adult to supervise me? It is not right for a 7 year old child to come home to empty house after school and open up a can of soup to eat. This is also AGAINST THE LAW!  My father’s second wife was mentally ill and spent time in the psych center. My father had to work – there was no welfare system in the 1950’s like we have today. There were NO DAYCARE CENTERS – therefore, my father had no choice but to place us kids in the home and foster homes. HE DID WHAT HE DID FOR OUR BENEFIT AND TO KEEP US SAFE! AND HE DOES NOT HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHATEVER DECISIONS HE MADE FOR HIS OWN CHILDREN. WHEREVER WE WERE, AND THIS INCLUDES JOAN – WE WERE WELL FED, HAD CLOTHES AND SHOES, A ROOF OVER OUR HEADS, A GOOD EDUCATION, RELIGIOUS UPBRINGING, MEDICAL AND DENTAL NEEDS TAKEN CARE OF.  To this day, we see on the news, children being neglected, being beaten, forced into pornography and prostitution – NOT ONE OF THE SIPPEL KIDS, INCLUDING JOAN, HAD TO ENDURE THAT – BECAUSE MY FATHER MADE THE RIGHT DECISIONS FOR ALL OF US. Get over it Joan.

  J:  Since the printing of this article, my father and I talked of how newspaper reporters make situations worse by exaggerating points. He wanted to be sure the public knew he “abided by the law” and stayed away from me while I was growing up. My father and I talked of how the articles did not accurately portray how the adoptee and her adoptive family and natural family are effected by a reunion that went out of control. Too many people butting in, saying harsh words, trying to interfere with the adoptee adjusting to her reunion.

G:…So if Joan’s NOW knows all this, and knew it before she started this 5 part series, why in the hell didn’t she state it from the get-go? Because Joan likes suspense and drama, she wants to play it for all it’s worth.

J:  When this article was written, there were unspoken words between my father and I. In 1979, he thought that all I wanted was to get my hands on my sealed records, to talk about the past, to ask about my deceased mother. His worst fear was that I’d hate him for what he had done. After the publishing of this article, we came together to discuss our sore spots, coming away with a greater understanding of each other. We have spent an immense amount of personal energy since then in building a personal relationship that is much different from the relationships he had with his other children from his first wife and the children he has with his present wife. We accepted each other and what the past has done to us.

G:…Oh isn’t that idyllic! Unfortunately not all of it rings true. Whenever ANYONE has a ‘personal relationship’ with Joan, it ALWAYS ends up, rather quickly, to one of immerse pain and hurt given out by Joan herself to the other person. So look here at the time-table. The article is written, published in 1984, that ended a 5 year silence. So she was ‘found and reunited’ in 1976, then has period of silence (no contact) for 5 years, then another attempt at a relationship in 1984. I can tell you, and I will in more detail in later posts, that there was another separation, in 1992 that lasted for another several years. Then it was on and off again, until she offended Dad in 2008. I will say more of that in a bit. Joan likes to whitewash certain aspects of her relationship with Dad, and others, so you the reader, you the one looking for advice with adoption reform are always being fooled and conned by Joan. Don’t believe me? Keep reading my posts in which I will detail every dirty deed that Joan has done. And BTW Joan does not accept anyone nor what the past has done to us.

 J:. One summer night in 1987, just shortly before midnight, I knocked on my father’s door. I was despondent because my adoptive mother had just been diagnosed with cancer. I told my father I can’t bear to lose another parent to cancer. My first mother died of cancer, my adoptive father died of cancer. Slowly, my adoptive mother’s cancer went into remission, only to resurface in recent years, but that night my natural father said to me: “I will always be here for you. We may not have the legal binds, but we have something stronger. We not only have the ties of blood, but we have the emotions in our hearts.”

G:…This is an example of Joan’s need to have constant drama in her life. It’s really too bad that Joan never took what Dad said to her to her heart. If she had she would STILL HAVE NOT ONLY A FATHER BUT SISTERS. It is only Joan that pulls the plug on relationships.

J:  Sadly, through the passage of time, and the realization that I went full steam ahead, completed and published the memoir I said I was going to write since 1976, those old fears and resentment rose up again. When asked to, my father read a rough draft of my book in 2004. He clarified points. I made corrections he asked me to make and said I represented him in a clear manner. He read another draft of the book again in 2008. This time he said it all could have been avoided if he had gotten some help. I agree. He was alone in his decision to split up his family.

G:…Again, Joan misrepresents. It was NOT ‘old fears and resentments’ that ‘rose up again’, it WAS Joan’s insistence that she get more information out of our father and get his APPROVAL. Joan’s ways of getting what she wants is through browbeating and intimidation. I’m sure that is how, if he ever did say it, that he said ‘it could have been avoided if he had gotten some help’. And the reason I say that is because WHAT HELP WAS HE DENIED? What help was there to be gotten under the circumstances of his life at that time? Everyone makes decisions with what is available to them at any given time. It is only Joan who refuses to accept that reality. If only, if only, if only is how Joan views anything. I don’t see how any form of adoption reform can help anyone when you have a browbeater in the mix. Joan is a browbeater and I shall prove that in my blog entries.

J:  Then, in 2009, I added a Social Work Assessment, of which, my father did not understand. He reacted out of emotion and fear that I do not love and respect him. That is not true. I do love him and respect him. The Social Work Assessment of my adoption was written in analytical style and encompasses all parties to my adoption. My natural father did not understand it. There were other aspects that entered into why we are again not speaking to each other: a disagreement between my natural father, my adoptive mother, and myself; so, my natural father and I parted ways again.

G:… This ‘social work assessment’ is flawed, there are many many errors in it. I can see how my father would not understand it, I don’t! I see no reason for it after all the pages of drama and lies that went before it. And what is Joan’s reaction to Dad’s reaction? He is the one who reacts out of emotion and fear and projects on to her no love and respect! No Joan you do not love and respect him, you never have.

Ruth’s note: the reason nobody can understand the “social work assessment” is because it IS flawed. Joan starts with a topic, gives a fairly basic assessment, then tries to give a real-life example to prove her social work theories. But during many of the examples of real life incidents, Joan goes off on hate tangents again. The “social work assessment” section is peppered with more digs and hatred at people who have angered her throughout her life. And she gives her own flawed judgments against the people she is making a “scientific social work assessment” against. She CANNOT make an unbiased social work assessment on her birth family, adoptive family, her adoption, and any aspect of her life, for the simple reason that she is writing this assessment FROM HER OWN VIEWPOINT! Therefore, it cannot be scientifically accurate, medically accurate, psychologically accurate. And I have pointed out many times, in my blog where, if she is not out and out lying, she gets many facts WRONG! Like relating in her book that my pet Brandy is a cat. This is inaccurate – Brandy was a 65 pound Siberian Husky/Alaskan Malamute mix : DOG!

     Can the scientific, medical, or social work, adoption reform fields trust any of Joan M. Wheeler’s social work assessments/theories/conclusions if Ms. Wheeler does not know the difference between a dog and a cat, or at least ATTEMPT to get the FACTS STRAIGHT IN HER BOOK????

So Dad reads a draft of the book in 2004 and then again in 2008 and his comments about it to others are that ‘Joan will never get it published because she will never be satisfied with it.’

And here’s another cryptic remark of Joan’s “There were other aspects that entered into why we are again not speaking to each other: a disagreement between my natural father, my adoptive mother, and myself; so, my natural father and I parted ways again.” What bull shit! No there was no disagreement! It was browbeating by Joan and venom and hate from her adoptive mother that fueled Joan’s continued harassment and browbeating to my father that severed the relationship, for the last time.

 Here’s the truth, amazingly she puts it in the book but doesn’t recall it here, in real time! For some time Joan had been helping both Dad and his wife with shopping and doctor errands. Good! But then she browbeated Dad by saying to him that he treats her as a cab driver and doesn’t give her any gas money. Did she ever ask for money? Did she ever say that she doesn’t mind helping him but could be spare some money for gas? No, in her usual non-thinking manners she demands money from him. And informs him that her car needs repairs and he should pay for the repairs because she is driving him around town. So Dad, no dummy, gives her $20 for ‘cab fare’ and tells her he no longer requires her services and her car is her responsibility. Joan goes home to adoptive mother who has a fit telling Joan that they (adoptive parents) helped him out, years ago, when they adopted Joan. They paid for all of Joan upbringing and upkeeping for ‘his’ daughter and now when they are ‘down and in need’ he can’t come to help them out.

 Isn’t that nice! Is this the usual exchange between adoptive and natural parents and child? Is this the reason for adoption reform? I thought that those people adopted a child to love and care for and not to hold as a source of ransom when she is dying against an elderly man! So where is Joan’s love and respect for her birth father? Certainly not on anything she writes! And Joan advocates open adoption where both sets of parents interact with the child! Good God! I’d ran as fast as I could from crazy people.

 J:  I went ahead with my goals. The book is out now. My adoptive mother doesn’t like it. My natural father doesn’t like it. No one looks good in this book, including me. The true destruction of adoption in my life had to be told, with or without the approval of others.

G:…Yep she went ahead with her goals and everyone’s life is exposed and exploited! Of course no one likes it. Dad said the book belongs in the garbage. Dad says that he does not want to see or hear from Joan. We three sisters are refuting every thing in it. The true destruction was caused by the adoptive parents and in Joan’s mind. It did NOT HAVE TO BE TOLD. Joan’s life is a sad life because she chooses it to be so.

Ruth’s note: EXACTLY – As I said before, I was unhappy as a child. Because of me having to be in an orphanage and then a foster home. I don’t dwell on it. I accept it. I have MOVED ON!  I do not choose to have an unhappy life. Joan wallows in misery because she loves it!

 J:  I wrote it to prevent another family from being permanently separated by adoption.

I wrote my book to make sense of my life with the facts as they were presented to me.

G:…No not true. Joan’s reasons for writing it was because she is obsessed and in love with herself.

So Joan, now that you have written the book, does your life make any more sense to you now?

Ruth’s note: no, her life still does not make any sense because she is still whining about it.—–I told her once before – back in 1991, when she called me up on the phone (yes, SHE called me on the phone – so much for her saying that she has had NO CONTACT with me for over 30 years) – she called to cry because she found out her husband had been unfaithful. – oh gee wow! What news! Less than a year after getting married, and with an infant son at home – Joan herself was unfaithful. And her husband had an affair, then she did, then he did, then she did, then he di…..sigh. (take a breath) …. Well, when she was on the phone and crying, I broke into her sobs – “Look, I’ve had enough of this. If he’s so dam bad, if your marriage is so dam bad, GET A DIVORCE! BUT LEAVE ME ALONE! YOU STOLE MY MONEY – YOUR HUSBAND BLEW IT AT THE STRIP JOINT – YOU BOTH USED ME FOR MY MONEY – NOW YOU’RE WHINING – SHUT UP AND LEAVE ME ALONE!!!

And I called my father the next day – he apparently had a call from Joan – whining about her husband and he told her “IF HE’S SO BAD, GET A DIVORCE – EITHER SHIT OR GET OFF THE POT!”

But whining Drama Queens don’t WANT to stop whining. It’s their reason for getting out of bed each day!

Here is an excerpt from my actual journal about this: and so much for Joan saying she has not had contact –     Near the end of August 1991, I received a phone call from Joan. She was crying hysterically because she had just seen Colby on the public access channel of our local cable television company. Apparently, the brother of one the strippers that attended the Fourth of July party made a video for one of his college courses. The subject was a sort of biographical essay on strippers that also included interviews with men who go to the strip joints. The video was made during the summer of 1990, and Colby was one of men interviewed. On the video, Colby admitted that he went to the strip joint quite frequently, and also admitted to spending a great deal of money in this establishment. I guess we know where Colby spent the $500.00 fireworks money that he was supposed to put back in the bank. Instead of replacing the money, he was at strip joints spending it and having a good time, while I was working my ass off, paying that money back to the credit card.     While Joan was crying on the phone, I reached the end of my rope, I was sick and tired of the lies, the stealing, the many “second chances” I gave her and Colby, and now I had a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach with the realization of how I was used by these low-lifes. With the realization of where my money went, I just turned to stone inside. And now I had to hear about another one of numerous marital infidelities (from both Joan and Colby).     As soon as I was able to get a word in, I told Joan that I was sick of hearing about her marriage problems. I told her that John and I sometimes have fights and all,  but I keep my butt at home where it belongs. I told her that John and I may have never taken marriage vows, but we are faithful to each other. I told her that she and Colby took the marriage vows, but they don’t honor them, with Joan’s extramarital affairs. Three that I know of in August and September 1991, and March 1992, and a party in Ontario, Canada not even a year after she was married with an infant son at home.     Joan was not expecting me say this. She thought that I would feel sorry for “poor Joan and all her problems” yet again. Her voice miraculously became free and clear of hysterical tears. She cut the conversation short and got off the phone.     

 The next couple of months Joan and Colby went to marriage counseling, and (according to Joan) during one of the sessions, Colby admitted to withdrawing the $200.00 that had caused their rent check to bounce, and to falsely accusing me for it. Joan wanted me to attend one of their counseling sessions to confront Colby and make him admit his lies, but I refused. I told her that I had been a victim, and I was not going to use MY time to attend one of THEIR sessions. I told her that SHE made the commitment to Colby when she married him, but I made no such commitment. I also told her that when a person loses a friend or a relationship with a family member because of their own actions, they should not be surprised. I also advised her to get a divorce. Any man who would spend his sister-in-law’s money at a strip joint and withdraw money from the bank causing his rent check to bounce, clearly does not have the best interests of his wife and children in mind. Providing food and shelter for his children were more important than watching nude dancers. Joan told me that her own lawyer had said that what Colby had said on the video was grounds for divorce.     In retrospect, I believe that I should have gone to their counseling session to confront them both and make Joan admit to her lies as well as Colby. During this same time period, Joan tried to elicit sympathy from our father about her failing marriage. He told me that he said to her, “I do not want to hear any more of your marital problems. If he’s that bad, divorce him or shut up.”    By the end of October 1991, I had grown so disgusted by the two of them, I just never returned her calls. I made up my mind to have nothing further to do with them.     

I wrote those words in 1991 – 19 years ago – has anything changed? Joan is still a whiner – still a liar – still trying to pawn all the blame of her actions onto somebody else. And does she listen when somebody gives her advice? NO. I told her to get a divorce in 1991. She didn’t until 1995. She won’t take anybody’s advice, because you see, that advice just might solve the problem –and she doesn’t want the problem solved. If the problem gets solved, why then, she won’t have a reason to whine and play the victim and wring sympathy out of people. Didn’t the adoptees tell her months ago to stop reading my blog? And no, she lied AGAIN – because she doesn’t just read the google alerts – she posts things on her site that show us that she DOES read this blog. By either coming directly here, or using Google reader. We’re not stupid Joan.

You carry on in the same old way
No lessons learned from yesterday
Talk of changes lost in pages of paperwork…
  – Jon Anderson, title song of the 1997 Yes album “Open Your Eyes.”

1. Gert – September 21, 2010

I was NOT aware of things that happened in Joan’s marriage…for the simple fact that I DIVORCED myself from Joan in 1982 and had NO CONTACT with her for years and years. Sure I heard a couple of stories over the years, but never to the detail that Ruth is able to provide us, for Joan USED Ruth for years and years.

And you readers, you friends of Joan wonder why Ruth is so angry!!!

Truth wins out!

2. RuthSeptember 21, 2010 

yes the details are there – because I kept a journal –
and dam straight I’m angry – I had MOVED ON from Joan – was willing to leave all this shit in the past until JOAN got on the internet and in September 2008 begand the cyber-bullying by bashing The Three Sippel Sisters on her blogspot blog. I had been on the internet since 2000, and had NEVER blasted her – except for the email exchange between us in April 2004 – and that was PRIVATE – and involved a family photo website. Then 4 years later JOAN started the shit by using the internet as a new tool to harass and badmouth us. so much for her buddies to tell me that Joan wants peace -SHE STARTED THIS SHIT!
THEN in October 2009 she attacked Kathy, and in the comments section of that Adoptees face the sting of discrimination, Joan told LIE about me and my father – that’s when I started this blog – and when her book came out – I read her filthy lies, the past anger came flooding back – I can’t tell you the shit I felt back in 1990 when Joan and Colby stole money from me – Colby came to my house and whined “can’t you just forget the money – I don’t want to go home and hear Joan yell at me.”
this was money I took out as a cash advance from a credit card – $4000.00 at 18% interest – Joan dipped into it STOLE money to fix her car – when MY car broke down a few months later – I had no money to fix it – because I was paying off the credit card – and Joan was warm in her car – while I was at the corner freezing lugging home groceries on the bus.
You wonder why I’m angry – again Myst – and big mouth Rus – and where the hell is Sweet Mara – PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES – stop listening to Joan – how would YOU feel if YOUR OWN SISTER used YOUR money to fix HER car, then YOUR car broke and you are freezing in zero degree weather thinking of your broken car. (ant then to read in that filthy book that she merely BORROWED the money – NO! She STOLE IT. And Colby used $500.00 of MY money to get his rocks off at the strip joint! The two of them will burn in hell.) and in 2004, I sent her a letter BEGGING for even TEN DOLLARS to help me save my house from foreclosure and the bitch tried to take me to court for HARASSMENT – because I dared to ask for MY money back, or even just TEN BUCKS! 
And that is only ONE beef I have against the bitch called Joan Wheeler. – the money is basically a non -issue, because I actually have won a $500.00 raffle in 1997, $600.00 from New York Lottery win four in 1998 and other small money prizes – WHAT GETS MY GALL IS JOAN’S ATTITUDE THAT SHE USED ME, STOLE MY MONEY, AND LIES ABOUT IT AND TURNED HER FUCKING BACK ON ME WHEN  I BEGGED FOR HELP.  I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT I EVER DID TO DESERVE THIS SHIT FROM SOMEONE I LOVED.

If I ever sent her any letters in 1990’s it BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO GET MY FUCKING MONEY FROM HER – I WAS PUT INTO DEBT BECAUSE OF HER.  NOW TELL ME I SHOULDN’T BE ANGRY. BECAUSE YOU STILL DON’T KNOW EVEYRTHING THAT JOAN DID TO ME.

Advertisements

Comments

1. Gert - September 21, 2010

I was NOT aware of things that happened in Joan’s marriage…for the simple fact that I DIVORCED myself from Joan in 1982 and had NO CONTACT with her for years and years. Sure I heard a couple of stories over the years, but never to the detail that Ruth is able to provide us, for Joan USED Ruth for years and years.

And you readers, you friends of Joan wonder why Ruth is so angry!!!

Truth wins out!

2. Ruth - September 21, 2010

yes the details are there – because I kept a journal –
and dam straight I’m angry – I had MOVED ON from Joan – was willing to leave all this shit in the past until JOAN got on the internet and in September 2008 begand the cyber-bullying by bashing The Three Sippel Sisters on her blogspot blog. I had been on the internet since 2000, and had NEVER blasted her – except for the email exchange between us in April 2004 – and that was PRIVATE – and involved a family photo website. Then 4 years later JOAN started the shit by using the internet as a new tool to harass and badmouth us. so much for her buddies to tell me that Joan wants peace -SHE STARTED THIS SHIT!
THEN in October 2009 she attacked Kathy, and in the comments section of that Adoptees face the sting of discrimination, Joan told LIE about me and my father – that’s when I started this blog – and when her book came out – I read her filthy lies, the past anger came flooding back – I can’t tell you the shit I felt back in 1990 when Joan and Colby stole money from me – Colby came to my house and whined “can’t you just forget the money – I don’t want to go home and hear Joan yell at me.”
this was money I took out as a cash advance from a credit card – $4000.00 at 18% interest – Joan dipped into it STOLE money to fix her car – when MY car broke down a few months later – I had no money to fix it – because I was paying off the credit card – and Joan was warm in her car – while I was at the corner freezing lugging home groceries on the bus.
You wonder why I’m angry – again Myst – and big mouth Rus – and where the hell is Sweet Mara – PUT YOURSELF IN MY SHOES – stop listening to Joan – how would YOU feel if YOUR OWN SISTER used YOUR money to fix HER car, then YOUR car broke and you are freezing in zero degree weather thinking of your broken car.
And that is only ONE beef I have against the bitch called Joan Wheeler.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: