jump to navigation

** October 18, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates.
comments closed

Announcement – Nov. 30, 2011 — I have GOT to make a new front page here. This one is old, even if the material is still very relevant.  comments are closed only to THIS post or old posts.  You may comment on new and recent posts. Don’t even think to lecture me. I’m probably old enough to be your mother so don’t even go there.  This blog is NOT about adoption, anti-adoption, adoption reunion, or adoption reform. It is to shed light on the BEHAVIOR of a BULLY, an adoptee named Joan M. Wheeler and to refute her many lies in her book and on the internet. With her many harassments and lies about me and my family, Joan has trampled on our human and civil rights. AND OUR HUMAN AND CIVIL RIGHTS ARE NOT NEGOTIABLE!

ANNOUNCEMENT – May 12, 2011:


Go ahead, Joan get your lawyer to look at the FACTS – the FACT of the matter is that YOU SAID IN YOUR BOOK THAT I, RUTH PACE HAVE AN ARREST RECORD AND A CRIMINAL RECORD WHEN I DO NOT! THAT IS NOT YOUR POINT OF VIEW, THAT IS EITHER A LIE OR A DELUSION ON YOUR PART – AND ANY LAWYER IS GOING TO TELL YOU TO GO TO HELL!  — or — they will call the authorities to have you committed. -Anybody who has NEVER been arrested, writes in a book that they themselves were arrested, then says the book was just her “point of view” that they were arrested is NOT sane! — If you were arrested, you’re going to know it. There’s no “point of view” involved. It’s either/or. Face it Joan – you need some serious professional psychiatric help.

I do not work for, nor know anybody who works for the publisher of this book. I have no power to stop the publication of any book. It is up to the publisher of a book to cease publication and cancel the contract IF the author has violated certain conditions. In speaking with the publisher on Monday, May 9, 2011, the publisher told me that yes, the book contained many slanderous and libelous statements, as well as not having the proper authorization to publish a certain photograph on the back cover, as the author did NOT have copyrights to it, nor permission to use the photograph.  The book also contained hate language and obscene language, both prohibited by the terms and conditions that the publisher requires. Joan violated the terms and conditons set forth BY THE PUBLISHER, not The Three Sippel Sisters, collectively, or individually.

If Joan Wheeler’s precious book got pulled, it is due to the gross misconduct of only one person: JOAN M. WHEELER.    That’s what she gets for LYING and stealing MY photograph.

My post Reality is Truth. But all Joan Wheeler knows is self-delusions, fantasies, and lies  amended July 16, 3:00am

My post  Suffer the wrath of the wronged birth sister who had nothing to do with Joan Wheeler’s adoption  amended June 22, 2011,  3:00 pm

My post, My letter (Jan 18, 2011) to Nicole S. Urdang, therapist, who thought the trash book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler was a good book, but then pulled her review of it off amazon dot com. amended, June 15, 6:00am

My post, I am so sick of Joan Wheeler’s whining about her adoption and her birth certificate and nobody understands her and –and — I’m going to throw up now has been amended. – June 12, 2011

 On May, 20, 2011, a visit to Joan Wheeler’s Forbidden Family website, under the tab “About and Buy” this book is still listed for sale, 10 business days AFTER this book is no longer available for sale. Ms. Wheeler is given this directive: REMOVE THIS LISTING, BECAUSE YOU ARE NOW GUILTY OF FALSE ADVERTISING! The Better Business Bureau, the New York State Attorney General, and others will be notified if this is not done.

These two screen shots are of  her site, and the publishers site, taken on May 20, 2011, ten business days after the book was pulled from publication.

about and buy, shot taken May 20, 2011 - but this book CANNOT be bought anymore through the website listed here, as the website is the publisher, who pulled the book from publication


screenshot - Trafford - results not found

Warning: Extreme truth telling and refuting of lies  done on this blog.  And extreme reporting of FACTS done here!  — If a person has the Freedom of Speech to publish a lie about me, then I have the Freedom of Speech to refute that lie and tell the truth about myself.   – Adult topics are occasionally discussed on this blog, with the occasional use of strong language,  Comments have been disabled due to Joan Wheeler manipulating her friends to come here and leave hate messages. She is too cowardly to address us herself, so she enlists others to do her dirty work. For people who want the truth in birth certificates, they don’t seem to value the truth in other areas. Between their hypocrisy and their hatred, they show themselves to be less than desirable people. They obviously can’t handle the truth.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored – Aldous Huxley
Law of Logical Argument – Anything is possible if you don’t know what you are talking about. (ty gulleysucker – love ya!)

I hate a liar more than I hate a thief because a ” thief ” is only after my salary but a liar is after my reality…. Quoted by 50 Cent


Open letter to Professor Rene Hoksbergen and rebuttal of his “professional” review of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Statements from The Three Sippel Sisters.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed


Joan M Wheeler has published a new ‘revision’ of the same old hate manifesto and renamed it ‘Duped by Adoption’. I have created a new blog and Facebook page…

Here are the links to my NEW blog and Facebook page



On Amazon, I have reviewed 7 reviews of this ‘new’ garbage book and created a ‘discussion’ on the Forward, by Rene Hoksbergen.

Here’s the link to the DISCUSSION about the FORWARD on Amazon


Here’s the link to a recent blog post Nov 3, 2015 about the contents of the forward


Here are the related links to blog posts that Ruth and I have already written and addressed topics related to Rene Hoksbergen, the author of the Forward.


https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com/2011/12/27/gert-mcqueens-review-of-rene-hoksbergens-review-of-forbidden-family-by-joan-wheeler/     this one is about the review in LAVAContact2  2010 English translation






continuing on with this POST…

The following was emailed to Professor Rene Hoksbergen on 14 October 2010. Dr. Hoksbergen is professor of adoption studies at Utrecht University in Utrecht, Holland and wrote the foreward to the book Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler. In 1993, at Joan Wheeler’s behest, Dr. Hoksbergen involved himself  in our family  in an unprofessional manner, by writing a letter to Kathy Inglis in England. Joan lied to Dr. Hoksbergen and manipulated him into writing to Kathy. Apparently Dr. Hoksbergen, despite a formal complaint having been made to Utrecht University in 1993 over his invasion of Kathy’s privacy, continues his unprofessional behavior. We Three Sippel Sisters protest this man, a stranger to us, and his continual prying into our personal lives.

Doctor R. Hoksbergen                                       

I am Gert McQueen, birth sister of Joan Wheeler, author of the book Forbidden Family, of which you wrote the Foreword in August 2006 and a Review in 2010, month not indicated.

I have had the book since February 2010 and have been reading and writing about this book of lies since then. The first time I saw, in English translation, your review of this book was the first week of October 2010 and Doctor I must say that I am appalled!

Myself and two other birth sisters have a web blog wherein we are refuting this book of lies. The blog is called refuting a book of lies and may be reached at https://ruthsippelpace.wordpress.com I urge you to really read our blog very carefully to understand how we, the birth family, have been used and abused by Joan, not the other way around.

One reason, for writing to you, is to call your professionalism into question. Doctor, you have never met me, never spoke with me, never wrote to me, never checked facts about me or my family, and yet, you have the audacity to assume and then assert that what Joan Wheeler told you was truth! Doctor you are wrong! Joan is wrong!

Another reason for my writing is to address the various character assassinations, to which you give credence to, via the lies of Joan’s, in particular that of sexual abuse by of one Joan’s sisters, me, to her. The truth, Doctor, was that it never happened! Joan made up the story to cover up the fact that she herself initiated a three-way sexual encounter with my husband and myself! That story, of course, is NOT in the book because she lies and blames everyone else for her own misdeeds!

There is no way to explain to you in a short letter the amount of lies, fabrications and harm that Joan has done, in real life and in this book, to others as she covers up her own dirty deeds. The very reason that she ‘insists’ that I sexually abused her and her assertion that I abused my daughter was to ‘get back’ at my husband and me because we didn’t want to continue the sexual experiment that Joan wanted.

We had been forced to take many steps to remove Joan from interfering with my minor children! Beginning when Joan interfered with my and my husband’s ADOPTION of my own birth child! Joan was very militant and angry that we were ADOPTING, accusing me of being unfit! When she was told we didn’t want her opinions she then interfered with our parental authority, going behind my back to instill in my minor children that they did not need to obey the family’s core values that we set for our family. Joan went so far as to lie to police and family about the whereabouts of my minor child during a runaway episode. She then charged me with child abuse and filed for custody of my children. I was forced to put my child into foster care, for her own safety and to keep her away from Joan, while we fought the charges that Joan filed against us. My husband and I were proved innocent of all charges that were asserted by Joan. I have court documents to prove that statement. I moved my family far away from Joan. All this was in 1981/82! But you Doctor did not check the facts but instead gave credibility to Joan’s lies…stating so in your review!

Joan manipulated you into writing to my sister Kathy, who lives in England, in the 1990s. That episode of Joan’s was over money that was already paid to Joan for services she never did for Kathy. Joan blames everything and everyone for her own inabilities and in this case Joan was also guilty of stealing! But, you Doctor, on behalf of Joan, wrote a very intimidating and condescending letter to my sister, who was blameless and the victim of Joan’s and then was victimized again by you!  You did not check the facts!  (Ruth’s note: please see the post Joan Wheeler LIES about Dr. Rene Hoksbergen in her book Forbidden Family  to see actual scanned and posted documents: Dr. Hoksbergen’s letter to Kathy, where he says it would cost around $500.00 for Joan to ship things to her in the UK; a letter from Joan acknowledging that she had already recieved monies to do the shipping; AND the actual invoices from my father totaling around $150.00 that my father paid out of HIS pocket to ship the items, this AFTER Joan received the money from Kathy, then never repaid. This was clearly an extortion attempt by Joan Wheeler, and she used her “dear” friend to try to extort money from Kathy).

In Joan’s book, she has a total fabrication of lies about your meeting my sister Ruth, her husband and other members of my family in the 1990s. You, Doctor, were never in Ruth’s home, never met her husband and never had the conversations that Joan’s asserts that you did have! Did you really meet my father as Joan states? Did you check your facts before you wrote the review of this book? You really ought to read chapter 25, very enlightening! Joan portrays you as being ‘a very dear friend’, how dear Doctor?

Joan also lies and fabricates in the book about Joe Soll, whom I have already contacted about those lies. Mr. Soll says that what is in the book, about him, is ‘patently false’. (Ruth’s note: see the post: HIGH ALERT EVIDENCE of Joan Wheeler’s lies FROM A PERSON IN AN ADOPTION REFORM ORGANIZATION   to see the email exchange between Gert McQueen and Mr. Soll).  My sisters and I have already written about these episodes of lies and fabrications on our web blog; we encourage you to read them. To narrow down the search for you, in the following dates you are mentioned on our blog, Jan 7, March 27, June 28 and Sept 23. We are of course not completed with our review, refuting and rebuttals of this book of lies!

When did you, Doctor, last read the manuscript? Did you read it before or after the 2006 date of the foreword? Joan had updated and revised much in the manuscript since then, even noting so on page 410 dated March 2008. And on page 416 she states she was 53. She was 53 in 2009 the year the book was published! For you to assume the correction of facts in the book, without interviewing family members, is a gross misuse of your position in the world of Adoption Reform!

Our father saw a revision about 2008 and said that it was a ‘piece of garbage and she will never finish it’. Joan is still revising it, on her web site! Shortly after seeing the 2008 revision, my father was forced, again, to remove Joan from his presence because of her intense manipulation and confrontations towards him. 

What Joan has done, and with your approval Doctor, is to have taken a very tragic family situation, the death of a mother and the adoption out of an infant and has used it to exploit that tragedy for the pursuit of fame, fortune and personal gratification with total disregard for the reputations of members of birth and adoptive families. For this Joan ought to be utterly ashamed. For your part in this Doctor you ought to ashamed. Do you have any idea of the pain that your lack of professionalism, by not checking out the facts, has done to members of the two families of Joan? You have no right to insinuate yourself into any position of knowing what happened to my family! We did not give you permission!

Since 1982, I have had two contacts, one physical in 1992 and one phone call in 2005 or 06, with Joan, both times were attempts, on my part to reconcile with her, but at both times, after she smiled to my face, as soon as my back was turned, she betrayed me. For her to have truly welcomed my love as a sister, who wanted to reconcile with her, would have meant that Joan could not publish her ‘life’s work’, the book and that is unthinkable to Joan. So instead of reconciling she continued to betray myself and others, by publishing a book of lies and garbage! It is only since the publication of this book of lies that I have spoken out. I shall continue to do so until Joan pulls the book from all sales. That book and Joan’s activities are a disgrace to the honor of two families.

I, and my sisters, ask that you print a retraction of your foreword and review of this book. We also ask that you stop promoting this book as factual, for it is a product of a Joan’s diseased mind.

This letter, along with a copy of my paragraph-by-paragraph review of your review, will be posted on our blog and is being sent to a select list of adoption reform agencies or persons. In the past Joan has accused me of sending letters to many adoption agencies. I never did that, but now I MUST to demand that my and my family’s, good name be restored to us.

Thank you, Gert McQueen

 ~~~~~~~Gert McQueen’s comments on this review are in bold itatic.

Review of Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family by Rene Hoksbergen in LAVAContact2  2010 English translation.

This autobiographical study of Joan Wheeler read with the necessary tension on the way things will go. Despite the extensive and detailed description of the many events and feelings over a period of almost fifty years.

This book is a detailed description of a tormented individual that has a great need to have the world fit her delusions. No one lives in a vacuum and by the very nature of writing about one’s own inner demons it becomes very subjective in nature and all peoples in it must fit that subjective mindset. The ‘necessary tension’ is the result of the author’s inabilities to accept life as life was given to her. The ‘extensive and detailed description’ is just over-kill and only points to a mentally unbalanced individual. Perhaps if the author actually lived a life instead of always writing ‘the book’ she and it would not be so full of torment!

It consists of two parts. The autobiography of Joan and then part two with lots of information about the American adoption history and its current situation. In this second part she makes her findings and suggestions for improvements.

Part 1, is full of sensationalized drama, with intent to sell the story, the book! The author uses, extensively, the techniques of exaggeration and hyperbole along with fabrications and outright lies. 38 chapters consisting of 569 pages are devoted to the study of the autobiography of Joan’s tormented views!

Part 2, which ought to be the more useful part of any written material intended for adoption reform, consists of only 6 chapters with a total of 62 pages! And there are no ‘suggestions’ from the author. She is a militant angry adoptee that is very hostile to anyone who adopts!

And how much does a person have to spend for this study of one person’s tormented life? Around $50.00! A person, spending a few hours on the Internet, could come up with the same source materials in this book and save themselves the money.

Joan was born in Buffalo . Her mother died shortly after her birth and her father decided to give her away to a distant relative without children. He has already four children, three daughters and one son, this fifth child can’t be taken care by him. In 1956, when this takes place, adoption in the US (and also in our country) is a taboo subject. Birth certificates are falsified, the child is sometimes very late or not informed about the adoption and many know the facts and family relationships, some don’t, as the case of Joan.

My father didn’t know about the adoptive parents being any sort of ‘distant relative’; he was in the middle of a tragedy! My father’s decisions do not have to be explained or justified. The adoptive parents also do not have to justify or explain their reasons for adopting. Throughout this book the author details, over and over again, how she had browbeaten, intimidated, condemned, and used all sorts of methods to get all parents to ‘apology’ to her for her being adopted! My god!

When she becomes 18 years old, she’s suddenly called by her eldest sister. Her three sisters were from when Joan suddenly disappeared from the family informed of the status of adoption and also of her destination. They had always wanted to know how she was doing and now she’s eighteen and formal adult, they can contact her. From this call Joan’s life has been put upside down. She describes her reactions, of the adoptive parents and how her birth family, her father and siblings deal with it.

Life, being as it is as it unfolds, is full of surprises; who would have guessed that the author would choose to condemn both families for wanting her and then go out of her way to make everyone’s life miserable with her dirty double dealings and lies! It makes me ill to read, the almost 600 pages, of pure mental garbage that the author describes herself and everyone related to her.

Against the background of all the facts around the reunion and the further development of contacts she tells clearly and gripping the progress of other aspects in her life, her school life, marriage, becomes mother of two children, the death of her adoptive father, dealing with friends, the care of her adoptive mother and only child, and many others. It is a moving description of the history of an American woman and her two families.

Gripping is not a word I’d use to describe how the author tells about aspects of her life. Soap opera dramatics is how the author details her life; every little thing is overblown so that when real troubles occur they are exaggerated to show how horrible a life she has, because she is adopted! “A moving description”, only if you are addicted to soap opera drama!

But gradually it becomes clear that the reunion in her life especially got a negative impact. There is sexual abuse of her by one of her sisters, intense feelings of jealously, aggression and ignorance towards Joan. The father tires desperately, sometimes successfully but often not, to compromise between his children. Joan herself also got a fierce nature. At the same time her adoptive mother initially responds very negative to her writings about adoption in various newspapers and increasingly in book form. Mother has a strong possessiveness towards her adopted child, Joan.

Negative impact, cause by the author herself! As I’ve stated in my letter to Doctor Hoksbergen, there was no sexual abuse from me to the author. That is purely a cover-up story to take away from a real incident that the author wanted and then retaliated, when things didn’t go her way, with a cover-up story. She makes her mistake, of letting out the truth, via her own lying; liars never remember the original lie. Page 220 contains a very important element to this lie of sexual abuse and points to the ‘cover up story’! But, you will have to read my own extensive comments on this once its posted on our web blog under the title ‘facts are stubborn things’. I suggest everyone check out and read our blog frequently to know the truth of all that the author details, for indeed, it will take a few more months for all our refuting of this book!

The ‘intense feelings of jealously, aggression and ignorance’ is not towards Joan but is what Joan feels herself and projects onto everyone else. If someone does not fit into her ‘inner world reality’ they are ‘out to get her’ and she has no limits to what she will do to get you! “Fierce nature” and “strong possessiveness” don’t begin to describe the sick relationship between adopted mother and adoptee.

 Precisely because of its negative experiences Joan has decided twenty years ago, to write down her life story. She is also an adoption activist. She vehemently rails against the practice adopted in the US. She fights against the fraudulent nature, against hypocrisy, market characteristics, the closed nature of many adoptions that still continues, even against anonymous sperm and egg donors. Many times you see her at conferences, and so I made her acquaintance, her story. In the adoption world in the USA she’s well known.

When was this review actually written? The Doctor wrote the foreword in 2006 and according to the author she began writing her book in 1970’s. So by 2006 it was already close to 40 years not 20. So why have an outdated ‘review’ published now, in 2010? Precisely because it is now about one year since the book was published. This ‘review’ is a staged occurrence, it happens in the publishing world to boost sales!

She is no activist but yes she ‘vehemently rails against adoption’ to the point of not only obsession but condemnation of anyone adopting any child for any reason. Sounds more like she ought get a job with the Inquisition! She is well known in the adoption world? Pity those people!

The book is a very informative story about how an adopted deals with secrecy, how decisions are made for her, the struggle with feelings of loyalty, the reunion and contacts with biological family of both mothers and father’s side. She describes her emotional reactions openly and honestly.

This sounds as if the author wrote it for the reviewer!

It is an exciting and very well written story about the weak position of an adopted child. English is relatively simple and remain legible.

It is not written well and moves around, in space and time, as to be almost intentional misleading the reader. It is pathetic in its subjective portrayal of a weak mentally ill person. I don’t buy into the idea that because a person is adopted they are weak! They are weak because they choose to be so!

For adoptees and adoptive parents, I would recommend this book highly.

I, having actually read the thing, would recommend you use this book in the bathroom, if you were not worry about contamination from the printed words. You would be better off reading the birth sisters web blog to get a better well-rounded view of this author.

1. chayeletOctober 14, 2010

I fully endorse Gert’s statements here. Kathy Inglis.

2. RuthOctober 15, 2010

I also fully endorse Gert’s statements. – Ruth Sippel Pace

Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences. October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, mental illness, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

Is it my imagination or does Joan seem to like to report on violence? She seems to revel in the violence around her.


Her book is littered with stories of violence – her mother throws pots and pans at her – her mother is always screaming at her – Joan actually gives her mother the finger, says Fuck You to her and even jabs the finger in her mother’s face – all this in the car while meek little Edward is driving. Joan is beat up by her black boyfriend in college. Joan is beat up by her boyfriend after she leaves her husband. Joan devotes a whole chapter – 24 pages – to a relationship with another violent man named Jimmy. She doesn’t say that this guy ever hit her, but she describes verbal abuse, psychotic behavior, and this guy even hit his dog twice in front of her! She writes that she was frightened by him a few times – but she stays with this loser for an entire year! Unbelievable!

Gert names her last post Psychodrama, Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book. and she is correct – Joan and her mother are definitely psychotic.

On page 132 Joan relates that her parents go with her to a public meeting of adoptees and Dorothy Wheeler stands up and starts screaming at the adoptees and ends up throwing a folding chair at the speaker. You don’t treat a fellow human being like that. And this is coming from a middle-aged devout Catholic woman? Who goes to church all the time?

This is sick. Sick. Sick. What kind of grown woman starts screaming at a public meeting and throws a chair at another human being? Listen folks, even with all the stuff that my sisters and I have blogged about Joan, (and much more, and much worse to come), yes, we may have raised our voices to Joan, but violence? NEVER! We weren’t raised like that. But the Wheelers are sick sick sick – Edward was a henpecked man, dominated by a violent, screeching, contradictory, alcoholic woman. Joan grew up to be the same way. Alcoholic, screaming, screeching, dominating, contradictory, and both women are liars to the Nth degree. Both women treat other people like dirt and see no wrong in it.

Not only are both women alcoholic and violent, Joan seems to revel in this behavior in herself. And true to her contradictory nature, condemns her mother for the alcoholism and violence, but actually seems proud of these behaviors in herself. And in the chapter about the psychotic boyfriend, she relates how she was coming drunk every night. (what a role model for her children). AND she relates an event of drunk driving by herself! She says she was ashamed of this, but somehow, I doubt it. If she was coming home drunk every night – she must have been driving drunk every night. Where was the money coming from for all this alcohol? I thought she was so poor?

Joan has been an alcoholic since the 1980’s – my husband John, his cousin Joyce, and I witnessed her drunk at my house several times – and she was driving. At one time, she showed up at my house at 5am and woke everybody up! Joyce’s little girls, Joy and Meghan, aged 10 and 6 were woken up by this screaming drunk lunatic! John, Joyce and I rarely drank. The girls were not used to this – they were scared! Joyce was pissed. I threw my arms up in disgust! I told John “that’s your “friend”, you take care of her – I’m going back to bed.”

And Joan has the nerve to say she is a therapist and social worker, then sees no wrong in her behavior. In fact she revels in her “wrong behavior.” For example – Joan has a little internet icon that says 333 and she writes – “I’m only half evil.”

Is this how Joan views herself? What a thing to say about one’s self! Half-evil or Full-evil – it doesn’t matter. If Joan is saying this about herself, if this is how she views herself, she must have a very low self-esteem.  And being on the receiving end of Joan’s lies and misdeeds, I believe Joan is FULL-EVIL. And that is disgusting, because EVIL is not the right way to live. EVIL has its consequences.

Joan may even label herself as an “angry adoptee,” but does that give her the right to treat other people like dirt? To trample on their human rights? How does being an angry adoptee give her the right to browbeat her adoptive mother? Or to treat other people the way she does?

Joan says on one internet post: “We adoptees all feel that way! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Both families will criticize you, both will love you, and you will have contradictory feelings for all of them throughout the rest of your life. It IS crazymaking! That is why adoptees are often in mental health therapy because the situations themselves cause the mental confusion. What you feel is real and cannot be denied. It took me way too long to realize, and trust, that I belong HERE. My two families see it their way and can’t quite see another point of you — that is because none of them are adopted.”



Joan may label adoption as a bad thing that happened to her. Her mother died when she was an infant. Well, guess what? MY mother died too. I was only 3 years old. Bad things things happen to people, but whining about it year after year, and saying to the world “poor, poor, pitiful me,” isn’t going to stop life. It’s one thing to acknowledge that a bad thing happened to you. It’s also ok to acknowledge that family members, yes, even parents, are not perfect, and if you can’t get along, or the relationship is detrimental to your self-being and self-worth, than it’s ok to cut the ties. You can leave an avenue open for communication to that person, and take the relationship day by day, or not. But I’m not going to let a detrimental relationship hold me back from living. Or turn into a chronic victim and whiner like Joan. And just because you don’t get along with someone, you don’t have the right to lie about them and try to destroy their reputation or their life. I am surprised that Joan’s therapist hasn’t told her all this!

Now hold on – in the chapter about her violent boyfriend, she says she is a therapist. – And she in therapy herself! Methinks Joan is waaaay screwed up – how can you be a therapist when you are in therapy yourself? Joan keeps saying she’s a social worker, she volunteered for suicide prevention, yet threatens suicide on an adoption forum because of my blog!

Oh puh-leaze! She’s permamently disabled, remember? She says she’s on SSI, remember? So how is she working as a therapist or a social worker? As for the suicide threats – she’s been doing that since the early 80’s – it’s just another attention ploy.  And if she IS giving therapy to people, while being unemployed and on SSI – she is guilty of 2 crimes – practicing medicine without a license – or it’s equivalent in the social work field, AND working while telling the government that she CANNOT work – otherwise known as FRAUDULENTLY COLLECTING GOVERNMENT BENEFITS!  Whatever she’s doing – God help those who seek her out for therapy – she will screw them up worse than they already are.

And she loves to pull out the stops and play the victim and tell people that because of this blog, she is “going inside herself again,” she is “falling apart,” and she’s “being driven to suicide,” This is merely to gain sympathy.

The only reason she wants sympathy due to my blog is not because we are trashing her – but because we are telling the truth about us, our family and about her. If Joan can write lies about us, we can write the truth about her. And Joan is terrified that the true evil of herself  is coming out for the world to see.

UPDATE SEPT 2017; 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 (Doris Michol Sippel) says about me and family. The first book Forbidden Family, A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism‘ was published in 2009 but then was pulled from publication by the publisher in May 2011, for libelous material within the book. Then in 2015, she ‘self-published’ a ‘revised’ version calling it ‘Forbidden Family, an adoptee duped by adoption’. This woman has no shame no sense of family honor! Then in 2016 Joan changed her name back to her birth name and rewrote and republished the SAME crap in another book; a Third edition! CALLED ‘Forbidden Family: An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity’! Talk about conning people!

https://gertmcqueen.wordpress.com/   this blog is titled Reclaiming the Sippel-Herr Family Honor


this blog’s title/sub title is… DUPED BY ADOPTION & AN WOMAN’S STRUGGLE FOR IDENTITY, A BOOK STUDY an in-depth analyzes of the books called Forbidden Family; My Life as an Adoptee Duped by adoption & An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity by Joan M Wheeler/Doris M Sippel.

Also see this Facebook page




Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book. October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

 By Gert McQueen, written April 22, 2010

‘Three things cannot be hidden, the sun, the moon and the truth.’…Buddha

 Chapter 15, as Joan is ‘preparing for Liverpool’, to see our sister who lives there, she tells us about meeting our father at work. I’ve addressed this in another post, but for accuracy sake and setting the record straight again, she misrepresents our father’s work situation. He was not a machinist, didn’t work in south Buffalo, at this time, 1976, he worked at the City Hall of Buffalo NY as a civil engineer and part-time at Sears as a sales representative. Our father’s natural way of discussing things is in a straightforward way and yes at times he can be abrupt. I am also that way, as I believe Ruth is. Joan does not understand straightforwardness or abrupt ways of talking that leaves no opportunity for argument. She only knows a sick sense of drama within life, one of arguments and tearing each other up and she got that from having been raised with hatred, rage and paranoia. This is why she ‘didn’t know how to relate to my father’ and many other types of statements that she has put in this book.

 We, the readers, are again subjected to Joan’s inner turmoil and negative self-talk as well as the adoptive family’s torments, paranoia and rage. Is it no wonder that these three people, Joan and the adoptive parents of Edward and Dorothy Wheeler have the medical issues that they had in 1976 and that have plagued them all their lives? This family is a sick, sick, sick family that feed on each other, over and over again. I can’t imagine witnessing a scene such as is on pg 132, adoptive mother throwing a chair at a leader of a public meeting of adoptees. see post Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences.

Why is it in this book? Is it good for sales?

 pg 133 tell us about Joan’s beginning wakeup call that comes with an interracial coupling, that she embarked on, without giving full attention to anything remotely related to the suitable compatibility nor any attention to the real possibility of the violent nature that such a relationship could bring. She should have ended it when she had the chance. Idealism doesn’t work in the real world! Oh yes being the only white woman in a black ghetto can be a wakeup call! But when I tried to tell her to think, I was all wrong! Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted!   Ruth’s note – Joan states on page 133, regarding Manuel’s mother: “I admired the strength of his mother, a blind woman, who loved her children fiercely and raised them well despite the hardships.”         Excuse me, this woman did NOT do a well job of raising her TWELVE children! They were living in a slum tenement with cockroaches all over the place – and how did she raise her son – to beat up his girlfriend?  And she was blind! With TWELVE kids! I don’t mean to put down a blind poor woman, but obviously her handicaps prevented her from protecting her children from insects and raising her son not to be a batterer with a violent temper.

     Also on page 133 Joan says she marveled at the irony of the condition of an albino black man. What is there to marvel at? Why is she even mentioning this? Why is she mentioning the physical appearance of another human being? Does she marvel at a person who can’t see or hear? Or someone with Down’s Syndrome? Or a white person with red hair? How about a Native American woman with braids? Why the need to marvel at anyone’s physical condition?

 Got news for you Joan – blacks, albinos included, are simply PEOPLE. THIS is why her inter-racial relationship failed, because at her young age, and her being raised in the lily-white suburbs, never learned to see beyond the pigmentation of a person’s skin. No matter how much lip service she gives to wanting “equality for all people,” this little statement shows just what a bigot she really is. I mention Manuel’s mother’s blindness only because I am refuting Joan’s sentence that this woman raised her children well. In my opinion, she did not. Her son’s violence proves my point. 

Then we are subjected to more of the self-induced medical traumas that Joan has, throughout her life, because of her life-style of anger, hate and resentments. She has recurring bladder-kidney infections and wonders if they are related to genetics via our mother. If she ‘cleaned up’ her act and stopped the anger and hate the infections would have cleared out, but she doesn’t see the connection.

“Vibration can calm you down or drive you crazy. It is the primordial essence of creation by which we create and re-invent our lives. Even our thoughts generate vibrational effects. Positive thoughts can inspire you and motivate you to be more than you are, while negative thoughts can depress you and generate dis-ease. ” –  Dick Sutphen

Then she states, on pg 134, that ‘…and a permission note from my natural father, we secured my deceased mother’s hospital records, as well as my hospital birth records.’ This is a lie and has been brought out in other posts by Ruth. Joan’s Insistence on Not Letting Our Mother Rest When our father found out that Joan got hold of the medical records he was furious. We don’t know what the records state about our mother’s stay in the hospital and so I’m stating that Joan’s presentation is highly suspect. Her presentation is full of hype; it sells books! Isn’t that what she is after in writing it, to sell books and make money! Not to present truth.

In Liverpool, now meeting her sister Kathy, on pg 138 she says ‘…I rubbed my thumbs and fingers against (her fingers) as our hands were locked tightly and our eyes stared at each other with tears of joy falling with each blink.’ Gee, I wonder, did she get any uncomfortable feelings here as she did with our brother or myself? Pg 143/144 she says ‘…we settled in for the night and crawled into (her) queen size bed. Mixed feelings came over me…like sisters…we stayed up in the dark…’

I, myself, in 2000, visited London, for religious/cultural business, and took a train across the island to see Kathy. I too shared her bed and we stayed up all night, but I only had 24 hours to be with her.

Pg 145/146 she says ‘…a nightmare, I screamed for her to hold me, I sobbed as my big sister cradled me in her arms…I missed being cuddled by my older sisters and brother…I was ashamed, stunned, by my own behavior…’ She then says that 15 years later, after learning about adoption psychology, she learnt that her need to be held was normal. So if this is the case, why does she state, as I brought out in a previous post, that my ‘affection and embrace’ to her were ‘sexual’? And did I really tell her not to speak about it? Or is that just another one of her attempts to make Gert the bad guy and sell lots of books?

 I asked Kathy to make some comments about this and another Liverpool visit of Joan’s: see her statement for more misrepresentations by Joan. Kathy Inglis’ answers to Joan Wheeler’s caricature of her in the book Forbidden Family

Pg 155 she tells us about the violence in her relationship with the black guy, he beat her several times. Now it is ‘…an unhealthy relationship due to his violent temper, society’s racial prejudice and my growing fear that I’d lose both my families if I kept up this mixed race relationship.’ She’s learnt something! I know about domestic violence, been there, and it does take a long time to learn and gain courage to ‘get out’, so I’m not without sympathy here, only pointing out here that I did try to warn her.

Pg 157/158, Joan relates a visit, Sept 77, with my father’s wife where she learns that Dad is going to adopt one of his stepdaughters. Here is the first time she uses her newfound militaristic crusade against anyone who gives up a child, on paper, to adopt the same child, but she is a tad shy yet. She states that she was ‘…told some rather unusual news…Dad was to adopt his step-daughter…quite a shock…step-mother said

she would have to sign papers giving up her legal right to her own daughter, just so Dad could adopt her.’ Then Joan gives her learned opinion ‘…didn’t think this was correct procedure, wasn’t sure, maybe she signed paper giving permission, didn’t seem right that a divorced/remarried mother would have to relinquish her child, would she lose all parental rights…we were both so upset that we cried.’

Ruth’s note: this makes no sense. Ginette is Eastern Orthodox, and was raised in Europe by a Greek father. She is of the “old school.” She had two girls from her first husband whom she divorced. In 1970, she and my father got married by civil ceremony. In 1980, she wanted to get married in the church. In order to do this, she had to have her first marriage annulled. In the spring of 1980, she and my father went to New York City to present their case to the Archbishop of the Greek Orthodox Church. The annulment was granted. My father and Ginette did get married in the Greek Orthodox Church where they were parishioners. 

A casualty of the annulment was that in the eyes of the church, my stepsisters, Mariel and Joselyne were deemed as illegitimate. My stepmother calmly told me that she didn’t like that, but it was necessary so that she could now be not “damaged goods” (divorced), and she was now free to marry in the church. My personal opinion of this is that it is disgusting. But that’s how her church operates, that’s how she was raised.

So I have to wonder, if having her 2 daughters now be considered “illegitimate” in the eyes of the church, be over-worried about the stupid red tape involved in the adoption process that had to be gone through over Joselyne in 1977. And the red tape was in the end stupid – first both parents have to “give up” parental custody of the child that is going to be adopted. That meant Ginette and her ex-husband Robert had to both sign the papers. Then, the adopting parents sign papers that they are taking up custody of the child. That meant that my father and Ginette signed papers. So in essence, Ginette signed away her custody of Joselyne, then 5 minutes later, signed papers acknowledging that she was GETTING custody of Joselyne.  In both instances, Joselyne’s adoption by my father and her annulment, and the church now saying that both her daughters were illegitimate, Ginette recognized it all being stupid red tape. She may have complained about the red tape, but she is not the type of woman to cry over it. She is a strong woman.

Remember all of that because Joan will do it again, to me, after she overcomes her shyness she will be very insistent that she is right, everyone else is wrong! But at the present moment in history, Joan doesn’t seem to see that she has done any harm and wonders why our father ‘yelled’ at her for interfering in his business, of adopting his step-child and upsetting his wife. Ruth’s note: and what ever ANY person does in their family is NOT Joan’s dam business! And if she sticks her nose into a  family’s personal business, or deigns to tell a parent how to raise their child (especially when she herself was  NOT a parent) – and she gets yelled at for her interference – well then, that’s too dam bad.

Pg 158 – 161, we are hearing about yet another mother/daughter assault upon each other with hate/rage. What does Joan think she is gaining by relating all those rages? Strange way to honor your mother! All it does is to show a very sick drama of mental illness. Is this Joan’s reason why people should not adopt? If so then all this business about the birth family and reunion is totally unnecessary. see post:  Evil is as Evil Does – Joan Wheeler needs to learn that doing evil eventually has it’s consequences.

Pg 161 shows us an example of Joan’s constant use of cognitive dissonance, which means an inconsistency, lack of consistency or compatibility between actions or beliefs. After we are told about the violence between mother and daughter then we get to see an entry in Joan’s diary where she states; ‘…mom doesn’t seem to be as threatened as she once was…both my adoptive parents are willing and eager to socialize with my natural father and stepmother…watching my two fathers playing with six-year (brother)…my two mothers sit and chat as if old friends…Mom takes a genuine interest in my sister in Liverpool…now we discuss the family situation…’ Excuse me! The two families, birth and adoptive, did not interact with each other! This is just another version of Joan’s ‘Jekyl and Hyde’ way of thinking and behaving! Its cognitive dissonance, believing two opposing ideas at the same time; like how Christians believe. But oh, fear not, the violent exchanges will continue on!

Pg 162, where Joan leaves college in summer 78, funny that she doesn’t mention that at that time I did drive down there to get her, with my children and our father. I also remember a conversation about what kind of a job she would be able to get with a Liberal Arts degree; apparently she doesn’t want to relate that tale. Wonder why? Probably doesn’t fit in with her ‘vision’ of the ‘reunion’.

 Pg 165 she now has her own apartment and the mother/daughter hate-fest starts up again. But after awhile Joan loses a job, and instead of moving back home, the adoptive parents ‘took care of Joan’, they paid her rent and brought her food, while she looked for a job, so much for living on your own, being an adult and handling hardships like the rest of her siblings had done.

I didn’t have a ‘security blanket’ when I left home. I got married one month after HS graduation and within 2 years had 2 children and a no-good husband. There was no such thing as ‘going back home’ or having my father ‘take care of me and my kids’. The school that I grew up on was the school of hard knocks, you made your bed, you lay in it and if you want to be an adult than you take care of yourself because you are an adult. Period. I raised my children that way. I’m not suggesting that that is the best or the only way but that is what I was taught by my parents and Joan was not raised that way.

I remember once, early in my first marriage, I had asked my father to co-sign for a loan so that we might be able to get our finances in order. He did reluctantly. And we were late on a payment and the bank called my father for the payment. My father came directly to where I was attending school and yelled at me for putting his credit in jeopardy. I understood, but it had not been me who missed the payment but my then ex-husband. I never asked my father again to help me. He and I believe that ‘you are responsible for your own debts’. 

When my own children made the decisions to become adults, each in their own way, they became adults. Even though they did so earlier than I would have wanted them to and in the ways that I wished they didn’t, nonetheless they declared their adulthood to me. They got their freedom to live their lives the way they wanted and so did I. That is the usual, normal and right way for children and parents to part ways, not the way Joan and her possessive adoptive parents were.

So what does she do when she gets a job? On pg 169 we find out that she “immediately began saving my money for a trip to Liverpool…’

Priorities! Never ceases to amaze me about people’s priorities. Trips, vacations and luxury stuff long before thinking about long-term security, like a good job, food, rent, utilities, and insurances. I have come to the conclusion that people continue to do this because they KNOW that the SYSTEM will bail them out, be that system some parent who doesn’t want to lose the kid or the society that does not make people WORK for their checks.

Ruth’s note: oh yes Joan has her priorities. I know I’m jumping the years here, but in July 1986, me, Colby and Joan went to Chautagua, NY to see the 60’s rock group The Monkees. In September 86, they added Buffalo to the tour. Joan just HAD to go see them. Then two weeks later, she calls me up, crying – her electricity was getting shut off. So we have here, a 30 year old married, 8 months pregnant woman, with a 3 year old at home, with a shut off notice. Shut off notices don’t come unless you haven’t paid the bill for a few months. But she spent money to see a rock group, not once but TWICE! Oh never fear – Mama Wheeler came through for spoiled little Joanie – and paid the bill.  Oh by the way, when we went to see the Monkees in July – Colby and Joan paid for my ticket – they owed me for long distance calls Joan made on my phone. So if you have money to buy THREE tickets to see a rock concert – why can’t you pay your electric bill? Answer – they obviously didn’t have the money to do both – so like RESPONSIBLE ADULTS – they neglect paying their utility bills and go see a rock concert.  So what’s Colby’s excuse? He wasn’t ADOPTED – no, adoption has nothing to do with this fiasco – JOAN AND COLBY ARE BOTH SPOILED BRATS WHO MOOCHED OFF MAMA WHEELER AND THEN TRIED TO MOOCH OFF ME AND ENDED UP STEALING CLOSE TO $900.00 DOLLARS FROM ME! Anybody who listen to Joan’s whines about how “poor” she is, should wake up and smell the coffee. For someone so “poor” how does she manage to travel all over the place? Wake up people! Joan is crafty at whining about her “poverty.”

On pg 167/168 Joan says that Dad told her the story of how our parents met. Well I’m stating here for the record that what Joan has written on pg 168 is NOT the same story that my father told me. I’m not repeating her falsehood here. Joan’s version of the story includes some pretty bazaar elements and people that I have never heard of and have not idea where she gets some these strange family connections.

Because my Dad is older now I don’t like to question him too much. If I ever find out more information about family connections I shall post them for clarity sake but for now, Joan’s story doesn’t ring true.

I did asked my father in March of 2010 about how he, my father, met my mother and what he told me is essentially the same that he has told me several times over the years and it is not the same as the one that Joan relates. My father’s father Leon and my mother’s father Jacob both knew each from work on the railroads. During a furlough home in WW11, my father and his father where coming home to Buffalo from an army base. My mother and her father where going to Buffalo after a visit in Iowa. During this time period soldiers had first preference to seats on a train. After my father’s father told him that a friend and his daughter were going to Buffalo on the same train my father saved 4 seats for them. This is how my father and mother met. They exchange contact information and that was that and as they say ‘the rest is history’.

Broadly speaking Joan does not know how to ‘take’ our father, simply because he is not the same as the adoptive father who was weak, timid, browbeaten and abused by a dominating wife. Our father also does not engage in useless arguments, like the kind that Joan is so used to having from her upbringing. Pg 169/170 she is ‘…so upset about an incident (with my father) that she sought counseling…to be told that ‘she must be afraid of men because you keep saying ‘my father gave me away’…and you cannot trust men…’ She finds a ‘real psychiatrist…with a sliding fee scale…’ Boy, for someone who has no money and has the ‘parents’ paying rent and food she sure can afford things what most of us can’t like professional help! By her description of these sessions it sounds as if either she is a fool, for paying for such incompetence or she is a fool to think that the readers would believe her nonsense that a psychiatrist would be that stupid! Either way she wins… the fool’s cap!

Seriously now, you know people, Joan is not the only child that did NOT have the father there. All of us siblings did not have our father either, and yes we all have had some difficultly with that issue, but, you eventually have to ‘get over it’ and not wallow in it forever. It’s called growing up and becoming an adult! That’s doesn’t mean that you will never have ‘issues’ over the lost parent or cold parent but at least you can get on with your life. The kind of shit, that Joan writes, does NOT make good book copy. Joan is not a good writer. She can’t tell her life story with any kind of compelling feelings that makes a book good or a classic, like the one I happen to be reading at the moment  (how appropriate). 

“Of Human Bondage” by Somerset Maugham (1915): ‘They seemed to be always on the verge of a quarrel. The fact was that he hated himself for loving her. She seemed to be constantly humiliating him, and for each snub that he endured he owed her a grudge.’ and ‘He thought she might beckon to him, he was willing to forget anything, he was ready for any humiliation, but she had turned away, and apparently had ceased to trouble about him.’

Back to Joan’s book, the episodes where she relates such issues as the bridal dress, which Ruth has addressed in other posts, the truth of what actually happened certainly is not how Joan has portrayed it. An event of a communion party and the inter-relationships between and with birth family that contains a step-mother, step-children and half-siblings, that Joan never knew 5 years before, yet has much ‘insights’ into them, is so out of character to what I actually know of all these people, is to question Joan’s account. For example Joan states, pg 175, that after our father called her I called her. Not true! She states that I ‘yelled at (her) for ruining the party and mistreating (step-mother)…’ and on and on ‘…and by the way, you need to return Momma’s wedding dress to…you have no right keeping it…(I) hung up’. Wrong, wrong and wrong! She seems to have forgotten that at that time, 79, I was busy with my own young family and I had very little involvement with my father’s family and/or with what Ruth was doing.  Ruth’s note: I address the communion party and the wedding dress in a separate post: Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler

When reading anything Joan writes you must use the filter called ‘the Joan factor filter’. Joan herself can be quite rude and stupid because, by her own admission pg. 174, ‘I wasn’t taught to clean up. I had no social skills.’ And so, does that mean that everyone in the family or the world must take such lack of training into consideration when dealing with a woman, who at this time period was 23 years old! Was she just hatched? Had she never been to other people’s homes, did she not learn any social skills at college? Oh I forgot, whatever it is, it is never Joan’s fault.  Ruth’s note: and for someone who grew up without a mother, I think I had a lot more social skills than Joan. And later on in the book, Joan quotes her mother who was putting me and my sisters down: “they had no mother and look how they turned out.” Oh yes, Mama Wheeler, Gert, Kathy and I turned out a hell of a lot better than Joan. Just how the hell did you raise her? Not very well as I can see.

According to Joan there seems to be some kind of conspiracy against her by all of the birth family. Far from it, she portrays everyone in such a light as to say that everyone was ‘out to get her’. Dad is always yelling at her. Dad’s wife is upset with her. The stepsisters don’t like her. Ruth and Gert don’t like her. She has the audacity and stupidity to say, pg 176, that she ‘…could picture Dad yelling at my sisters for causing trouble with his second wife and third wife. I wondered if my sisters deliberately caused Dad to yell at me since he didn’t get that chance while I was growing up.’ What an asshole Joan is! Ruth’s note: I address this asinine remark of Joan’s in my post Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler

She does not see Dad’s positive sides because she wants him to be some image of a real father that she has concocted in her mind instead of taking him for what he is. Of course he is ‘short’ in temper, who wouldn’t be when dealing with Joan, but of course, the readers of this book have no idea of what it’s like to deal with Joan.

She has zero information about Dad’s 2nd wife, she didn’t live with what we lived with, and she really ought to be ashamed of herself to put into print this garbage. Equally, she really ought to hide her face in the dirt for even suggesting that any of us siblings had any problem with Dad’s 3rd wife! She ought to hide in shame for suggesting it. Truth, Dad’s 2nd marriage was not a good one but we were all very young, innocent children and knew NOTHING about the real grown up troubles that my father had to deal with in that marriage. It is only in my own adulthood that I appreciate the pain that my father went through during those years.

Remember now that my father had been a widower twice before he met the woman that became his 3rd wife, and I was very pleased that he had married her. When he had made the decision to marry he asked each of us, long before we knew Joan, what we felt. Each one of us told him the same; that he should go ahead and marry and do what he feels is right. I was happy for them both. This woman had 2 little girls and I saw how she took care of them and my father and I somehow envisioned that what she did was what my own mother would have done, in order words, she fulfilled a space in my father’s life that was emptied by the death of my mother. How could I possible ever have a problem with this woman? No, never, she has always been a good woman, mother, wife, stepmother and friend. Joan knows not what she writes about! All she knows is how to be a ‘…victim, a pawn pulled back and forth at everyone else’s whims. In self-protection, I turned inward…’ Like everything else coming from Joan, it is from that sick inward self which does not reflect the true world around her.

From “Of Human Bondage”: ‘He talked of getting occupation of this sort so long that he had not the face to refuse outright….at last he declined the offer…it would have interfered with my work he told Philip. What work? Asked Philip brutally. My inner life, he answered.’

Gert – October 16, 2010

I want to point out that Ruth’s extensive use of details is very very important…It points to many facets of Joan’s lack of understanding other people do have long memories and accurate memories. Joan can say all she wants to about how bad her sisters were/are, but, that doesn’t make her statements correct.

thank you Ruth, for all the details that you provide for us…for it give a fuller picture.

and as Ruth as describe here about how a natural mother must SIGN papers in order to ADOPT her own birth child…that is correct…for I HAD TO DO THE SAME when my 2nd husband and I ADOPTED MY BIRTH SON.

Joan did not like that, oh no, and she caused great harm, she knew better than the adoption agencies who did very extensive BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS on my husband and myself, in order for us to adopt…that was not enough for Joan, she had to interfer and she caused alot of pain and trouble…more on that in my NEXT blog entry.

Joan hates anyone who adopts for any reason.


RuthOctober 16, 2010

As to Gert’s last sentance – “Joan hates anyone who adopts for any reason.” – I have to add this:

Joan also hates INFERTILE COUPLES or INFERTILE WOMEN, because they just might be adopters

Ruth Pace’s additional comments of Personal Psychodrama of Joan Wheeler October 14, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Black and White Evidence of Joan Wheeler's Lies: Letters, Court Documents, Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

My additional comments to Gert McQueen’s  Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family – Personal psychodrama, lies and other things that don’t belong in a book.

On page 155, Joan tells us how upset she was that our father had decided to formally adopt his youngest stepdaughter. Joan is incapable of seeing things from another person’s viewpoint, all she can do is wallow in her own misery, feel sorry for a bad break in life that she received as an infant – the death of her mother, and her father giving her up for adoption.

When my father met his current wife (and they just celebrated their 40th wedding anniversary), Ginette was a divorced mother of 2 girls, ages 4 and 10. Her ex-husband cared nothing for the girls,  Ginette was on public assistance, receiving no child support from the girls’ father. Within months – actually it was around Christmas 1970 – 2 and a half months – of my father’s and Ginette’s marriage, her ex-husband came around – probably because his male ego felt threatened. I was there the day he came over to our house. Jos (Claire in the book), aged 4 years old, and knowing my father for only 6 months, stood behind MY father. She was scared of her biological father – she did not know who he was. Mar, my older stepsister, did remember her father and there wasn’t a problem there, but Jos did not go to her father. She hung onto MY father’s legs and began to cry.

A couple of times during the next year or two, Mr. Ansermin would show up and assert his “fatherly rewards.” He demanded visitations with his daughters. He was always behind in child support, but would front some money so that Family Court would send a notice to my father and Ginette that Mr. Ansermin would be taking the girls on such and such date. Mar had a fairly good relationship with her father, but Jos would cry – she did not want to go with Mr. Ansermin. It finally got to the point that my father and Ginette told Family Court that it was upsetting Jos and if it took their refusal of any more of Mr. Ansermin’s money to get him out of Jos’ life – then so be it.  This is why my stepmother went back to work in late 1972, It wasn’t as if Mr. Ansermin’s sporadic child support was helping the family anyway. And this was one of the reasons I moved back into my father’s house after being on my own for a year and a half – to help watch the kids while my father and stepmother worked (I was working too).

By 1977, Jos was now 11 years old. She had absolutely no contact with her biological father since 1972. The only male role model in her life was MY father. The only father she has EVER known is MY father. It was HER idea to be adopted – SHE asked my father for her last name to be changed from Ansermin to Sippel – SHE wanted my daddy to be her daddy! And what could be wrong with that?

Yes, it is an wierd twist of fate, that in 1956, Leonard Sippel Sr. gave up a girl-child for adoption, and 21 years later would adopt another girl-child. Life certainly is strange. But does Joan see that behind each adoption, there was LOVE there? LOVE for Joan in 1956, to be given to a couple who could properly care for her, when in 1956, there WERE NO DAYCARE CENTERS OR WELFARE SYSTEM TO HELP MY FATHER OUT! What was my father supposed to do with a three month old infant while he was at work all day? Let her lie in a crib all day unattended? Can’t Joan get that through her thick skull?!!!

And there was absolutely nothing but LOVE behind the decision for my father to adopt Jos. Can’t Joan see that? Of course not – because with Joan – it’s all about Joan. She cares only for Joan. She  has no sense of another human being’s feelings. She is consumed with only herself.

On page 158, Joan has me and Gert saying “Oh Joanie, really! You’ve got to stop being so hung up on adoption! It’s no big deal, get over it.”

WRONG! I never said that. That’s Mama Wheeler talking – and yes, Gert and I have seen several times in the book where Joan has us saying things that we never said, but it is the exact wording, (or a very close paraphrase)  that Joan quotes her mother as saying in a different part of the book. This is just another chance for to put us down, because we welcomed Jos, not only as our stepsister, but now our legal sister, and in Joan’s mind, an act of betrayal of us to her. Is THIS why in just 3 short years, she would start the interference and harassment and lying about us? As a punishment because we didn’t side with her against Jos?

I NEVER – and to this day, HAVE NEVER TOLD JOAN TO STOP BEING SO HUNG UP ON ADOPTION! Why would I have said this to her in 1977, then turn around in 1980 and accompany her to WGRZ Buffalo Television station to be interviewed with her by reporter Rich Kellman if I didn’t support her adoption cause?

Further down on page 158, she has her mother saying to her “What gives you the right to blab our private business to the whole world?” What did I just say 2 paragraphs above? – That Joan quotes her mother on one page, then puts the same words in my mouth. And she did – on pages 276-278 … when Prof. Rene Hoksbergen supposedly came to my house (a lie, he never was at my house). 

 On page 163, Joan goes into a completely disgusting and unnecessary description of my mother’s death. So I guess my father decided to tell her of my mom’s death. I heard the same story from my dad – EXCEPT this part: “She opened her eyes, looked up in front of her, took in a deep breath, closed her eyes, exhaled, and she was gone. Immediately, there was a terrible stench of rotten flesh. The doctors told me later that her sides had split open; that even the bandages didn’t hold it in, and all of her that had been dying, fell out.”

What the hell?!! Let me say that although I am not a doctor, I have worked for 38 years in a hospital and what Joan relates here may certainly be plausible, it is highly unlikely. First, my mother did NOT die of kidney cancer – it was UTERINE CANCER. The immediate cause of death, was kidney failure, but that’s because her organs had started to fail, and her kidneys were the organs to go first. On the bottom of Page 162, to the top of page 163, she has my father saying that the cancer had spread all over her body. This is called metastasis Joan, the “medical expert” that she is, does not mention this important word. Second, when they did the exploratory surgery in January 1956, and suspecting UTERINE CANCER, they would have made an incision in the lower abdomen. If they suspected kidney cancer, incisions would have been made in the lumbar/sacral area of her back. If my mother was indeed 89 pounds at the time of her death, then she obviously was not given fluid pushes,which would bloat the body. Now as to the “description” that my father supposedly told Joan, unfortunately, yes, this could have happened. But her sides splitting open to the point the bandages would not hold her insides in? This sentance is highly suspect – she would not have incisions along her sides – and unless she was bloated with fluid pushes, her sides would not have split open. And for a doctor to be telling my father this AFTER the fact – no, a doctor would not have said this. Doctors have compassion, they would not tell a man who just lost his wife these gory details. – I know- I work in a hospital – in several different areas – 4 years in the Medical Intensive Care Unit, (I’ve seen some gory stuff there), 5 years in the Hospice Unit, (I’ve witnessed many deaths in front of my eyes, I know what the smells are), and right now on the renal KIDNEY floor – and work with KIDNEY transplants and see just where their dam incisions are. And they are NOT on their sides! Joan – stop watching so much CSI and Forensic Files!

But, let’s say this all really did happen – why is this in her book? What does this have to with Joan’s adoption, her reunion, and her adoption reform work? Her book is supposed to be about those 3 things – not giving a graphic, gory rendition of a young woman’s lose of life. What the hell is the matter with Joan? This is called honoring our mother? This crap does not belong in this book – it serves no purpose of advisement for or against adoption – it is purely sensationalism, and embellishment on Joan’s part. Joan should be ashamed of herself for abusing the memory of our mother in this way.

On page 164, Joan relates that she learned to drive at the late age of 22. So? What does this have to do with her adoption? I learned to drive at the VERY late age of 24 – so what? Is this necessary to know? By the way, I was 24 in the year 1976, therefore, I could not have been driving Joan around in 1974. Joan, please get your facts straight when you are reporting about MY life. Also a good thing to do when you are writing a “truthful” book. Do some research. Or search your faulty memory – it was Gail who drove you around in 1974 to Uncle Mikes, not me.

On page 168 Joan relates that after she got laid-off, the welfare people told her to move back in with her parents – no, they would not have told her this. They may have suggested it, because they don’t want to hand out the benefits, but they probably told her that she would have to wait about a month to begin receiving benefits – which is standard – they don’t just automatically hand out food stamps and cash assistance to someone who just walks in the door! Joan just words it this way to get her readers to feel sorry for her. By the way, what was she doing asking for welfare anyway? She got laid off, did she not go look for another job? She says this was shortly before Christmas – um, stores are hiring temporary seasonal workers then – and there are ALWAYS openings in the health care field! If you’re that hard up for cash – go empty bedpans – it’s good steady work – pays good, and keeps you off the welfare rolls or in your mommy’s purse! Guess what? Dr. Christaan Barnard, who performed the world’s first heart transplant, paid his way through medical school by working as an orderly – one of an orderly’s duties is to EMPTY BEDPANS! Don’t have the stomach for it? Then get a job as a cleaner ANYWHERE, hotel maid, whatever, just don’t get laid off from your first job, run down to welfare, then run over to mommy! And it’s not like her first job was all that glamorous – she worked packaging on an assembly line in a pharmaceutical company.

On pages 173 – 176, Joan combines two events that had nothing to do with each other. First on page 172, she relates how she tried on our dead mother’s wedding dress. She doesn’t quite tell the story of the wedding dress right. She leaves the story of the dress and begins to tell the story of my brother’s First Holy Communion Party and the fight she got into with my stepmother’s friend Elaine. Then she goes back to the wedding dress – the wedding dress had nothing to do with the party. But I will tell what REALLY happened. I will take this ONE event at a time, because in truth, the two events were separate, and happened at quite different times.

On the morning of Steve’s Holy Communion, I had a fight with Abdo (my first husband). It stemmed from an incident that had happened the previous night, when we were out with his brother and his brother’s girlfriend. S. and I did not get along, and some words exchanged between us. Then Ali got involved, and Abdo was upset with me because I was fighting with his brother. So the next morning, I went to the church by myself. Gert and her kids did not come to the church service, but met up with me at our father’s apartment, and Gert had brought along Abdo, as she lived only two blocks from us.

The church service was followed by a brunch in the school auditorium and then we went on to my father’s apartment for a nice afternoon and a nice dinner. After the dinner, I was sitting in the living room talking with Gert. Joan had gone downstairs with my brother and youngest stepsister. (My father lived on the 12 floor of the apartment building). Elaine left a little bit after Joan. Shortly afterwards, Abdo and I, Gert and her two children all left together. Shortly after 6pm, and the sun was still shining. The only guests left wer Bob and Sonja.

We had parked in the parking lot in the front of the building, and apparently Joan, Steve, and Joselyne were in the back of the building. But we did not see her or the kids as we drove on the one-way street that completely encircles the apartment complex. I remember I was home for about an hour when my phone rang. It was Gert. She just received a call from Joan, who had just gotten home herself – and apparently Joan had a fight with Elaine. Now, we have only Joan’s version of the fight as told to me and Gert. – so apparently as Joan was leaving to go downstairs with Steve and Joselyne, she made a comment to my stepmother. Gert and I were in the living room – we didn’t hear it. What the comment actually was, we don’t know, but in the book, on page 173, Joan said to Ginette, “Well, this isn’t as extravagant as the party you had for Claire, (Joselyne), considering this is a smaller space, but I had a lovely time and thank you for inviting me.” … I didn’t know it because she didn’t tell me, but Yvonne (my stepmother Ginette) cried after I left.” — This is nonsense! Although I didn’t hear what was said, I could see Ginette, because me and Gert left shortly afterwards – and Ginette was fine!

Well, according to the phone conversation, Elaine was downstairs and confronted Joan and berated her for not helping Ginette with the dishes. Elaine then went on to say that the Sippel sisters were rude to Ginette and we were all lazy for not helping out with the dishes. Well, we were guests – just like Elaine. But Gert and I were pissed at Elaine, because we made the observation that our oldest stepsister, Mar, who was 19 at the time, also did not help out with the dishes. We both felt, and to this day, I still feel, that Elaine was out of line – if the daugthers of the Sippel family are supposed to help out with clearing up dishes after a party, then the Sippel stepdaughter should too.

After Gert and I hung up, my phone rang – it was Joan – and she told me the story of the fight – and I told her my opinion of Elaine and Mar. So Gert, Joan and I were united in our feelings of outrage that we were being singled out. I don’t know what Gert said to my father, if anything at all, but for myself, I didn’t say anything. Because this was typical behavior of Elaine. I wasn’t going to get into a fight over this ignorant woman. My stepmother and I had a good relationship – we both worked the Bingo games and served on the Women’s Committee of the Greek Orthodox Church. We frequently went out to lunch. When my brother was 10 and had a accident with his bike and plowed face-first into a parked van, and his mouth was bloody, she didn’t call 911 – she called me – to take them to the emergency room. And I have already related how I moved back in my father’s house in 1973 to help watch over the kids while my stepmother went back to work. So Elaine’s opinion of me didn’t really matter to me. I was concerned that she obviously was trying to plant a wedge between us and our stepmother and stepsisters.

As to Joan’s description of my father’s tyranical behavior – well, sad to say, that is typical of my father – it’s funny – I got along better with my stepmother than I did with him! My way of coping was to ignore him – as I did with Elaine – if Ginette had a problem with me, Gert and Joan not cleaning up dishes – she never said so. I noticed no difference in her behevior towards me after the party. And as I said, when Gert, Abdo, Gert’s kids and I left, Ginette seemed just fine. So it makes me wonder – just what was the fight between Elaine and Joan REALLY about? According to Joan, on page 173, the Sippel girls had been mistreating Ginette since 1971! Really? News to me, since I had moved out of my father’s house in 1971, but moved back in – in 1973. Ginette was going back to work on the afternoon shift, I worked night shift, my father worked days. This way, an adult was present in the house at all times to watch the kids. And I spent many wonderful days with her other friends Millie and Arthur, who lived outside of Dunkirk, NY. My goodness, if I mistreated Ginette so much, how was I entrusted with her kids to take them down to the beach swimming? How when Steve was 3 and running in the house and tripped and opened up a gash on his forehead, why would she come running up the stairs to wake me up to help take him around the corner to the emergency room. And I held her as she heard him screaming, when he was getting his stitches. Oh – but I mistreated her? Elaine knew better than to say that. But I never liked Elaine. I suspect she went back upstairs with Steve and Jos and said something to Ginette and my father – and brought up the subject of us not cleaning up the dishes.

But me and Gert, like fools, believed Joan – we hadn’t yet seen through the manipulations that Joan was doing. Like I said, I don’t know if Gert said anything to Dad – I doubt she said anything. I know I didn’t say anything – but not Joan – no – instead of having some dam good sense – and wait until the following day to speak to Dad – she runs right upstairs to start an argument with him in front of his remaining guests! Then wonders why he’s pissed at her!! As for his statements (however misguided they were) about him not wanting him to upset his wife and kids – well any husband and father would stick up for his wife and kids. Unfortunately, my father forgets that Joan, Gert, Kathy and me are also his kids.

I want to make a point about my “mistreatment” of my stepmother – I have already said that we had a good relationship – working Bingo together, having lunch, etc. Joan knew all this – but she does not report about it in her book. What she says in response to Elaine’s comment about us Sippel girls mistreating Ginette is: “I don’t think I should be lumped together with my sisters for something, or a bunch of somethings that they did.” But she KNEW that Ginette and I got along. Joan has no problem with relating Elaine’s and my father’s outburst – but strangely, she didn’t defend Gert or me. Why not? Oh, it just wouldn’t do to portray Gert or Ruth in a positive way – because that would negate her dam book – that her birth sisters are bitches! She even accused us on page 176 for delibrately leaving our plates on the coffee table so that JOAN would get in trouble! “It’s as if they wanted to teach me a lesson,” she says.

For crying out loud! For that to happen, there would have to have been a full conspiracy! Yeah, that’s it – Gert and I and Abdo left our plates sitting around. We then got hold of Elaine, and told her to go downstairs and bitch at Joan about our plates. We then got hold of our stepmother and told her to be mad at Joan for what we did. Then we got hold of our father and told him to be sure to yell at Joan after Elaine yelled at her, and he should be prepared for Joan when she came back upstairs — etc. etc. etc. Oh yes, Gert and I planned the whole thing. Do you people see how stupid this all is? But not Joan – instead of seeing what this all was – Elaine being a troublemaker – Joan getting unfairly yelled at by our father – Joan’s bottom line is: GERT AND RUTH WAS THE CAUSE OF IT ALL!   – why is always OUR fault when Joan screws up? why can’t JOAN TAKE REPONSIBLITY FOR HER OWN LIFE?

Yes, Elaine treated Joan unfairly – but that is NOT my fault, nor Gert’s fault. I never liked Elaine – for just this reason – I had some words with her mother in the summer of 1971, BEFORE Ginette married my father – She was visiting Ginette’s house at the same time I was – I was 17 years old, and upstairs with my soon-to-be stepsisters, aged 4 and 10, and we were fooling around, being loud. Ginette yelled up the stairs for us to be quiet. As bratty kids sometimes do, we did not comply right away. Ginette yelled at us again, and we settled down. A while later, Elaine’s mother Agnes got hold of me outside and ripped into me. I felt that she had no business yelling at me. I would take discipline from Ginette, as she was going to be my stepmother, but I would not take orders from Agnes. Apparently Agnes told her daughter about this – and I was conscious of Elaine’s dislike of me everytime I saw her. Both Elaine and Agnes were overbearing and nasty to me and Kathy (before she moved to England). What was my reaction? I ignored them – they were Ginette’s friends, so I had no place to say anything – besides, by 1974, I moved out of my father’s house for the second and last time – I now had my own apartment – I was an adult in my own right – there was no need to interact with them again. When I did see them at my father’s house – I was polite, that was all. I just kept the peace. But did Joan learn how to live in peace? No! After Elaine insults her, she stomps back upstairs to confront my father, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT HE HAD GUESTS! Perhaps if she had waited until the following day to talk to him, she would not have gotten yelled at by him. And by the way – she says on page 174, she “kept my head down in humiliation as I ran passed the living room of people. I felt their hot stares on my back.” First, everyone had gone, except Bob and Sonia, so the living room was not full – and yes, she should have felt humiliated – she had already left the party – she should have gone home – but nooooo – she just HAD to go back upstairs and confront our father.

She also relates that it was raining, and by the time she got back to my father’s apartment she was soaking wet and the wind and rain froze her lungs. Bullshit – please see the picture at the bottom of this post – it is a photocopy of the microfilmed copy of one of the newspapers in Buffalo, New York in the late 70’s, The Buffalo Courier Express, for Sunday, May 20, 1979. Please see the weather report – which states the day to be “partly sunny, mid 70’s.” Even if a scattered rainshower had occured, and Joan got wet, her lungs would not have been “frozen.” Not at 75 degrees. Give me a break! Geez Joan, you must have a low opinion of everyone in the world to expect them to buy that nonsense!

And getting back to her little remark she made to Ginette – on page 173, she says “I didn’t mean to hurt her feelings, but I guess I did.” and “I told him (my father) that I was sorry I said something to hurt her and I didn’t think what I said was so wrong. ….Evidentally, Yvonne (Ginette) thought I was insulting her.” But earlier in the book, when she was talking about events in 1974, she berated me for sarcastically telling her that she spelled our last name wrong on a xmas card she had sent me. (I have already said before that I have no memory of this).

Here we see Joan’s double standard of behavior – how she perceives how people should treat her, and how she should treat people. – Nobody had better insult her – even if it were a simple slip of the tongue. She relates a slip of a tongue on HER part, and doesn’t see why anyone should be upset with her – but oh boy! Let RUTH inadvertanly insult JOAN, and it’s a capital punishment! But as you see, Joan HAS to paint Ruth as bad, bad, bad, because that is the whole purpose of her book – to trash me and my family. Ruth is not afforded the slightest possibility that she said something by mistake – but Joan makes absolutely NO mistakes.

Now let us discuss my mother’s wedding dress.  The events she describe on page 172 are essentially correct. – She says that while visiting at my house I showed her the dress, and she has me saying, “Dad gave each of us something that belonged to Mom.” Joan says she immediately felt jealous, she felt left out. Why must she always be whining about something? And did she not already say in the book that Dad DID give her something? A LOCK OF MOM’S HAIR! Why is she then whining about a dress?

Ok, I will admit, I didn’t take good care of it. Joan says it was in a black garbage bag, no it was in a large paper bag. And while we are discussing this – My father did NOT actually give me the dress – I TOOK if from the attic of our house! It was still in the same cardboard box that my mother had put it in. I was 16 years old when I TOOK it. This was then the year 1968. From 1946 to 1968, it was still in the same box – and after moving residences  3 or 4 times, the box was crushed, the top had a oval cut out of the cardboard with a clear piece of plastic in the oval, and this plastic was missing. The dress was getting dirty. I was only 16 years old. I knew nothing about taking care of a wedding dress. I folded it up and placed it in a large paper shopping bag. I did have the sense to cover it with some tissue paper.

Earlier in the book, Joan relates the first time Gert came to visit her at her house in 1974, and sees the usual teenage sloppy room. Gert remarked that my room looked the same way. Joan forgets that she had a mother to teach her how to take care of clothes – I didn’t. And when, I brought the dress out to show Joan, I told her that the dress needed cleaning and pressing, and in the back of the dress – the buttons were fastened by a large rope of fabric that was stiched and looped into “buttonholes.” This “rope” was pulled out of place in spots – I didn’t know how to repair it. Joan told me that her mother was a seamstress – had sewed many of Joan’s clothes for her when she was growing up, and even made Joan’s prom dress. Joan said, “My mother would know how to fix this up.” So I LOANED it to her to have it fixed up.

On page 175 Joan combines these two events – she says while she was arguing with my father about the Holy Communion party, he tells her on the phone, “oh and by the way, Ruth wants Mom’s wedding dress back.” Joan then describes how she grabbed it off the hanger,  rolled it up in a black garbage bag, drove to my house and threw it at my feet. She then berates me for involving Gert and my father in the dress, and yells at me to take better care of the dress.

Nope, this never happened! She says she had the dress for 4 weeks. Nope – She had the dress until 1984 for a total of 5 years! And no, I never called Gert for help to get the dress back, because Gert had moved to Binghamton in 1982. I did call my father because Joan REFUSED TO RETURN THE DRESS, AND FURTHERMORE, SHE STOLE BEADWORK OFF THE DRESS!

In early 1983, Joan found out that she was pregnant – and her and Colby decided to get married. The wedding date was set for sometime in May and she asked me to be one of her bridesmaids. She found a seamstress to make the gowns and asked me for my permission to have Mom’s wedding dress altered to fit her. I said no. So her seamstress made a copy of the dress, and put in extra material to cover Joan’s pregnancy.

My mother’s wedding dress has some beadwork, small concentric circles of white seed beads, sewn on a small ribbon of fabric that lined the v-shaped bodice of the satin main dress. Over this bodice is a smaller section of a more sheer fabric leading from the bosom to the neck.

On Joan’s wedding day, 45 minutes before we were to leave for the start of the wedding, we were at her house, the matron of honor helping her get dressed, a photographer in attendance. If memory serves, I was one of 3 bridesmaids, one of them her future sister in law. I was dressed, putting on fresh coat of nail polish. All of a sudden here comes the bride! “Oh Ruth. I just wanted to tell you. With all the work on the dresses, there wasn’t time to make a copy of the beadwork on Mom’s dress. So we took it off, and sewed it onto mine. When we get the copy of the beadwork done, we’ll just swap the ribbons. And this is so wonderful, as I will be able to go down the aisle with something that Mom had on her wedding day.”

Now I ask you. What would you have done? What could you have done? Make a scene in front of all those people and ruin the brides day? NO, there was NOTHING I could have done.

Months later, she refused to return the dress itself. I finally had to get my father to get the dress back. It was not cleaned, not pressed, the buttons in the back NOT repaired, even though Joan had the dress in her possession for 5 years. And it was still crumpled up in the same paper shopping bag that I had kept it in, but without even tissue paper to help keep dust out. When I returned home from my father’s house, (and incidentally, he never said a word about it being all crumbled up), I noticed that the ribbon of beadwork was still not back on the dress. I called Joan – she then DICTATED to me that when she and her seamstress got around to making the copy of the beadwork ribbon, she was going to keep the original beadwork, because it was something that belonged to HER mother. Mind you – this was also a full year after her wedding – I think Joan had no intention of ever returning the beadwork to me. But we all know now that Joan is a thief!

I told my friend Francine about this conversation and she asked me what was I going to do? I said “There’s nothing I can do right now. She’s got me over a barrel. If I make a stink, I will never get the beads back. But don’t worry – I will get them back.” So I waited a few months and then the call came that I was waiting for – Joan needed me as a babysitter. I headed on over to her house with a pair of scissors in my purse. After Joan and Colby left the house – and I had my nephew in the highchair, feeding him dinner, I went on the hunt! I found Joan’s dress and right there on the front of her dress was the beadwork ribbon that belonged on my mother’s wedding dress. I laid the dress out on the bed – and had my nephew positioned so I could keep an eye on him. I fed him a couple of spoonfuls and went back into the bedroom and got to work. After I got the ribbon off the dress – I put Joan’s dress back in the closet. I made sure my nephew was safe – then I ran downstairs and locked the beadwork ribbon in my car’s glove compartment. I was taking no chances that I might drop my purse and Joan would see what was in it.

Now in her book, on page 175, she describes her return of the dress to me by her flinging the dress at my feet. She berates me for abusing the dress. But did she not abuse it herself by “throwing it at my feet?” But that never happened. She took the dress to my father’s house, and he in turn, gave it to me. Why would someone lie like that? By saying that she threw the dress on the floor, is admitting to a possible abuse of the dress. The very same thing she accused me of. (always with the accusations of me). But the reality of it is – she removed trim off the dress AFTER I told her NOT to touch the dress, she tried to keep that trim for herself. She had the dress in her possession for 5 years and she never got it cleaned, pressed, or the back repaired as she promised. She kept it in the same paper bag that I had it in – so she abused the dress as well.

I am sure my mother’s spirit understands my not keeping the dress correctly – I didn’t know any better – but what excuse does Joan have? She had that dress for 5 years, one of those being a full year AFTER her own wedding – HER wedding dress was hung in the closest, but she left my mother’s dress all crumpled up, even though she promised to restore it. And further to mutilate it and try to STEAL something off of it. No, Joan’s crimes against the dress were far worse than mine.

To recap and add a timeline to Sunday, May 20, 1979 – The church services attended for my brother’s Holy Communion, consisted of a full Catholic Mass, which started around 10am, included the children receiving their First Holy Communion Sacrament. When the children finished receiving the Body of Christ, the rest of the congregation partook of the Eucharist. When the mass was finished, those who wanted to, went to the school auditorium next door for a light brunch. Joan did not attend either the mass or the brunch. After the brunch, our family members, Elaine and her mother too, went to our father’s house, where Ginette began the finishing touches of the dinner – she frequently cooks some things ahead – we ate, probably around 4, had desert – the party began breaking up around 6.

Here is the weather report taken from the Buffalo Courier Express for Sunday, May 20, 1979, the date of my brother’s First Holy Communion, and to which Joan attests to that date on page 172, and on page 173, she reports that “the wind and rain froze my lungs.” in 75 degree weather! oh, really? The pictures are of my brother in the church, bearing a basket of bread to be blessed. See the sunlight in the windows. The next picture is of Mariel and Elaine’s daughter Michelle – see the spaghetti straps of Mariel’s dress – appropriate attire for a warm and sunny spring day – where there was NO chance to get frozen!

Gert – October 16, 2010

again, thank you Ruth for all the details.

I would like to state here for the record in case anyone thinks that Joan is the only sister that I personally have had a problem with, she is not.

I did have some serious problems with Ruth and we did not speak or have any kind of a relationship for quite a long time but we did RECONCILE and we REPAIRED the tear in our relationship and we FORGAVE each other!

That is the big difference here with Joan, for Joan DOES NOT WANT TO RECONCILE WITH HER SISTERS.
Joan’s ENTIRE LIFE IS THAT BOOK, HER VERSION OF REALITY. Don’t confuse Joan with any facts, she has her reality and she will NOT PART WITH THAT.

So if there is anyone out there who thinks that can get Joan to stop attacking her sisters, think again…you are being used and you will eventually will pay a price for befriending Joan…

We three sisters are only interested in telling the TRUTH, not Joan’s truth, but OUR TRUTH.

Why is Joan Wheeler scared to have her sisters see her cyber-bullying page? Joan, you’re not afraid of the truth, are you? oh – just afraid of us seeing more of your lies. October 9, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Announcements and updates, Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , ,
comments closed

addendum – October 15, 2010 – Joan apparently has either taken the cyberbullying page OFF her website, or has hidden it inside of other pages – so you can’t find it. the true taletell signs of a cut and run bully – put something for the victim to see, and before the victim can get others to see it and believe what the victim says – the bully removes the evidence – then spouts their innocence – “what? me? little ol’ ME? write things? Well if I wrote them, where are they?

right here, Joan, right here:

and if this page looks different than what you see today on her website – that’s because she just last week revamped it. Doesn’t matter Joan – you can erase it all you want – but it’s still right here! The internet don’t lie –  Joan is the one who lies. Foolish trolls with no brains who cannot logically figure this out even when faced with photographical evidence make me laugh.  If it is password protected or removed, of course you can’t find it. Ninny. Because I know how Joan Wheeler operates – YOU don’t. This is why I provided the screenshot of her insulting her sisters! Because I knew she would remove it after awhile – try to remove the evidence. Think logically you ninny – in the meantime, I made a copy of the evidence so she can’t squirm her way out of it. And have Foolish Wormy Trolls named Rus respond when she pulls his strings. what a joke – a squirmer and wormer!        So here is this original post, dated October 9, 2010.

Joan Wheeler’s cyber bullying page is NOW PASSWORD PROTECTED.

Why is that? What are you scared of Joan? Scared for us to see what you write about us? roflmao! What a cowardly bully! The post and run tactics of a true cyber-bully! Yes, Joan, if you want to see a real cyber-bully – all you need to do is look in the mirror.
Yeah, post crap about your sisters, then hide it. roflmao! — That’s quite all right dear, we have plenty of your printed word to take apart as lies – all contained in that silly book of yours – and we got some good stuff coming up in a few days. Besides Joan, you’re a little late – I already showed MY readers what a lying little snot you are – posting such honorable stuff on your front page, but on the same day, post garbage about your sisters on another page. – Do you really think people can’t see what a FOOL you are making of YOURSELF?

Joan’s hypocrisy shows true –
On our mom’s birthday last week, she shows another Academy Award Performance – such a loving daughter!  Oh – I have a tale to tell – about when Joan stole beadwork off a dead woman’s wedding gown – and that dead woman was our mom. Yeah- that’s what I said – she stole the beadwork off my dead mother’s wedding gown – and it was in 1983 NOT 1978 like she says in the book. And that’s how Joan honored our mom in 1983. What Joan put up on her website had nothing to do with honoring our mom on her birthday – she posted that for the benefit of her readers – but her actions belie her words – as the old saying goes ‘ Actions speak louder than words.

And I got proof positive that Joan Wheeler is a liar about another event she relates in her lying book – an actual photocopy of a newspaper published in June 1978, which shows that Joan is a complete fabricator of things.

My mother as my spiritual benefactor by Gert McQueen October 5, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Dreams, Inconsistent Angel Things.
Tags: , , , , , ,
comments closed

Over the past 10 years or so I’ve studied various self-healing techniques including Reiki, a hands-on transmission of universal healing energy. In June 2006 I attended a Reiki 1 session, where I learned the basics of what reiki is, the basic hand positions and to receive an ‘attunement’ that ‘connects’ me with the universal ‘love’ energy. During all my research and putting into practice many techniques I have always been a bit shy of this ‘love’ energy because basically it sounds too much like various forms of christian love. Nonetheless I’ve remained open to the fact that christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on any love energy and I know there are other gods, goddesses and spiritual guides that I could call upon for help and guidance.

 So at this attunement, in 2006, I am remaining open to receiving some guidance and love from a spiritual benefactor who would help me in learning and using reiki energy. I had no particular vision or impression of anyone or anything. So here I am in a semi-meditative state of awareness as the Reiki Master is ‘attuning’ me with Universal Reiki. All of a sudden I have this immense and intense sense of being ‘held and rocked’ in great arms of love and then ‘knowing’ that I am being held by my mother, who is in spirit form. Tears fell from my eyes for what seemed like a long time as I rocked back and forth, physically, as my mother, rocked me spiritually. It was a very profound experience. That was the first time I have ever experienced that and I knew that she was now guiding me with the reiki energy. I no longer felt uneasy when others expressed reiki in christian terms, for I now know differently.

I also have been studying and practicing various forms of Hindi and Buddhist meditations techniques for many years. Again, while I understand and can appreciate ‘loving kindness’, ‘forgiveness’ and ‘compassion’ and actually practice forms of these practices I still am shy and reluctant to go the full measure of extending the ‘love’ to certain people, including a particular family member. The practices are difficult, they take lots of time to understand and even with much practice they are not easy to do for they do require you to ‘see’ everything as it really is, not the illusions that we believe them to be. In just coming to terms with forgiving those that have harmed me I’m still working on it. Forgiving doesn’t means forgetting nor does it mean allowing negative or harmful behaviors to continue.

 On June 5, 2010 I attended a Buddhist discussion and meditation workshop that focused on meditations of being open, being more aware, loving kindness to self, accepting that loving kindness and then sending that love to others. These practices are not easy and it is helpful to have a teacher to help you in the practices. It is not always easy for you to ‘accept’ the ‘love’ for yourself, let alone send it to others. I’m trying to get there.

 Then it happened, again. I was in a state of calm, relaxed, deep meditation, floating in colors that went from red, red/orange, orange and going into orange/yellow, when suddenly there is this immense and intense sense that my benefactor was there, my mother was there. After a physical shutter my body reacted with a steady flow of tears, my breathing got deeper as my mental, emotional and spiritual bodies took in the loving kindness that my mother was showing me and giving me. That unconditional universal love/healing energy that has many names was flowing from my mother to me. I was still connected with all of this while I reached for my tissues and settled the body back down as the teacher was giving more instructions. Once I had made the connection of accepting the love from my benefactor, my mother, I was being asked to send that love to others I loved. That wasn’t so difficult, my daughter Karen and my sisters Kathy and Ruth. Then I heard ‘and Joan too’. I took a deep breath and said ‘yes to Joan too’ and send her love. After a few minutes more I was out of the meditative state still crying for a minute or so.

 What I’m learning is that yes it is very hard and difficult to give love to someone who has harmed you. I can and for the most part, do separate the person from the behavior. Just because I love Joan doesn’t mean that I will sit back quietly and let her words and deeds go without comment. I only person I can fix is myself, and my mother is helping me in this and more. Thank you, Mom.

From Ruth:

Thank you Gert for sharing this with us. I also had a similar experience when I attended a workshop at Lilydale, NY. in 2004. The guided meditation I attended was conducted by Tara Sutphen, wife of Dick Sutphen. The Sutphens have had their own self-help, self-hypnosis, guided meditation company for years. I have many of their CDs and tapes. I’m not going to get into all that here – if you are interesed in the Sutphens, just google them.

I also am not going to get into the whole meditation that I attended, just want to share that during the meditation, I felt my mother’s spirit surrounding me. I also wept, and was rocking back and forth. It was very profound. At the close of the meditation, several of the participants shared their experiences, I could not. It was deeply personal. I could see concern on Tara’s face, because I had been crying. But she did not pry.

Our sister-in-law Marty posted on our Family Stories site that something occured shortly after our brother died in 2003. She was in contact with his spirit and she asked him who had come for him. He told her “my mother.”

We have known for years that our mother’s spirit has not left the earthly plane. She has been with us all along. Many different psychic readings to not just us, but to cousins, all have come with the same thing – that a “Jenny” is watching over you.

This is why I said last month, and I said again yesterday, to Joan – that she can lie to herself, and she can lie to her friends, but she can’t lie to our mother’s spirit. And for shame Joan, for what you put on your blog – and I’m not talking about the front page – but that little slur against us on your cyber-bullying page – calling your sisters fools in the same sentence as professing your love for our mother. How do you think she feels about that Joan? And for you to attack us yet again, and stooping so low as to invoke our mother – for shame. And that is emotional abuse to us. But we are far stronger than you know. For we have spiritual help and guidance.

Writing this blog is our way of standing up to a bully – the bully named Joan Wheeler. She has gone in public with our private lives. We have the right to talk about OUR lives, do we not? If Joan can publish a lie about us, we have the right to tell the truth about us. Joan and her bully friends will not intimidate us.

UPDATE OCTOBER 2017; as older posts are being seen I, Gert, am updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler (Doris Michol Sippel) says about me and family. The first book ‘Forbidden Family, A Half Orphan’s Account of Her Adoption, Reunion and Social Activism’ published in 2009, was pulled from publication by the publisher in May 2011 due to libelous material in it. Then in 2015, she ‘self-published’ a ‘revised’ version calling it ‘Forbidden Family, an adoptee duped by adoption’, being her own editor and owner. This woman has no shame no sense of family honor! Then in 2016 Joan changed her name back to her birth name and reedited and republished the SAME crap in another book; a Third edition! CALLED ‘Forbidden Family: An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity’! Talk about conning people!


https://gertmcqueen2.wordpress.com/     this blog’s title/sub title is… DUPED BY ADOPTION & AN WOMAN’S STRUGGLE FOR IDENTITY, A BOOK STUDY an in-depth analyzes of the books called Forbidden Family; My Life as an Adoptee Duped by adoption & An Adopted Woman’s Struggle for Identity by Joan M Wheeler/Doris M Sippel.


in addition…

This author, whether she goes by Joan M Wheeler or Doris M Sippel, has three books, all the same but for title and author name. There are two ‘discussion’ forums, on Amazon, for two of the books. The first book has one review and several comments related. The buying public has the right to view and comment on those forums and comments.

Here are those links…

Forbidden Family: My Life as an Adoptee Duped by Adoption forum


Joan Mary Wheeler forum




To Rus – the fool October 5, 2010

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

This is the last time I am going to respond to the troll Rus –

you only see what you want to see – you say what you see on the front page of Joan’s blog was very nice – oh but you did not go to her cyberbullying page to see all the filth she has written about us – and for the remembrance of our mother’s death – she calls us fools.

Rus, you have a lot of nerve lecturing me and my sisters to rid ourselves of our negativity – but go and look at the garbage written by Joan – it is full of negativity – and dear Rus – YOU are one to talk about negativity – weren’t YOU the one who called me a bitch? Not only was that very negative, but it shows you for what you are – a hypocrite!

Your posts are marked as spam – you do not get any more attention – you are nothing. If you don’t like what is written on this blog – why are you here? If there is nothing but negativity here on this blog – why are you subjecting yourself to it all? What are you? A Masocist? Or you get your jollies from cat-fights? lol. Whatever – YOU don’t matter. YOU will not stop us. YOU don’t know what you are talking about – because YOU don’t have the courage to have an open mind and actually READ what we are blogging.

Myst said to put ourselves in Joan’s shoes – no, how about YOU people put yourselves in OUR shoes – Do you think we are making this stuff up? When I have scanned and posted actual court documents that prove that Joan is a liar? How can I make something up like that? Or when Joan says she has had no contact with us and I post PHOTOGRAPHS of us and her –

Rus, I think you are delusional. And you’re acting like a fool. oops, what’s the matter Rus? dont’ like being called a fool? Well neither do I. And yesterday, Joan said that, all the while pretending to honor my mother. And here’s the proof: a screenshot of her cyberbullying page, that I took just 20 minutes ago.  And you are really the fool Rus for believing what Joan said last month that she wants to keep the peace. By calling us fools, she is NOT keeping the peace.  Joan is a Master Manipulator and she is just pulling your strings. Not only are you a fool, but a little wooden puppet with sawdust for brains becaus you obviously are not thinking for yourself. well, doesn’t bother me anyway. lol I’m off to bed!  have a nice day Rus!

There will be no more said on this matter. Spammers will be ignored because they have nothing intelligent to say. And no intelligence to research things before they post. That’s why they are called Trolls Acting Like Fools.

Joan Wheeler – Forbidden Family Chapter 14 – Refutted! October 4, 2010

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler Speak - how Joan views the world, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
comments closed

In Joan Wheeler’s book Forbidden Family Chapter 14, she tells of her college days and her struggles with being in an inter-racial relationship, her wanting to go to Egypt or England, and her budding anti-adoption thoughts. We are not interested in her adoption or anti-adoption concerns, because they do not concern us. We are discussing how her “autobiography” involves US, in particular raking us in her hatred of her adoptive parents. Gert McQueen has already written her take on this chapter in her post, What is a Birth Certificate Used For? Thoughts on Chapter 13 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler  Gert answers Joan confusion and questions about birth certificates in the short Chapter 13, then goes onto addressing Chapter 14. 

Here is a brief segment from Gert’s post:

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….’   

Ruth returns:
ok, let’s talk about race, bigotry and Joan and how she CREATES problems where none exist.
MY personal choices in MY personal life are none of Joan’s concerns and I don’t see why MY personal choices of MY life is in Joan’s book. In 1974, I was living in my own apartment, paying my own rent – (with no help from ANYone), working a full time job, AND taking part time college classes. (so much for Joan’s put-downs of me that I never went to college). I was at this time, 22 years old and exploring MY own life and all that goes with it – the dating scene, etc. In late 1974, a very nice Palestinian man was admitted to the hospital where I worked. We had several talks. In spring of 1975, I was walking to work one night. (I did not own a car, nor knew how to drive – contrary to Joan’s assertions that I drove her around to family reunions in 1974). As I passed the window of a restaurant – there was Farouk. He tapped on the window, waved, and motioned me to come in to the restaurant. He was with a couple of friends, and he bought me a cup of coffee and then drove me to work. We exchanged phone numbers and then began casually dating. The friends he was with were part of a large group of friends that hung out together, and I joined the group. Many of these people are still friends with me today.Some have passed away, others have moved to other parts of the country. Farouk and I dated for about 3 months, and then went separate ways. One of the group, Abdo, asked me out in June 1975, and we fell in love, moving in together just 3 weeks after meeting each other. Our relationship lasted 10 years. He went back to his home country in 1985, and even when he came back to Buffalo in 1994, and I was with my present husband, Abdo and I remained close friends, and I was the one who handled all the legal issues and paperwork concerning his death in 2003.
    So we see again Joan not geting details of my life right, even though she deems herself an authority on it. On page 122 of her book she reports that I had been “seriously dating an Arab man,” in May of 1975. Who was she refering to? Farouk or Abdo? NO, she has to bring up the fact that I was involved with an Arab man, because she was involved with a black boy in college and her parents were not accepting it. Instead of writing about her problems with her parents, she has to drag ME into it. I am nobody’s role model. I knew Joan for one year at this point in time, what I did with my life then, now and for all times in the future and the past is NOT Joan’s business and she has no right to hold MY relationships up to scrutiny in her book. Or, as I suspect she did, to use as an arguing tool with her parents. She says her parents hated blacks. Really? well, then why 20 years later why was my current husband John, a black man, accepted by her mother as Uncle John to Joan’s kids (her grandchildren) and accepted into the family?

As to Joan creating problems where none exist – on pages 120 – 124 she is relating her views of inter-racial relationships, even stating “I wanted equality for all people- black, white, women, men, adoptees and non-adoptees.” But she picks and chooses who should have equality. For example, for all her saying that my husband Abdo (Basim in the book) was a nice guy, she shows her prejudice against Arabs twice in her book and once in real life.

In late 1979 Abdo had gone to his home country for a visit of several months. In early 1980, Joan was dating a Jewish boy named Rich. One day, she was visiting me and asked me if there would be a problem when Abdo returned to Buffalo and found out that she was dating a Jewish boy. Oh? She wanted equality for all people? Then why the ASSUMPTION that Jews and Arabs don’t get along? Yes, we all know about the ongoing enmity in the Middle East between the Isrealis and the Palestinians. Abdo is not Palestinian. He is Yemeni. And just because there is a mess in the Middle East, and people living here in America may POLITICALLY choose sides, this does not mean that they are bigots. Joan automatically assumed Abdo was a bigot. On page 123 -124, she says that she almost went on a year long exchange program in Egypt, but was advised by her college advisors that she would have to escorted everywhere. She says she was terrified of living for a year in a country where outspoken women would be a target for ridicule, assault and rape. Yes, sadly, Joan and her college advisors were correct, however, to paint all Arabs as such, and to paint all Arabs as Jew-haters, especially one who she had known for 4 years is reprehensible.

Perhaps she thought Abdo would have a problem with Rich because there was a definite problem once with Manuel, the black boy. They both came up one weekend for a visit – in his car. We all went to Voelker’s bowling alley. I was in the ladies room and Joan came running in, scared out of her mind. Manuel had just threatened her. He had alreay beaten her up, and she was terrified he would do so again. Oh boy, more drama. What to do?  So I spoke to Abdo. Before we left the bowling alley we told both Joan and Manuel that we did not want any problems. It was decided that Joan would sleep on our couch, and Manuel was told to sleep in his car. (it was warm enough). Manuel had no problem with smacking around Joan, but he listened and obeyed when Abdo laid down the rules. The next morning, Manuel came upstairs, we had breakfast and the two of them left to drive back to college. I never saw that boy again and good riddance. Abdo did not have a problem with Manuel being black, but did have a problem with him hitting Joan and possibly creating a problem in our house. And when Abdo returned to Buffalo in 1980, Joan had already stopped seeing the Jewish boy, but I told him about Joan’s question. He couldn’t believe she would think that of him! Abdo was one of the sweetest persons on this planet and wouldn’t hurt a fly. Yes, we had our fights, as all couples do, and both our tempers got the best of us, but on the whole, Abdo was kind, quiet and gentle. There is another anti-Arab slur in the book, but I will deal that when we get to it. We are still discussing her college years and her problems with dating the black boy.

What’s with this statement of Joan’s on page 123 “My families hated blacks.” Where does she get this crap? Mayber her adopted parents had a problem with interracial relationships, but her birth family did not. At least her father and siblings. SOME, not all of my mother’s family don’t approve of interracial relationships, but have never held my choice in a life partner against me.

But this statement is included in a long winded paragraph, where she is going off on a tangent about her parents not happy with her choice in dating a black boy. Joan then comes up with this intelligent conclusion: “my families hated blacks, therefore, hated me.”

Where does she come up with this shit? Who the hell EVER said they hated her? In 1975, that is. All Gert did was talk to her on the phone about the possible repercussions of inter-racial relationships. Gert was giving her good advice, that if she wanted to date a black boy, she had better be prepared for any backlash. And I don’t mean from anybody in her families, I’m talking about society in general. In the 23 years that I’ve been with John, I have never been the target of any racial slurs, but on 3 occasions, all in restaurants, we did get some filthy looks, two occasions from whites, and one occasion from a black lady. John and I are mature enough to handle that, in 1975, Joan obviously was not mature enough to handle anything like that. My god, she couldn’t even handle me supposedly telling her around Christmas 1974 that she spelled our last name wrong, and she’s got herself imagining her families “hating” her because she’s dating a black boy. Is Joan a mind-reader? Or is she like Deanna Troi on Star Trek the Next Generation, who can sense other beings emotions! – Oh, yes, she already said in reporting on how she was a bridesmaid at the age of 18 for an adoptive cousin and she “sensed” people talking about her. Deanna Troi comes from the planet Betazed. Is Joan from that planet as well?
But see, this is how Joan embellishes things and blows them out of proportions. I don’t doubt that her parents were not accepting this relationship and some harsh words were exchanged – but how does she conclude that the Sippel family hated her? At this point in time, Kathy was living in England, not having even met Joan. I have no idea what my father or brother thought of her relationship – I don’t recall her even asking me about my relationship. so she gets some advice from one member of the Sippel family, and right away, the whole Sippel family hates her. And you know what? The Sippel family probably could care less who she was dating. We were all living our own lives, my family accepted Abdo and in turn John.

But hold on! Joan says at the top of page of 122 – “My sisters and older brother accepted my inter-racial relationship.” She then goes on to say that her natural father was outraged.” – Baloney! Gert has already explained that my father raised us NOT to be bigots, and since I was already involved with a man of a different race, why would he be outraged at Joan? This makes no sense! Maybe he was showing concern because his daughter was getting smacked around this particular black boy! Did Joan ever think of that? That our objections to Manuel was because of his behavior towards her? That we actually were concerned for her safety? Oh no! Because that would show that we actually CARED ABOUT HER – and this would go against her ASSUMPTIONS that we all hated blacks and therefore we hated her. And this would not make sense in her book, because her book is all about showing how the whole world and her families, detest her and give her nothing but grief!

And getting back to Joan’s statement about Gert when she advised Joan on the phone: “Gert must have been chosen to be the spokesperson to represent the entire Sippel, Herr and Wheeler family clans.” we see Joan’s propensity for BLOWING THINGS OUT OF PROPORTION! Somehow I doubt that a vote was taken by every member of my mother’s family, (the Herrs) the Sippel family, and the Wheeler family and they all chose Gert to speak to Joan about dating a black kid. What a ridiculous statement to make! Gert hadn’t met even one tenth of the Wheeler family, was busy raising her own two kids, didn’t see half of the Herr family, and the Sippels didn’t take a vote to elect her either! Why must Joan constantly speak in the superlative? Because she likes to embellish things – she likes to make things bigger than what they are. And if the reality doesn’t fit her fantasy of how things should be – she will just go ahead, make stupid conclusions, and publish them as facts. Hence the purpose of this blog – to point out Joan’s mistaken “facts” and present the true story of the Sippel family.

On page 122 Joan says there was a Reunion in Progress. (her capitalizations). She whines elsewhere in the book that now that she’s reunited with her birth family, she had these people to get to know. There was tremendous pressure on her, she was on display, they all knew her, but she didn’t know them, and blah blah blah.

At the time of our “reunion” with Joan, I myself was on a voyage of self-discovery. So was Joan, having found her birth family. Joan makes it out that she was the only one confused by meeting new people, etc. etc. Well, so was I. I was living in my first apartment, making choices in my life, including scholastic, career, sexual, and social. Are these not struggles for EVERY person on the planet in young adulthood? What makes Joan so dam special? She isn’t and the sooner she gets that through her thick skull the better she will be able to cope with life. I mean, come on! This happened in  1974. It is now 2010. THIRTY-SIX YEARS LATER – and Joan is still whining about how she was sooooo put out about her CONFUSION in meeting a whole new family!

Oh for crying out loud! When a person gets married – they have a whole new family of in-laws to meet and get to know and integrate into their life – you have to learn how not to piss off your mother-in-law, don’t serve meat to a cousin-in-law, because they’re vegan, don’t invite aunt-in-law and sister-in-law to the same party because they don’t get along. EVERYBODY ON THE PLANET THAT GETS MARRIED HAS TO MEET A NEW FAMILY AND LEARN ABOUT THEM! So when will Joan stop whining about having to learn about a whole new bunch of people! We weren’t axe murderers for crying out loud! Joan says nobody knew how to proceed with the reunion. Really? I did. I simply ACCEPTED HER! I RESPECTED HER. Was I perfect? NO! Did I inadvertently hurt her feelings when I corrected her misspelling of our family name? I don’t know. I don’t remember doing it. I am simply a flawed human being. HOWEVER, I never went out of my way to hurt her. The problems between us began in the 80’s when she began to disrespect me and go out of HER way to hurt me. But we will get to those later. I do want to touch on a statement of Gert regarding this “reunion in progress.”

“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. “

Oh, yes, this is so true. Joan always was opinionated and she never learned to back off and let other people have a say. And by god, don’t you EVER take an opposing viewpoint to Joan’s. And I’m not talking about adoption – it’s EVERYTHING! She doesn’t like this, she doesn’t like that – everybody has to stop what they’re doing or thinking about and cowtow to Dictator Joan. Now you blog readers may or may not know that in the 1980’s I was a professional belly dancer. I had a scrapbook of pictures of belly dancers, and one day (in the early 80’s) Joan was at my house and she was looking at the scrapbook. She said, “I don’t approve of this skimpy costume.” What? Who asked for HER approval? Oh, well, every belly dancer on the planet – get rid of your dance costumes because Joan doesn’t approve of them. Oh, but wasn’t she complaining because if she lived in Egypt, SHE would be singled out for being an opinionated outspoken woman? So here she is singling out OTHER women because of their dance costumes? As I said before – she picks and chooses who should have equality. Does she have a problem with ballet dancers? Gosh, I can see every curve and bump on a male ballet dancer – and those tutus! Shocking! I can see all the way up to the dancer’s crotch! – oh, well they’re covered up with a leotard. Well, how about the staute of David – nude drawings by all the famous painters – The Vetruvian Man – Venus de Milo with her breast exposed – IT’S CALLED ART! Dance is an artform of the human body. I have seen nude dancers – and I’m not talking about the exotic dancers in strip joints – I’ve seen modern jazz dancers IN THE NUDE! Golly Gee, they didn’t even have on a skimpy belly dancing outfit! Let’s burn them at the stake! Why? Because Joan Wheeler would not approve of them.

Another time – it was 1983 – Joan, her husband Colby and I went to see the new Star Trek movie – The Search for Spock. Towards the end of the movie, there is a scene in a temple, with your usual Hollywood style temple maidens – all dressed in see-through white flowing dresses.  Oh boy! In the car ride home that was the whole topic of conversation!

Okay – let me expound on something here. I have had a crush on Leonard Nimoy and the character of Mr. Spock since the summer of 1966 when I saw the very first commercial for Star Trek. I didn’t even wait for the show to begin – I saw 5 seconds of him on a commercial and was hooked! In the 1982 Star Trek movie, The Wrath of Khan, Spock died in the end. Oh that hurt me. BUT we science fiction fans could see in the film’s last 5 minutes how they set it up for Spock’s return. So we knew he was coming back – we just didn’t know HOW. So now in The Search for Spock, we see Spock come back to life. And it was a pretty good movie! I was walking on air when we left the movie. In the next 10 minutes, during the 5 mile drive back to my house, all I heard was all about those disgusting white dresses and blah blah blah and I couldn’t wait to get the hell out of that car. I got in the house and I had a headache! Abdo asked me what was wrong. I said “I have a headache – that bitch just ruined my mood – Spock came back to life and all because of that idiot and her f’ing big mouth I have a headache!”

Even today, I am a huge Star Trek fan, and I also head up a local Star Trek fan group, called the USS Ari, a starship, formerly of Starfleet International, now an independent ship/group. FORTY-SIX YEARS OF LOVING STAR TREK and when Captain Ruth Pace, commander, USS Ari NCC 1723, comes out of a Star Trek movie with a headache and just wanting to run in the house – you have to wonder why! BECAUSE JOAN IS A PSYCHIC VAMPIRE! She sucks all the air out of the room. And when her mouth starts going and her voice starts getting shrill – all you want to do is get the hell away from her. I left her daughter’s fourth birthday party because she and her mother, in front of the birthday princess and all the guests – started SCREAMING at each other. My ears were hurting – I got John and said “I have to go. I can’t stand this noise.” So we left.

Another time on the phone, (around 1993, so much for her saying she hasn’t had contact with me) we were talking and all of a sudden we started arguing about the money she stole from me. She started yelling at me, I tried to tell her to stop, she kept on going off on a tangent – then she said, “and I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway: adoption, ADOPTION ADOPTION.” Then she hung up. WTF? first, I never said I hated the word, just dam tired of it. Second, the conversation was not about adoption, it was about the money she owed me. Third, her statement “I know you hate the word, but I’m going to say it anyway..”shows how SHE DOESN’T CARE ABOUT HOW ANYONE FEELS. SHE HAS NO RESPECT FOR ANYONE. Fourth, just like the rambling long paragraph on pages 122 and 123, where she starts out about her dating a black boy, gets off on a tangent about a woman dying leaving five little kids, throwing out stuff like “respect your elders, “What.,she’s angry? and concludes that everybody hates her! She gets herself worked up and when she gets going she can’t or won’t stop and ends up pushing people away from her. I have had way too many outbursts like that from her and for my own peace of mind – and the sake of my ears – (not to mention her stealing money from me, stealing the beads off my dead mother’s wedding dress, her disrespect of my wishes of not talking about infertility after my miscarriage and other things) – by 1990 I didn’t want any more “reunion in progress” with her – she ruined it. I don’t associate with people who treat me like dirt. Do you?

oh and Joan, your addition to your cyberbullying page – geez! This is how you honor Mom on her birthday? Slapping her obit up there and saying:  “Mom, I’m sorry your older daughters are making fools of themselves. I love you, Mom. I’m sorry you died too soon. If you had lived, we would be a loving family.”

See how Joan keeps trashing her sisters YET AGAIN on October 4, 2010 (got that Rus – see how Joan wants peace, yet keeps yakking about us?) Anybody who would put up such a birthday rememberance is NOT honoring the dead woman – anybody with brains can see what Joan is doing – USING a dead woman’s obituary and trying to say she loves her, and trashes her sisters in the same sentance. No, Joan, everybody can see who the fool is. And I said before – you can lie to yourself, you can lie to your friends, but you can’t lie to Mom. She’s not that stupid you know. and neither are we. roflmao!

1. Gert – October 4, 2010

Every human being is going to DIE, that’s a fact of life! Missing someone who has died is also a fact of life! To wish for things to be different is also a fact of life!

But…to use the dead and their memories to PROMOTE one’s (Joan’s) personal vindictive campaign against one’s own blood…and to invoke the dead against blood family…in the form of BULLYING…is not only dishonorable…it also shows the true nature of the one who is promoting their vindictiveness…Joan wrote and invoked our mother to use against us…shame, shame, shame!

Today, Oct 4, is our mother’s birthday! It is NOT a date for Joan to continue her lying and bullshit…Joan what do you really think our mother is thinking about you right now? Would she be proud of you?

Why don’t you just stand up like a woman and answer your blood relatives as to your actions against them? Why don’t you allow our mother to rest in peace?

Joan, you are a very sick person.

%d bloggers like this: