reposting: bullying untruths – and we can see thru your little games Joan Wheeler – why are you lying about dates when you post on your own website? November 24, 2010Posted by Ruth in Uncategorized.
Reposting this – Bullying Untruths – and we can see through your little games Joan Wheeler – why are you lying about dates when you post on your own website? from September 23, 2010
Because as Gert says “it would help reference back to that post because it does address the many comments that Rus old boy thought were ‘scathing’, in order words, we have addressed over and over again, the many lies that Joan puts out there….”
AND…CHECK THE END OF THIS POST FOR UPDATE…
Okay, here we have some MORE manipulation and BULLYING by Joan Wheeler. Supposedly, back in May 2010, Joan added more nonsense to her website. We Three Sippel Sisters did not see this lying nonsense until September 18. Contrary to Joan’s insistence that we are visiting her website and stalking her. We do check out her site from time to time. And guess what – even though her cyberbullying page is listed as being updated on May 18 (or May – it wasn’t there until just recently. A Google cache snapshop of the page on September 6, 2010, does NOT show her additional little snotty FALLACIES,, not FACTS of her miserable life or her sisters. Joan forgets that the internet is for keeps. And things can be sooooo easily checked.
So there you go Rus – contrary to what she told you – she is NOT interested in keeping the peace, or stopping the lies, because as her little addition of September, 2010, and backdating it to May 2010, she continues to post garbage about us. And we claim the right to know what is being is written about us. Call it “stalking” if you will – but it is NOT stalking – it is ferreting out Joan Wheeler’s lies and then refuting them here on this website. Joan’s addition is a paragraph telling lies about each of her sisters and lists them as FACTS. These are far from FACTS – these are fallacies, fallacies made up by Joan in a further attempt to damage the reputations of her sisters – these are in FACT – crimes of harassment and STALKING! And these fallacies are twisted reportings of personal items and events in the lives of her sisters. what are you doing Joan? Practicing writing for the tabloids? Your “reporting” and writing skills is just on that level.
I have already refuted the FALLACIES of Joan’s bullshit about me with my post of September 20, 2010: Facts, facts, facts – Joan Wheeler makes up facts to suit her own fantasies. But the real facts are quite different. This current post is Gert’s answers to Joan’s bullying FALLACIES.
This is indeed the last time we will answer any more of Joan’s continued little additional “facts” about us, because frankly, we see no reason why Joan keeps coming up with these “new” additional facts. I mean, didn’t she write a whole dam book about us? oh wait – it’s a book about her – right? WRONG – the book is all about all the little sins that her sisters committed against her. I mean it’s over 600 pages long – but she keeps finding more stuff in the little recesses of her little mind to tattle about us. And most of these “new”facts are just rehasing of what she has said in the book, and even incredibliy enough, DIRECT CONTRADICTIONS OF WHAT SHE HAD SAID IN THE BOOK! She changes the FACTS of her own FACTS – and we have pointed out each and every contradiction. And that is getting dam tiring – so keep on typing your silly lies, Joan, keep on changing the facts of events every time you retell it, we are getting back to the business at hand – refuting all the lies contained in your book. I now turn the podium over to Gert –
From Gert –
my answers to part of the bullying untruths update supposedly of May 2010, but in reality, September 2010.
On Joan Wheeler’s site she posted, yet again, various untruths about her birth sisters. She has called us ‘the three Sippel sisters’ but she doesn’t include herself, even though she was ‘born’ a Sippel and is our blood sister. The title she has given us is because she fully believes that our entire lives have been devoted to destroying hers. Untrue. We are devoted to restoring honor to our own lives. She also says we are bullying her, untrue, we are only defending ourselves against all the untruths that Joan has printed about us. I am here addressing a couple of things that Joan has said, in an update supposedly on May 8, 2010, but in reality, September 2010. I am only addressing statements related to myself or those that I can speak about.
Joan states: Here are facts about my life:
Gert answers: this statement is first of all an untruth, for her life has nothing to do with our lives, we are all individuals. Secondly, hasn’t Joan already written a ‘truthful’ account of her life? Then why are these statements, from September 2010, NOT in the book. Did she forget about them? No, she just wants to trash us again. How can she write a true account of her life and have ‘forgotten’ these facts. In fact these statements of Joan’s are her attempt to continue to trash us and she does it by the continued use of emblishments and exaggerations. To her mind, the more she can emblish a tale the worst she can make us out to be. But the truth of the matter is, is that by doing so, emblishing, she is showing everyone just how worried she is that her sisters are indeed telling the truth.
Joan states: Fact: The three Sippel sisters, Gert, Kathy and Ruth, have written letters to all of the major adoption reform organizations in 1992 telling them what an asshole I am, and they wrote me a letter “throwing” me out of the family. This was after and during their barrage of hate mail and hate phone calls to me, harassing me, my husband and children, for decades. They do not want me in their lives and I do not want them in my life. I am not corresponding with them in any way at all, not even reading their hateful blogs about me. (Ruth’s note – in the book she says it was 9 agencies – now she changes it to ALL the agencies. AND in the book she contradicts herself on the harassing mail and phone calls she recieved. First she says it came from us, then she says it came from her adopted uncle John Wheeler, who was finally caught by the police).
Gert answers: Why the need to repeat this, it’s all in the book. Joan likes to repeat herself many times over frequently making the fish bigger than the last time she told the story. And Joan is an asshole, want else is new! We sisters have recently answered part of this issue of the great ’1992 letter writing’ on our blog. I myself have written about the entire book and my posts will appear in sequential order in due time. But truth is there were NO letters written to adoption organizations.
We probably did write a letter ‘throwing’ her out of the family. I have had two contacts with Joan since I divorced her in 1982, a physical visit in 1992 and a phone call in 2005. I never harassed her, her children or her adoptive mother. I DIVORCED myself from her, after her repeated interference within my marriage and my minor children and my parental authority and her calling child abuse upon me, which was proved totally unfounded. What she writes in her book is again a fabrication and twisting of the true facts. I have written about those incidents and they will be posted in due time.
Here is an example of how Joan twists facts. She writes in the book that she called child abuse on me, for fear for my child and that my child was ‘removed’ from my home because of abuse. That is false. The truth is, my child had behavioral and run-away issues. After Joan kept my run-away child from me and lied to the family about my child’s whereabouts, it was I that called the police and I that requested a hearing in Family Court. It was THEN THAT JOAN CALLED CHILD ABUSE ON ME AND SUED ME FOR CUSTODY OF MY CHILD. It was I who had Family Court place my child in a foster home due to the behavioral and running away issues. No one took my child from me. I placed her in foster care for her safety and to keep her away from Joan. It was I who requested a home study done on Joan and she failed it. But, I have written in depth on this and it will eventually get on the blog.
We are refutting Joan book of lies to restore our honor that she has sullied, garbaged and dishonored and we shall continue to expose Joan’s dirty deeds and words.
Joan states: Fact: My eldest sister, Gert, sexually molested me repeatedly during the first years of our reunion. No, this was not Genetic Sexual Attraction (as known in adoption psychology) this was initiated by drug and alcohol to intoxicate and to seduce me. She said it was “a way to get back to Momma”. So my eldest sister had her own idea of sex with me as she missed our dead mother and used me to that end. This first occurred when I was 20 years old and continued for about two years, which was two years after being found by this sister. It does not matter that I was “old enough to know better” because I was vulnerable from being found and having to deal with reunion and betrayal of my adoptive parents at that stage of young adulthood.
Additionally, my eldest sister was 29 years old at the time and in a position of authority over me (eldest sister to youngest sister). Keep in mind that I was raised an only child, too, and had no counselor or therapist to help me.
Gert answers: So why didn’t Joan put this in the book? Only here, only after I came out publically to refute all her lies in her book does she state that I molested her repeatly for years. What a bunch of crap! As I’ve said before this never happened. This is just another example of emblishments and exaggerations to show that she has been victimized, which is her core belief. I have written about this and it will all come out in the wash when my extensive blog posts are posted. She writes with the purpose of sensationalizing everything, she combines and twists things to make her tale more believable than the usual nothing that in fact happened. And no where in the book does she tell the tales of her own sexual encounters.
Joan says that I seduced her as “a way to get back to Momma”, what the hell does that mean? and “So my eldest sister had her own idea of sex with me as she missed our dead mother and used me to that end.” What planet is Joan from? This is an expression of Joan’s own mind, this is how Joan thinks. I don’t think this way. What kind of sexual fantasy does Joan have that is ‘a way back to Momma’? What was it that she wanted from me in the first place?
(Ruth’s note – Well, my goodness! Gee, I grew up with Gert – we were in the same foster home together – in my teen years, I was her babysitter – we had many in depth talks – we drank together – never did drugs together, cried together about our dead mom, but NEVER did Gert make any sexual advances towards me to get back to Momma! Also, when I was 13, Gert who was married and pregnant with her second child, had me stay at her house for a weekend, where she gave me the birds and the bees talk. A very sexual conversation. With a very naive 13 year old. Gert did not take advantage of me then, or even later down the road when I was in my 20′s and we had some very graphic girl “locker room” talks. And by the way, Joan and I had some graphic girl “locker room” talks too, along with some raunchy jokes! And before the accusations start – I didn’t make any sexual advances to Joan either! And as to her allegations of threesomes with Gert, with Kathy, I’m beginning to think it was a sexual fantasy of Joan to have sex with Gert and Kathy, and possibly me – because most of her writings of FACTS is really FANTASIES!
Joan continues to say “It does not matter that I was “old enough to know better” because I was vulnerable from being found and having to deal with reunion and betrayal of my adoptive parents at that stage of young adulthood. Additionally, my eldest sister was 29 years old at the time and in a position of authority over me (eldest sister to youngest sister). Keep in mind that I was raised an only child, too, and had no counselor or therapist to help me. “
God damn it Joan grow up!!! Don’t you have a voice of her own to speak up and say anything, when something is happening to you? What are you, a sponge that anyone can squeeze and you just sit there and do nothing! What a cop-out to say that at age 20 you didn’t have to ‘know better’! You were vulnerable! Bull shit, a cop-out!
You poor thing! you had to deal with reunion and betrayal at such a stage of young adutlhood, what kind of stupid thing is that? Who are you talking to, yourself? No adult in their right mind believes such a statement. No, you know exactly what you are doing and these statements prove it. You are a manipulator and you are using clinical type words to describe a NON-EVENT. Just because I’m older than you doesn’t give me any authority over you, that is totally in your own mind, another cop-out.
Oh you poor dear, you were raised as an only child without a counselor or therapist to help you! And I, did I have a therapist? And your siblings did they have a counselor or a therapist! And has every child in the world have a therapist! Are really that stupid and brain dead to think that you needed a counselor and therapist to be a real person who is capable of taking responsibility for your own life!! Do you really believe that a therapist would stop you from being a victim? If that is so, then you have wasted a lot of time and money because you are still a self-declared victim, everyone dumps on you. Get in line folks, pick up some shit and dump it on Joan…she loves being dumped on!
Ruth’s note – Joan was NOT as naive as she portrays herself here – she told me she became sexually active at 16. (1972). And in 1975, when we attended the Star Trek convention in New York City, we had discussions about the two year old Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion, and both our uncertainties about that decision, trying to balance our repulsion against abortion, and our supporting a woman’s right to choose what she wants about her body. As much as I had many frank woman issues talks with Gert, I had a lot more of those types of talks with Joan – we each had a copy of “Our Bodies, Our Selves,” a book that not only talked about the physicality of a woman’s body, but touched on women’s issues that were never fully discussed before. It was a breakthrough for feminists and women everywhere in the early 1970′s. And Joan and I were both Feminists, and Women’s Libbers! Joan was quite knowledgeable about her body, and her sexuality. She was not a Veronica Virgin here – and she went out to the disco’s and bars with me and my first husband Abdo, sometimes double dating with her as Abdo’s brother Ali’s date. And the four of us drank – and smoked marijuana together. She did not sleep with Ali, because she had a steady boyfriend back in college, a black boy named Manuel. But she and Manuel did have sexual relations – how do I know these things? Because she told me? Because we were quite close – contrary to her recent lies that we (and that includes me) have been nothing but trouble to her since 1974. If I was such a trouble to you Joan, why did we have such frank girl-talks?
Joan states: Fact: We lost our mother at her death when we were young children. They lost their baby sister to adoption and I lost my entire family due to adoption. My siblings violated our father’s privacy and confidentiality by contacting me when I was 18 without consulting him. My siblings violated my adoptive parents’ privacy and mine by contacting me when I was still in high school. My siblings violated me in many ways.
Gert answers: And we were not the only ones who has lost a mother. Adoption is not the issue, the real issue is in Joan’s diseased mind. We did not violate Dad’s privacy and confidentiality by contacting Joan. I spoke with an lawyer and an adoption agency and was told that siblings have the right to make contact on their own merits. No laws were broken, it is only in Joan’s diseased mind that she believes such. Again, being in high school is not the issue, she was 18, legal age, in NY State and was able to be contacted by birth family members. It is only in the adoptive family that there was and is this unhealthy view that Joan’s adoption was a secret.
Beside the violations that Joan has stated, could she please give us more details as to the ‘many ways’, we have violated her. This is a totally diseased mind’s statement.
Joan states: All of this could have been avoided had someone stepped in to help our father at the time his wife died to keep the family together. I have nothing but sympathy for my siblings who are suffering tremendously; we should be family instead of being torn apart. They found me because they wanted their baby sister, but they were not willing to accept the responsibility that goes with finding an adoptee who was unaware of the truth. I suffered the most in this separation and reunion. I want to spend the rest of my days in peace, free from their contact and harassment. But they follow me online, write to other bloggers and to professionals in adoption to interfere with my goals of adoption reform. They are actively involving themselves in my life, reading my blog, contacting people they have no business contacting. Enough already. I want to live in peace without them in my life. Ruth’s note – ahh, Dictator Joan is going to tell me I have no right to contact adoption experts – when she herself continues to insist that adoption has affected me and my sisters – well then if ADOPTION has affected me, than I DO have the business to contact them. – listen puppy, I will contact whomever I want – YOU ARE NOT THE BOSS OF ME JOAN – I WILL NOT OBEY YOU!
Gert answers: Joan refuses to accept reality. Period, life happens, death happens, decisions are made, life goes on, deal with it.
If Joan has sympathy for her siblings who are suffering, why is she continuing to tell lies? Again, Joan, stop blaming the birth family for your faults and your inability to be ‘part of the family’. It was you alone Joan, who violated everyone’s privacy and confidentiality by repeating, in print, things about the family that never should have been repeated, period. It was you alone Joan who systematically destroyed every relationship that has ever come to you. Face the fact, Joan you are a sick puppy and you need to take the blame.
Ruth’s note – again, Joan REFUSES to see the realities of 1956. When my mother died, my father was left with 5 little kids – aged 3 months to 9 years – there was no welfare system like we have today – my father had to go to work – there were no daycare centers back then either – and even today, many daycare centers will NOT take care of infants. My father had no siblings – his parents were elderly – his mother worked – his father had one leg and was deaf – how was he going to run around taking care of 5 little kids? My mother’s siblings were either older as well and couldn’t deal with little ones and infant, or they had a bunch of little kids at home. My Uncle Richard did take Joan in for 3 months, but his wife was pregnant – and they all said they could take in 1 or 2, but not all 5.
As for Joan saying she suffered the most – yeah well, I can show you a lot of little kids all over the world who suffered even MORE than Joan, so just suck it up! For crying out loud Joan it is the year 2010 – WHEN are you going to live for NOW?
So the Sippel Family got a bad deal- Mama got cancer and died at the age of 30 – what could her life been had she lived? She was fond of country + western music, and was an artist. In some of her pictures she shows a tremendous sense of humor – and great love as she holds her god-daughter Judy. All 5 of us grew up not knowing this remarkable woman, but what disservice are you doing to her Joan that you are not living up to your potential? You have 2 college degrees, an artist in your right – you whine you can’t work because of your health problem. But you seem to have no problem finding the time to get on your computer and type out lie after lie.
When I first met Joan – she had a huge weaving loom set up in the family dining room and was proud of a Native American shawl she had already woven. She was a member of the Buffalo Indian Dance group – Joan – your kids are grown – why are you not back into your dancing? Or your weaving? My god – I have so many interests I can’t get to them because I have to work – I am eagerly w aiting for retirement so I can devote more time to them!
In other words Joan: GET A LIFE! 1956 is in the past. Mom is DEAD AND GONE. Our childhood is GONE! Our teens and twentys, the years of self-discovery are OVER! Our thirties and forties, where we start settling in are OVER! We are in our fifties and sixties, where we start looking back at our lives and start filling in the holes and start seeing our mistakes and start correcting them begin.
And actually, if you have been a complete and whole human being, those mistakes would have been corrected years ago and NOT REPEATED over and over. And self-discovery never actually ends – I am still growing, and still discovering things about myself. I get better every year! Not so for Joan – she is still stuck like she were 10 years old, with telling little lies about her sisters. She keeps wishing that her mother hadn’t died – then her life would have been so much better. Yeah, right, so what? Same thing goes for me – I was 3 years old when my mother died. My life would have been so much better if MY mother hadn’t died too. YOU DON’T SEE ME LAYING AROUND MY HOUSE LIKE A DRIED UP OLD PRUNE TELLING LIE AFTER LIE AND WASTING MORE THAN 30 YEARS OF MY LIFE ON A TRASHY LYING BOOK! You don’t see me going to therapist after therapist, but not learing one dam thing from them! After Joan stole from me in 1990, I kicked her out of my life – it is now 19 years later – and she’s still whining about the same things she was whining about back then! And even after all the crap Joan did to me in the 90′s I had moved on from them – but then comes her book – with it’s lies and the reason I am writing about her misdeeds is to set the record straight!
Joan states: With all this hateful rage they spew, their goal is to make my life a living hell. They have achieved their goal.
Gert answers: No, not true. Only you Joan are responsible for your life and whether it is heaven or hell. I have nothing to do with your life. Your life is what you have made of it, not anything from me.
Ruth’s note – and if our setting the record straight from her lying book is making her life a living hell – well, that is all on her – she had a choice – she could have written a truthful book, instead she wrote a lying book. Now she needs to take the consequences of her actions.
Joan states: If these people really do not want me in their lives, they need to stop. I do not want them in mine. By giving ignorance a voice, perhaps they will leave me alone. I have real life to tend to, and adoption reform is a big part of my life.
Gert answers: If by these people she means her sisters, we will stop when Joan pulls the book of lies from all sales and gives us a public apology for the lies she has told about us and the family. Obviously Joan WANTS us in her life for she just wrote this piece, which I only answered part of, in September of 2010! Adoption reform! Reform yourself Joan Wheeler, it is after all your life.
Ruth’s note – yes, Joan wants us in her life – On September 22, 2010, she wrote again about us. On the internet.- saying that we had harassed her adoptive parents – and this is another lie. Her adoptive father died in 1982 – I always liked the guy and visited him a couple of times in the hospital! I really never liked her adoptive mother, but was always respectful of her, and always addressed her as Mrs. Wheeler, in a respectful way.I never harassed her. And neither did my sisters. Joan can write all she wants about HER life, but when she writes about US – she is obviously showing us and the world, that she is the one who cannot let go of US!
UPDATE November 2016; as older posts are being seen I’m updating with links to my second blog and a Facebook page wherein I expose AGAIN the lies, fabrications and hate that Joan M Wheeler (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!
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.
A Challenge to Joan Wheeler – Would You Please Explain the Various Court Documents and YOUR own Letters That Prove YOU are a LIAR? November 23, 2010Posted by Ruth in a. What is demanded from Joan Wheeler - the purpose of this blog., Black and White Evidence of Joan Wheeler's Lies: Letters, Court Documents, 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.
Tags: abuse, adoption, being downright nasty, dishonesty, Disrespect, emotional abuse, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, hatred of infertile women, infertilty, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Joan keeps repeating herself over and over and over again that she is NOT a liar. But in my last post about how she has documented FOUR different years that ONE false child abuse call was made in, I posted ACTUAL COURT DOCUMENTS and two of JOAN’S OWN LETTERS that PROVE WITH OUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT THAT JOAN IS A LIAR!!!
Joan keeps saying that her birth sisters are “bothering” her. But she never says specifically HOW! I have addressed this before on this blog. She either ignores this, or comes up with a new lie! And when that lie is exposed, she won’t come back and explain it. I have caught her in several lies and misrepresentations in her book and her blog. And when I have provided the PROOF of the lie or the misrepresentation, she will NOT explain the lie, but just blindly blunder on and keep saying that she is NOT a liar!
How do you explain her insistence that her book is truthful when she says that she signed a complaint against me in February 1993, but I provide the actual court document that has her signature next to a date in July 1993?
How do you explain the fact that she says that she NEVER wrote harassing letters to hurt me, yet I provide an actual letter that she wrote to my husband and mother in law, in which she urges him to leave me.
How do you explain the fact that in her book she refers to my pet Brandy as a cat, yet I provide actual City of Buffalo animal license that proves that Brandy was a DOG! This proves that 1. Joan is a liar. 2. Joan doesn’t know what she is talking about. 3. Her book is poorly researched. 4. Her book is NOT truthful.
How do you explain the fact that on the internet she keeps saying that she obtained a one year order of protection against me, when I provide the actual COURT DOCUMENT that says it was for six months? And how do you explain the fact that she wrote letters to Albany New York on December 31, 1994 and to the financial director of my employer and told them that I was placed on probation? But it was NOT probation – it was an order of protection! These are two very different things. I was NOT placed on probation – I was given a restraining order – to restrain from contacting Joan. But Joan contacts me – The restraining order was in summer of 1993, yet in spring of 1994, she’s contacting my husband! And in 1999, she’s writing letters to me! She admits so in her book! And admits that she used a friend’s return address to do so! Oh, but Joan is not harassing me, no, no. Just writing letters to tell me my husband fathered a daughter in a vacant house.
I have reported on this letter several times here on this blog – but Joan refuses to address this issue! Just like in her book- she mentions only 2 events in 1995. Her starting college, and her divorce. Oh, but she doesn’t mention that in the spring of 1995, I pulled her into court for harassment – and I provide that letter to my husband as proof – because she’s pleading with him to leave me, asking him to have me drop the charges – and asking my mother in law to turn against me. – oh no! Joan doesn’t interfere in MY life whatsoever and never did! But I provide PROOF POSITIVE that she did and does. But Joan will not answer to this. – WHY?
In the letter she wrote on January 6, 1995 to the director of financial services of my employer, she accuses me of tampering with her medical bill. She writes a 3 page letter, when only one paragraph would suffice. But in this letter, she gives this man, a stranger to me, personal details of MY life, violating my privacy. But at the bottom of the last page of this letter, she is demanding HER privacy! Why the double standard Joan? YOU get to have privacy, but I don’t? ANSWER THIS QUESTION JOAN, AND ANSWER IT RIGHT NOW!!!
Oh, but Joan doesn’t hurt her sisters, never has. As for her assertions that her book is about her and her alone, and her adoption, then what the hell is MY miscarriage mentioned in it? Along with the falsehood that I went to a fertility clinic. And this falsehood was actually in a sentence that contradicted this!
On page 302, she says this about me: “At one point in her life, she claimed to want children and even went through infertility tests with her pervious boyfriend.” Well if I had only CLAIMED to want children, I wouldn’t have gone through infertility tests, now would I? And right here, Joan makes a mockery of my miscarriage of June 5, 1985, where SHE was in the waiting room with my friend Francine, and even drove me home several days later. The next sentence in her rotten book is really very sweet: “Just as well that she didn’t get pregnant because she said she didn’t know how anyone could do it.”
How dare you Joan? You take a figure of speech and throw it in my face, and throw away MY SON by saying it was a good thing I didn’t get pregnant? I DID GET PREGNANT AND LOST MY CHILD! What the hell is the matter with you? Oh, but you didn’t write that book about your sisters, did you? That book was about YOUR life, YOUR adoption, YOUR adoption reunion and YOUR adoption reform work! THEN WHAT THE HELL IS THIS SHIT ABOUT ME NOT GETTING PREGNANT AND YOUR MOCKERY OF THE LOSS OF MY SON ABOUT? My son, who I named in my heart Saied Ali, is my heart. HOW DARE YOU MOCK ME LOSING HIM? AND WHAT DOES MY LOSING HIM HAVE TO DO WITH YOUR BOOK?
ANSWER THIS QUESTION JOAN! Oh, but Joan NEVER writes things to hurt her sisters, now does she? Oh no! She doesn’t think that even after 25 years, that I would be mourning my son? Here, how about if HER son gets smacked by a car next week? Would Joan care? I doubt it.
I could go on, and I will – that’s the whole purpose of this blog – to show the world that Joan Mary Wheeler is a liar, a filthy liar at that! She tells the world that she NEVER wrote anything to hurt her sisters, when I just wrote and said she did. I have provided explicit documentation to prove that she is a liar. But Joan will NOT answer these allegations. She keeps saying that we call her a liar. Yes, we do. Well, Joan, PROVE TO US THAT YOU ARE NOT A LIAR! COME ON, JOAN, SPEAK!
1. Gert – November 24, 2010
I agree with everything that Ruth has said here, in addition, if you noticed in the documents that Ruth posted, as our evidence that Joan lies, that Joan will take any and every opportunity to tell anyone about our lives. She does not care about anyone’s privacy.
Ruth said: “In the letter she wrote on January 6, 1995 to the director of financial services of my employer, she accuses me of tampering with her medical bill. She writes a 3 page letter, when only one paragraph would suffice. But in this letter, she gives this man, a stranger to me, personal details of MY life, violating my privacy.”
In that same letter, Joan tells these strangers things about our(us sisters’)personal lives and our family business…what for? Because Joan has no brains!
Ruth continues: “But at the bottom of the last page of this letter, she is demanding HER privacy! Why the double standard Joan? YOU get to have privacy, but I don’t?”
I agree, what gives here Joan? You want privacy but no one else should have privacy!
come out come out where ever you are Joan and answer the charges against you.
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 1 November 10, 2010Posted 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.
Tags: abuse, adoption, birth certificates, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part One by Gert McQueen, April 22, 2010
John Adams, before he became the 1st vice President and the 2nd President of the USA, defended some British soldiers against some citizens of Boston, in what became known as the Boston Massacre. He won the case for the soldiers because of the facts of the case. In his address to the jury he said…
“Facts are stubborn things and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations or the dictums of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence” from David McCullough’s book, John Adams.
In chapter 18 Liverpool 79, Joan tells of another trip to visit birth sister Kathy, who has told us, in another post, of that visit, from her own mouth about what actually did happen…facts are stubborn things.
Here are a few adjectives and phrases that Joan uses to describe her natural father, her birth siblings and her perceptions of us in our relationships with her: the tyrant (pg178), I am the throw away baby (pg180), why does she hates me (pg 180), leader of this great band of mixed-up, tormented kids (pg 180), what crime did I commit, her behavior now baffled me (pg 180), knew she despised me (pg 183), introduced me as ‘the American’, I felt betrayed, unloved, I was frightened (pg 184), I loved a sister who didn’t love me back (pg185). According to Joan these are facts, but are they? …facts are stubborn things.
The beginning efforts to write her book came from and with a friend in the Division of Youth, in 1980, where Joan had a part time job. On pg 190 she states, ‘Without warning or training, I took a job as a Youth Transfer Agent with the N Y State Division of Youth. I’d be working with teenagers between the ages of 13 to 18 and most of these teens were youth offenders.’ Remember this! It is because of her association with this Division of Youth where Joan gets her ‘authority’ to interfere in my and my children’s lives later on. Remember this also! In 1980 I remarried and my new husband and I were beginning the process of adopting my children! … facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 19 Tucson; she has now saved enough money to visit birth brother Leonard. Amazing isn’t it that she has all this ability to travel and visit while everyone else in the family must work to keep roof and food! She says she arrived, for a two-week visit, on August 20, the day I remarried; my honeymoon was a weekend camping trip that included my children! …facts are stubborn things.
My brother, amongst many things, belonged to a reenactment group, SCA, Society of Creative Anachronism. Most that are in these groups are in it for entertainment and historical reasons and most groups do not allow any form of ‘religious’ overtones in their ‘character personas’. When she leaves Tucson she has a contact name of a member in Buffalo’s chapter of Medieval reenactment groups. Remember this! Because this is the beginning of how, when and why she gets her authority to condemn my religious beliefs and question my mental health some 12 years later! She like, so many others, confuse SCA activities with real and true religious reawakening and reconstruction! … facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 20 is a redundant chapter, (about birth certificates) we have heard this so many times before, totally unnecessary. But it does prove the facts of Joan’s inability to accept the ways of the world, be they semantics (pg 201) of the legal system or the facts that people and institutions do not behave the way Joan thinks they are behaving. ‘I (she) knew the clerks (in the vital Statistics offices) lied’ (pg 199) ‘an underhanded compliment meant to insult me’, ‘felt guilty…that’s how this man wanted me to feel’ (pg 202) Pg 203,‘Some people have argued that I set myself up for pain’…sure looks that way from here! And the greatest of all, pg 203, ‘I began to think less and less of my own personal situation and more and more of how our laws and social practices were imbedded into our culture and what changes were needed to make this a more humane system.’
Remember I have already told, in another post, of how, when Joan was shy and new to the militaristic crusade of adoption reform, when she upset my stepmother over my father’s adoption of her daughter, Joan was not quite sure of herself. But now she is! She overcame her shyness and she was very insistent that she is right and everyone else is wrong. Oh sure she was not thinking of herself, when she called me an unfit mother, for giving up my child for adoption. Forget the fact that I was adopting him! She was thinking about making things more humane, ha! You should have seen her in my kitchen, ranting and raving about how wrong I was to ‘give up’ my child and what harm I was doing to him. So much so I had to kick her out of my home! Sound familiar, doesn’t she tell us that our father kicked her out of his home too! …. facts are stubborn things.
Chapter 21 cancer and sibling rivalry; I have no way of addressing the situations about Joan’s adoptive father’s illness etc. but I certainly can and will address (pg 213) ‘…trouble brewing between my (her) eldest sister (me) and myself (her).’ It had nothing to do with ‘sibling rivalry’ but all about interfering trouble that was ALL Joan’s doing… facts are stubborn things.
From our very beginning, in 1979, my second husband wanted to adopt both my children, they were 14 and 15 when we married. It should also be noted that my family had been in family counseling for over 2 years before and during our marriage, so that, as a new family, we could all integrate more smoothly. We had already been investigating adoption and upon my wedding, August 1980, the kids believed that as my name changed so would theirs. We went through the usual background investigations that come with adopting, we had an attorney and because of their ages the children had to speak with the judge and give their own reasons for or against being adopted.
At that time my daughter was having a normal major identity crisis and wanted to spend time with her natural/birth father. While I thought it would be of no help I allowed my daughter to live with her natural father. It did not prove successful and after some intense disappointments with her natural father she returned home to me and my husband. She came to the conclusion that she wanted to keep her own identity, not go through a name change, because she was going to marry soon anyway. She did when she was 17. While my husband was disappointed that my daughter did not want to be adopted it did not alter how he felt about her; he loved her still and treated her as if she was his. My son had no objections and wanted to be adopted. Their natural father gave permission and signed the necessary papers; he wanted to be freed from total responsibility, a responsibility my husband was willing to give, in fact had been giving. The judge spoke with them without the parents’ presence. The judge said to us later, referring to my husband, ‘that he wished more fathers would be attentive to their children has this man does’. My son was 16, in 1981, when he was adopted. … facts are stubborn things. – (Ruth’s note: as I was a constant in Gert’s and her children’s lives – and they lived 2 blocks from me at this time period – I can attest that this is all true!)
Raising teenagers is never an easy task and when there are stepparents there are always additional elements but when you add a meddling interfering relative that has an obsessive agenda you have a receipt for disaster. Enter Joan into my family where she had no business. … facts are stubborn things.
So where are Joan’s credentials? Was she an attorney? What vast years of wisdom and experience did she have when (pg 213) she came barging into my home, obstructing my parental authority, our family’s core business, confusing my minor children with her faulty reasoning, asserting that her decisions and recommendations were in the best interests to my children and that I was to instantly follow them? (Ruth’s note: Gert already has quoted Joan stating on page 190 that when she took her job as a Youth Transfer Agent (driver) she was “without warning or TRAINING.” And at this point in time, Joan was not a mother herself. And remember her occupation: DRIVER – it is important in a few pages.)
Joan states: ‘…(my son) was 14, a bit too old for stepparent adoption.’ (Ruth’s note: can Joan EVER get dates and ages correct? Yes – my nephew was born in 1965, therefore, in 1981, he was 16).
I answer: Where does she get this nonsense? A person can be adopted at any age.
Joan states: ‘When they told me about it (my son’s adoption) I (she) was hurt and angry and very protective of his rights…I tried to get them to see that an older child’s identity would change and his birth certificate would be sealed….but they wouldn’t understand.’
I answer: Oh we understood all right! What right does she have to get in the middle of another’s adoption proceeding? Who asked her to ‘protect’ my son’s rights? I thought the judge and adoption laws were doing just fine without her. Oh I forgot, Joan does not understand nor trust the legal systems of this country. As far as his ‘identity’, he kept his first name and changed his middle and last names; that was his choice and decision. He has never had an identity crisis of any kind and never had any problem getting into the military, (unlike Joan who used her adoption/birth records as a means not to enter military service), or obtaining marriage licenses or anything else he needed, his birth certificate is NOT sealed (he has both) or any other kind of troubles.
Joan states: ‘instead of listening to me they accused me of being too sensitive…they insisted I was obsessed with adoption, they were going ahead with the adoption…’
I answer: If the shoe fits, no one can talk to Joan about adoption because only Joan is the expert, so yes she is too sensitive and obsessed.
Joan states: ‘…(he) would adopt only the older teen…he wouldn’t adopt the younger one’
I answer: I have already told the background of this. Joan doesn’t repeat the truth of things because it just will not ‘fit into’ her version of the story, she has to sell the book! … facts are stubborn things.
On pg 214 Joan states: ‘that was just the beginning’
I answer: It sure was! and before we get any further it must be said that there were many layers of different situations happening at the same period of time in which Joan has convoluted, combined and other wise mixed together, as well as leaving out some very valuable pieces of the puzzle, that she was intimately involved with and responsible for. That being said, after I kicked her out of my home, for her disruptions about our adoption plans, I paid no attention to her, until she began the next episode of interfering in my family, a year later, but before we get to that I must give some background facts. … facts are stubborn things.
Again, on pg 214, Joan states ‘…(she) had been subjected to sexual advances from (me)’. She continues on with her take on it ‘…(she) was told to keep quiet’. Bullshit! Joan is using this crap as her ‘reasons’ for interfering into my family, but I don’t want to get too far ahead here…so
Let’s talk again, remember I discussed this in another post, about the so-called sexual advances that Joan said happened between her and myself, but also let’s talk about the actual sexual situation with my husband and us. That right, my husband! Oh did Joan not say anything about that in her book? Oh dear me, that must be that BIG SECRET she didn’t write about that I should be so afraid of her telling! Gotcha, Joan! You can’t blackmail me and hold me hostage to your warped mind! For the record: there were no sexual advances by me to her in 1976, she has fabricated that lie to be able to use it later on in her fabrications to cover up the real and actual sexual encounter that she herself was involved in and to take the light off herself and put it on my husband and myself. … facts are stubborn things.
It does surprises me that Joan hasn’t mentioned the experiment between the three of us in her book, at least as far as I can see she hadn’t, but then again if she mentions it than she can’t blame me for her own bad judgments and meddling now can she. Truth is that one night, long before Joan decided to involve herself within our adoption proceedings, my husband and I had dinner with Joan at her apartment. One thing lead to another and all three of us decided to explore the ‘girl on girl’ aspect, it was nothing really, not anything I cared to explore further, nor did my husband, nor Joan herself, to the best of my knowledge. Was she abused? Taken advantage of? Told never to talk about it? No, she was willing. There now you have it, if it isn’t the truth, why should I admit to this? Will Joan deny it, perhaps, but I got it out and she can’t blackmail me! Joan fabricates things so as not to involve herself. The whole episode regarding my daughter, in which Joan does not tell of her actions, is to make my husband and myself out to be the big bad guys. In fact it was Joan’s fabricating and involving outsiders that took my daughter away from me. Joan does not tell of her own deeds or the whole story of what happened…but I will! … facts are stubborn things.
Jumping ahead a bit, to get continuity, on pg 220, even though she is not writing about it, she seems to have, that girl on girl episode, on her mind, as she writes, trying to fit untruths in her version of the story, because she wonders, in print, if she committed adultery. If I had made sexual advances to Joan, as she says I did back in 76, and then in 81 she starts to question whether she herself was a lesbian or not and whether she was an adulterer would mean I must have been married when I made the so-called sexual advances to her in 76. I was not married in 76 when she says I made advances, but now in 81 she says I abused her, I violated her. Bull shit! This is her faulty reasoning and her neglect in not telling of her own involvement in sexual activities. She uses this method of thinking and non-thinking to justify her actions when she claims my daughter is being sexual abused by my husband. Oh, but of course, that’s how she gets back at him! Oh no, we shall go back to this page later, because this is too precious not to explore further. … facts are stubborn things.
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 2 November 10, 2010Posted 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.
Tags: abuse, being downright nasty, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, passing assumptions off as truth, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 2 by Gert
Now, before going back to pg 214, we must clear up some things regarding my daughter. She had some issues dealing with her natural father’s rejections, my re-marrying and subsequently having a new father in the house. Both my children had not had a father in residence for over 10 years before I remarried. Couple that with puberty and two aunts, Ruth and Joan, who were closer in age to her and more willing to take what she said about her home life as ‘not within the norm’; what teenager likes the rules at home. My daughter had a pattern of various forms of ‘running away’, from finding school mates that were inappropriate, to hanging out with the older kids, to wanting to belong to a Black church group, to finding a woman who had a mental illness who wanted to adopt her, to wanting to have a baby. Yes we were strict, we had to be. Yes we had problems, we were in counseling! But remember this, this was the beginning of the age, culturally, where the parents’ authority was being undermined by not being able to discipline there own child. The child had the rights, the parents’ only right they had was to pay the bills! I had a counselor who would not tell me, when I asked where my daughter was, when she ran away, because of my daughter’s confidentiality, but I had to pay the bill! And yes not everything was perfect and peaceful and pleasant at home. Yes there was domestic violence, but there was no sexual abuse of any kind regardless of appearances and teenage opinions. …. facts are stubborn things.
So on pg 214 Joan states that my daughter told her about changes in family behavior, skinny dripping in particular and Joan takes it upon herself to see ‘huge red flags’ and so she ‘…suspected her (my daughter) to be in danger of sexual abuse by her step-father….with a former co-worker from the NY State Division of Youth…discussed and agreed there was concern and made the phone call to child abuse hotline.’ And as she said ‘the next few months were pure hell’.
What Joan, again, does not write about is that she was warned by Ruth not to involved authorities, they had no real evidence to any abuse, that to do so would cause real trouble, but Joan never listens to anyone but herself and yes it was pure hell. But it is not true, as Joan states, ‘…that (my daughter) was removed from her home and placed in foster care.’ That all happened because of Joan’s actions with a runaway child, my child and much later than when Joan states it happened and how it happen! On pg 221 she states that we moved hundreds of miles away and that my child was placed near me for visits and that all this happened in 1981, wrong, wrong and wrong. Here then is the real story…. facts are stubborn things.
As mentioned before my daughter had a runaway problem, we had to keep close tabs on her at all times. My second husband’s family was based in the country outside of Binghamton NY and we, as a family, had traveled there and visited many times since 1979. As a family we decided to move from Buffalo NY to Binghamton for quality of life issues, we found jobs and moved there August of 82. It was over a year since we adopted my son and that we had any contact with Joan. Of course my daughter did not like this move. Here’s a fact of life, she was a minor, she does not dictate what the family does, the parents do and Joan and Ruth did not like the fact that we took the children away from their ‘roots’. Too bad! I will not now as I did not then justify my decisions I made for my family and no one, blood relative or not, has the right to interfere with my minor children, period, end of story. …. facts are stubborn things.
So we moved and within one week my daughter is a runaway. This is when ‘it was pure hell’, in the fall of 1982 and it started with Joan taking the words of a runaway minor and calling child abuse on the parents, her own sister! Don’t believe all this self-serving crap of hers on pg 214, its all bullshit. As far as the phone calls at that time, yes there were some phone calls, I was trying to find my daughter! But did I do all that Joan says I did like ‘every two hours until 4 AM every day of the week’, is she nuts? I lived hundreds of miles away, still had to go to work while I searched for my daughter and I had another child to care for. It is only in Joan’s diseased mind that sees other doing what she herself does. …. facts are stubborn things.
To make a very long painful story short, my daughter runs away, missing person’s report is filed, family members are called and are asked to make calls to Ruth and Joan, we the parents are lied to, my sisters knew where she was, she was with them. When I find out that my daughter is back in Buffalo, at her old school, we travel back there to collect her. There is a physical confrontation between parents and child in the school where daughter says ‘rape’, police are called, and daughter is taken away and given in temporary custody to Ruth. Because of different counties I have to go back home and then file a PINS (person in need of supervision) with Family court in county where my child is residing. It is during this time period that Joan calls the child abuse hotline, not earlier. (Ruth’s note: Joan called child abuse on Gert twice – the first time before the family moved from Buffalo, then again after Karen ran away). While waiting for Family court dates I am investigated no less than on three separate charges of child abuse. When finally arriving at court and am granted the PINS and request that she be put in a foster home in the country so as to lessen her means of running away. So let me be perfectly clear here: once I found my daughter and was in court it was I who asked for her to be place in foster care, for I knew then that no one else could touch her. I was lucky, my daughter was one month shy of 16. If she were 16 or older I would have lost any hope of gaining control of her behavior for the laws state that at 16 a person can do as they please, but, the parents still had to pay the bills! …. facts are stubborn things.
I then asked for a home study to be done on my two sisters who had sued me for being an unfit parent. How interesting that after my family had passed investigations to adopt that all of a sudden we were abusers and unfit! My sisters were proved to be unsuitable to raise a child. My child was placed in a foster home near where we had already moved to, in other words where we already lived, where my child ran away from, not the way that Joan portrayed it on pg 221. The results were proven that my husband and I acted in every way ‘rightfully to protect our minor child’ and were ‘not guilty of any form of child abuse’. I still have the original 16-page document if anyone cares to check my account of this tragedy. But the damage that Joan started and did was long lasting. …. facts are stubborn things.
My daughter stayed in the foster home for about a year and then she ran away again, this time not from me but from Social Services and Family Court. In early 1984, at the age of 17, I petitioned the court to give my daughter her emancipation, which meant her freedom. She became a full-fledged adult at 17, not entitled to child support, which also relinquished me from any debts related to her. She married shortly after that. …. facts are stubborn things.
Unfortunately the damage that my daughter did, by the word rape, which was put in her mouth by my sisters and carried to the abuse hotline and to the court by Joan, destroy my family. Did Joan win anything here, did she stop any abuse? No all she did was destroy a family. To this day my children, both of them, hate her as does my former husband, his family and I. The stress of those days killed our marriage, all that man wanted was to be a father to my two children, but because Joan is so wrongly obsessed with faulty thinking about adoption she had to kill my family…. facts are stubborn things.
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 November 10, 2010Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: adoption, being downright nasty, blaming people for your own mess, contributing the deliquency of a minor, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, misrepresenting one's credentials, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 By Ruth Pace
On page 214 Joan relates her version of a very painful episode in our family’s history. And of course, Joan twists everything around, trying to be the “heroine” of the situation, AND getting details all wrong – I mean, for such a “truthful” book, I find very little truth in 4 paragraphs on page 214. First she says that my niece Karen (Beth) was 13 years old. WRONG – she was 15. As I have pointed out many times on this blog and just recently in the post Facts are Stubborn Things Part 1 Joan keeps getting dates and ages wrong. On page 204, she says that Gert’s kids were around 14 and 15 years old.
Getting back to page 214, Joan rehashes her “sexual abuse” supposedly by Gert. Which had nothing to do with Karen’s situation. Joan relates that on a camping trip the family went skinny dipping and Karen confided in her that she did not want to swim in the nude. HALF-WRONG! Karen did not confide this to Joan, she confided it to ME, and Karen already (several months ago) posted a comment right here on this blog stating to that fact. And as to Joan saying that Karen was “forced” to swim naked – WRONG! She declined to swim naked, she kept her swimsuit on. The family was experimenting in skinny dipping, the children were not forced into anything.
At all times, Gert let the kids make many of their own decisions, as long as those decisions did not go against the rules of the household – and those rules were reasonable, and not abnormal in any way – rules such as doing homework, chores, no drugs or booze, etc.
Joan says “The way I saw it, my 13 year old niece was in danger and I acted out of love for her. If my sister and my husband weren’t harming Beth/Karen the truth would win out.” Like this is an excuse to call child abuse on someone? NO, she did NOT interfere out of love for Karen, but for revenge against Gert – because as Gert has said, she threw Joan out of her house and life for her interference with the adoption of her son, and no, Joan is WRONG when she says on the top of page 214, that Gert’s new husband “would only adopt the older teen; he wouldn’t adopt Beth, (Karen) the younger one.”
He asked to adopt BOTH kids. Karen declined. She wanted to retain her biological father’s name. Gert and Jim were fine with Karen’s decision.
As to the skinny-dipping episode, geez, are people who live in nudist colonies automatically assumed to be child predators? It’s just an alternative lifestyle, and means nothing. And there are lots of places in Europe – Sweden for one place, who have NUDE BEACHES, where entire families swim in the nude! If Gert and Jim and Gert’s son were comfortable skinny-dipping, fine. If Karen was not, fine. What’s the big deal?
I am going to clarify just what happened in 1982 to our family. Gert knows some of the story, but not all. Because when Karen ran away in early September 1982, I filed for custody of Karen. This put a tremendous strain on my relationship with Gert. We did not speak to each other for 10 years. In 1992, when Gert came to Buffalo for a family reunion, we reconciled. Lest anyone think that we did not reconcile and have only “come together” for writing this blog – to “gang up” on Joan – nope. In 1997, when Gert’s first husband died, I put her and her kids up in my house. She has been back for visits in Buffalo a few more times, and each time we have gotten together for dinner or lunch. We have been in touch via snail mail, email and telephone BEFORE the publication of Joan’s filthy book and the inception of this blog. And when I say that Gert does not know the entire story of what happened with me and her daughter – I mean that she knows the gist of it – but not all the details. When we talked about it – we didn’t go into detail, because we just didn’t feel the need to rehash it all – she got a lot of the story from Karen herself – so we two just didn’t go over it all – we weren’t dwelling on the past – only the future – and our newly repaired relationship.
So just what did happen in 1982? And it was not Joan who acted out of love for our niece, as she states on page 214, but ME. I had always been very close to Gert’s 2 children from the time they were born. Around 1979, Gert moved to an apartment only 2 blocks from me. The kids were always at my house. Gert had met a man who would soon become her second husband. I liked him at first, but soon after he moved in with Gert, there were several instances of him hitting her. I did not like that he was hitting my sister, I didn’t know how to help Gert.
After about a year of his living with Gert, my niece started to complain to me of certain things about him and Gert. I wasn’t sure what was going on. My ex-husband Abdo and I had moved to a different section of the city, so I was not as close to the situation as I once was.
Gert has already related some of Karen’s problems as a young teen: she had run away from home once before, was going to see a counselor, and hooked up with a friend, whose mother wanted to adopt her! I remember one evening, Gert called me on the phone for help. Karen was at this woman’s house and refused to come home. The woman told Gert that she was keeping Karen. My friend Francine and I, accompanied Gert and Jim to the house and retrieved Karen. Gert made a stop at a police station, where a police officer laid the law down on Karen.
Next thing I knew, I’m getting reports about bad it was at home from Karen. Could she come and move in with me and Abdo? Karen told me that she wanted to run away again. I told her NOT to run away. I told her if she did, seeing as she was only 15, her mother would slap a PINS (Persons In Need of Supervision) warrant on her. I told Karen to discuss the situation with her counselor. I told her that until she was 16, there was nothing to be done, unless there was actual child abuse going on, and Karen had already told me that that was not happening. I also told her that she should stick it out at home until she was 16, and if she still wanted to leave home, that she should tell her counselor, and ask to be emancipated, and check into a group home that was located in Hamburg, NY. Once that was done, I would be in a position to apply for custody of her. I also told her to obey the rules of her home and to discuss everything with her counselor.
I wasn’t sure what was going on. Could there be some trouble in Gert’s house other than Jim occasionally putting his hands on Gert? Karen didn’t say that Jim had hurt her, she was uncomfortable when Gert and Jim went skinny dipping during a camping trip. Karen kept insisting that she didn’t “like” Jim. I didn’t know if this was just a typical 15 year old resisting a new step-parent, or was something really go on. So I had a talk with my friend Francine and with Joan. I told them both what Karen said. I asked them both, that whenever they visited Gert’s house, to keep an eye open – to see if there was anything we really should be concerned about. I told them that Karen had not said that anything in particular happened, she was concerned about her stepfather hitting her mother, and was worried about it happening to her – or worse.
Joan immediately began saying we should call child abuse on the family. I asked her “Why?” We have no real proof that anything is really going on. And if we do call and there hasn’t been anything happening, then things are going to get out of control. Just leave it alone. “
Joan then suggested that she talk to her boss at the Department of Youth. I again told her no. I told her not to bring strangers into our family business. Again, I told her to leave it alone. “Just go over and visit as you normally do, and keep an eye on the situation.”
But did Joan do what I wanted? Oh, NO! JOAN, the EXPERT – went and talked to her boss anyway! As I feared, he went and called child abuse and everything blew up! (a quick note here – we have only Joan’s word that this is what happened – because now, 28 years later, I suspect it was Joan herself who called child abuse on Gert).
I was at work one night and I got a phone call – from Gert – asking if I had called child abuse on her. I was so surprised that I couldn’t talk – I stuttered, “I can’t talk about this right now – I’m at work.” (and yes, there were people standing around me, and I was expected to be working, not on the phone). Gert said “By your response – I know you did it.” And she hung up on me.
I called Joan up the next morning and that’s when she told me what she did. I yelled at her – “Gert is hopping mad – I told you to leave it alone. Now we are cut off from Karen, and if she really needed our help, now we can’t give it.”
It was a few days before I could talk to Karen, I don’t remember if I called her, or she called me. But she told me what happened. She also was mad that child abuse was called. She was taken by surprise – she had no idea child protective services was coming, and they interviewed her at the kitchen table. The child protective services worker determined that there was no threat in the house.
The result of Joan’s meddling was that Jim and Gert decided to move away from Buffalo – and yes, Gert is correct in saying in her post that I was mad that she was taking the kids away from me – I had known those kids from the day they were both born. In some ways, I was their second mother – although I never undermined Gert’s authority. I was not only mad, I was hurt. But there was nothing I could do. Gert was their parent, not me.
Gert and Jim did not move from Buffalo until the end of the school year – but Joan, and I, were forbidden to see the kids, or talk to them. I fed those babies their bottles, I changed their diapers, I saw them grow up, I was part of their lives, and now, I was OUT! And all thanks to Joan and her “expertise.”
I knew this was going to happen. You can suspect child abuse all you want, but unless you absolutely KNOW that a child is being abused, calling child abuse on an innocent parent is only going to cause problems. It will tear a family apart, and it sure did – not only with Gert’s immediate family, but in our extended family. My father was angry with me, my step-mother was concerned about me. She knew I was trying to do the right thing.
To back up a few months – when Karen first told me she wanted to runaway and come live with me, I talked to my stepmother about it – she suggested we talk to Dr. Kenneth Condrell, a Buffalo child psychologist. Dr. Condrell’s mother Mary, was a friend of ours from the Greek church where we all worked the Bingo games together and served on the church’s Women’s Committee. It was Dr. Condrell who advised me in every step I took, including NOT calling child abuse, but giving Karen options, such as continuing with the counseling. I even discussed the situation with the pastor of the church, who advised me to follow Dr. Condrell’s advice. These men, Dr. Condrell and the pastor of the church, knew my father and my stepmother, as they were parishioners of the church. And they knew me. They didn’t know Gert or Karen, but they only gave general advice, they did not advise me to interfere in any way in Gert’s family, but to give love and support to Karen, and keep all lines of communication open.
Since my stepmother and I were on the same page as me and Dr. Condrell, now she was against her own husband. My father’s stand was that we, (Joan and me) should have minded our own business. I told him that child abuse (if true) is EVERYBODY’S business and he should be more concerned as to his grandchildren. I told him that I didn’t want child abuse called, but that it was Joan who jumped the gun. I was always on shaky grounds with my relationship with my father, and this was not helping in that area. But I stood my ground. I did what I thought was right.
When the school year ended, Gert and her family moved to another city in the state. During the summer of 1982, my husband Abdo and I were having some problems due to his drinking and he moved out, taking an apartment 2 blocks away from me. We continued to see each other though. Many nights he slept over.
One day in September 1982, I got a phone call from my father that Karen had runaway from home again. He asked me if I knew where she was. I told him no, I hadn’t heard from Karen since before the family moved from Buffalo. My father wanted to know if she was at Joan’s house. I told him that I didn’t know. I called Joan, and she said that Karen wasn’t at her house. I got a nasty phone call from Gert, accusing me and Joan for encouraging Karen to run away from home, and accused us of hiding Karen from the family. I tried to tell Gert the whole story, but she wouldn’t listen. She was so angry, but there wasn’t anything I could do at this point.
Several days later, Karen showed up at my house. It was in the evening, and after I made us some dinner, I placed two phone calls – the first to Child Protective Services that Karen had finally showed up. They told me to keep her for the night and they would be at my house the following morning. The next call I made was to my father, and I told him that Karen was now at my house. He told me to send Karen to her mother. I told him that I had already called CPS and they would now take care of everything. Karen only told me that she was with friends for the few days she was missing. She refused to tell me who they were, and to this day, she has never told me.
The next morning, a worker from CPS came and Karen told them that she was now afraid of her stepfather, that he had threatened her. She didn’t want to return home and told the CPS worker that if he sent her back home, she would run away again. She said she wanted to live with me. The worker said there would have to be a custody hearing in the county from where she ran away from and gave me temporary custody. I was told that since school was in session, Karen had to be registered in school.
I registered Karen in the school she attended the previous year, and a friend of her brother’s called him and told him he had seen Karen in school. The following day, Gert and Jim arrived in Buffalo and came to the school. She was called out of class and came down to the office where Gert’s husband assaulted Karen. The police were called but he left the building before they came, and Gert and her husband went back home. In the three weeks that followed, while we waited for the custody hearing, Gert’s husband called my house and Joan’s several times, and threatened us. I paid no attention to him, but Joan was scared. Maybe if she had listened to me in the first place, all the fighting would not have occurred.
In the meantime, a home study was done on me. The CPS worker in Buffalo told me straight out that it would be a long shot if I was granted custody. I was single, worked nights, there was no adult in the house overnight to supervise Karen. Even though Abdo and I were working through our problems, and even if he moved back in permanently, we were not legally married.
Joan and I drove Karen to the custody hearing when it was scheduled. Gert said nothing to us, but glared at us. Gert had recommended to the judge that Karen be placed in a foster home, and that was what happened.
What might have happened if Joan had listened to me? I don’t know. I’m not a psychic. But I do know that things would not have happened the way they did.
Gert – November 10, 2010
Even after all these years, after writing about it myself, having talking it over with Ruth, recently, it STILL HURTS! And even in that pain, I have still been able to reconcile that pain with my daughter and my sister Ruth, because they were able to reconcile with me. Joan never has and in the book she will tell you that, in 1992, it was still all my fault and worst because I did not APOLOGY to her and her adoptive mother for the letter that I wrote. Joan never sees the damage that she does nor takes responsiblity for her own actions.
On point needs to be clarified. When I and my husband found out that my daughter was in the school in buffalo, we went there. The principal had not phoned me as she had promised days before if she had seen my daughter. My husband and I were in the hallways watching for her as she came from a class, the hall filled with students. She saw me, ran the other way, my husband ran after her, grab her ankle and they fall down. I ran to them, and was tackled by a security guard and my glasses flew off my face. We were all taken to the office, where certain things were said by my daughter which caused the police to take her into custody away from me. I then had to go to family court to place her into foster home. I then counter-sued the county and my sisters. A home study was done on both of them and they did not pass and guess what…I WON MY CASE!
I have a 16 page document PROVING that my husband and I were INNOCENT of any wrong doing including, any form of assault in the school hallway and any form of child abuse!
The end result of course was the end of many relationships within our family and it all could have been avoided if Joan kept herself out of my business and my family. Less anyone have any doubt as to why I HATE Joan…this is why…she is a destroyer of people and families.
She could very easily end this by GIVING ME THE BOOK which means that she has to destroy it, pull it from the selling market, get herself out of the public venue of be a great and wonderful adoption reform person because she is NOTHING but pure evil.
the incident in the school was ugly.
the incidents of the child abuse calls were ugly.
the aftermath was ugly.
the whole dam thing was ugly.
It could have all been avoided if Joan had just listened to: Number One – COMMON SENSE – anytime a teenager says “they don’t understand me at home” should be taken with a grain of salt. Number Two – when I said “don’t call child abuse unless we know that’s what’s going on.”
But does Joan have any dam common sense? Her whole book shows incident after incident where she instigates arguments, and has the dam UNcommon sense to fucking write about it, and thinks she’s the heroine in each episode of The Joni Show.
She wanted to be the heroine in this painful episode – she wanted to “save” Karen – and look what happened. She made it worse than it was. She made enemies of Gert and her husband, and I, yes, I admit to some intefering, albeit going about it with the advice of a priest and a child psychologist, got labeled along with Joan as a destroyer of a family.
The whole thing was totally unneccessary – but Joan, who lives everyday in the fantasy world of The Joni Show, to this day thinks she was the superheroine and she “saved” Karen. riigght!
Gert – November 10, 2010
As I have just finished up writing about another chapter in Joan’s vile book I have found this statement on pg 453 that Joan says…
‘Many people can’t stop blaming me for their inner turmoil’
this is Joan’s reasoning why people, be it me, or anyone in our family, or other people like the abusive violent man whom she ‘tried’ to ‘save’ are always blaming her…because they have not dealt with their inner turmoil! No ONCE has Joan taken responsibily for any of her actions! It’s always the other guy!
this is Joan’s great wisdom and divine relevations of other people’s minds and motives…they just have not dealt with their demons! And Joan has?
why has she written this vile book? so she can ‘show them’ everyone who has ever touched Joan and disagreed with her has PAID A DEEP PRICE. Don’t be the next….
there will be more truth telling coming up on this blog…don’t miss it…we are not done…not by a long shot…Joan will be exposed for all she has done and the best part about it is…using her own words! She is so brain dead she doesn’t see that she has condemned herself by the very book she wrote.
Give me the book, Joan!
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4 November 10, 2010Posted 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.
Tags: adoption reunion, being downright nasty, contradictions, contributing the deliquency of a minor, dishonesty, domestic violence, embellishing the truth, emotional abuse, emotional blackmail, false accusations, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, Lies, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading untruths
Facts are Stubborn Things Part 4
by Gert, with an introduction and additional comments by Ruth
On pages 218-220, Joan tells us she received an outlined letter from Gert and types out the letter on those pages. This letter is highly suspect. Certain things in this outline letter just don’t jive with the facts of the events that happened at the time. What I have done, is type out EXACTLY what Joan has in the book, and have included Gert’s answers, point by point.
Gert starts her post out by addressing Joan’s accusation that she wrote Joan a letter after child abuse was called on her about her daughter.
Did I write a letter to Joan? Yes I did. Did I write the one, in outline form, that Joan presents on pg 218, no I did not. First the reader ought to go over various parts in Joan’s narrative of how and what kind of language her adoptive mother uses when describing things. One notices a pattern of language and angry responses that are typical only of that mother. Joan has me saying words and expressing myself in ways that I never have and still don’t do or use today. To the best of my memory I wrote one letter to Joan. And don’t forget, I left Buffalo in 1982 never to return. I didn’t get a damm about Joan so why should I have continued to harass her, let alone her mother. Unlike Joan I had a life to live, a job to go to, children to support and I wanted nothing to do with her, ever… facts are stubborn things.
Joan says that her mother said I kept calling her, not true. I called to tell the woman what Joan did to me, but what does Joan tell her mother, its about what Gert did to Joan. It’s all about Joan. She is ‘boiling mad with rage at (my) insensitivity in badgering her mother at this time’. (when Ed died). Excuse me! Joan can destroy my family, take my child away from, label me a child abuser, and then have the gal to say I’m insensitive!
Ruth: Now here is the outline letter that Joan alleges Gert wrote. Each numbered point is followed by Gert’s response in blue. Ruth’s notes are in italic.
Gert (supposedly) to Joan, in 1981. (but the incident with Karen was not until 1982 – again we see Joan plays fast and loose with dates).
1. I’m sorry your father died.
1. I don’t recall ever knowing when her adoptive father died. I didn’t write to express my sympathy.
2. You have no business butting into my family life the way you did. How dare You. Beth (Karen) is perfectly safe here. She just doesn’t want to follow family rules.
2. true, if the child obeys house rules there are no problems. It is not up to Joan to decide whether or not my house rules are up to standard.
3. Karen has no problems relating to family. She joined a club at school in which there is a mother, a father, and all club members are sisters and brothers. I told her I didn’t like it. I told her that I’m her real mother, her brother is her real brother and she has a stepfather. She sees her real father on a regular basis.
3. This is purely Joan-speak.
4. Karen doesn’t like it that I divorced her father so that’s why she’s hanging with this club at school. She insists that this school is her family.
4. again a form of Joan-speak, redundant
5. Now, because of you my daughter was removed from our home and now I have to prove to the court I am a good mother! It will take months, if at all, that I get my daughter back! You meddling, controlling fucking bitch!
5. true it was because of Joan that my daughter was taken away from me. If Joan did not harbor a run away there would have been no problem.
6. And to think I loved you enough to find you! You have been nothing but trouble since I met you. You don’t drive and I have to pick you up and drive you wherever we go together. You say the wrong things all the time.
6. Joan-thoughts. I never said anything about her not driving and that I have to pick her up etc She really does have a problem with this issue of her not driving, but I never said this. (Ruth’s note: please see my detailed note below about the issue of Joan not driving).
7. You try to fit in but you are an outsider. You were not raised with us so you have different ways of thinking.
7. guilty, its true
8. We are street kids, we think on our feet. (Ruth’s note: another dig against the Sippel Sisters – all over the book, Joan portrays us as inner city ghetto white trash.)
8. never said such a thing. I was not raised as a street kid, I was raised in the country (foster home) and have country values; values that Joan knows not. (Ruth’s note: I also was raised in the same foster home with country values – which included manners, and to respect people, something that Joan, who was raised in a better-off suburb was never taught).
9. You are a sheltered, naive, spoiled little brat who got everything you ever wanted (Ruth’s note: and Joan herself admits this several times in the book).
9.guilty, its true
10. I told you I like the finer things in life and now you’ve gone and ruined my life! You are cruel to turn me into the authorities. And for what? Because you don’t think that Roy should adopt Mark? I told you, I told you repeatedly that it is none of your business what we do in our house! No, we don’t care that Mark’s birth certificate will be changed! He’s 14, he knows who he is!
10. What? Finer things in life? What the hell does that have to do with what I am angry over? Yes, guilty, it is and never was any of her business about anything within my family including my son’s adoption.
11. And no, Roy doesn’t want to adopt Karen because she doesn’t show any love or respect for him. We don’t care about adoption laws and we don’t care that I have to sign relinquishment papers so that Roy can adopt Mark. This is our business and not yours!
11. wrong, wrong, wrong. Joan has said this same kind of shit in this book about other members of the family because she was adopted out, no one loved her. Bullshit! There never was any question about love and respect about adopting or not adopting my daughter, this is pure Joan speak and it is totally untrue. Signing relinquishment is a Joan speak and a Joan issue. True, it’s our business never hers.(Ruth’s note: what Gert says here is absolutely true – Jim (Roy) wanted to adopt BOTH kids – but Karen wanted to retain her biological father’s last name. She loves that name. Even years later after she divorced her husband, she went back to using this last name).
12. We had to throw you out of our apartment because you made a big deal out of the birth certificate thing! I don’t care! Adoption is YOUR problem, not mine!
13. While I’m on the topic, don’t say anything more to me about adoption! I should have left you alone where you were. I would have been better off without you! We all would have been better off without ever knowing you!
13. probably true
14. So Roy and I go camping and swimming in the nude. Big deal! We take Mark and Karen with us and Mark is fine taking off his clothes. Karen doesn’t want to do it and she thinks we are forcing her. We are communing with nature, as a family, and she is the one who doesn’t want to conform to a family structure. And you have to interfere.
14. a form of Joan speak, I wouldn’t have gotten into this with her. She is the one who is hang-up on the skinning dipping issue. Again, that was a family issue not hers.
15. I see no reason why you had to go to the authorities! You took my daughter away from me! — Look at everything I have done for you! You ungrateful, conniving, little bitch!
15. true but I wouldn’t have continued on with it.
16. I can kill you for what you’ve done! Me and Roy, look out Joanie, because we are gonna pay you back for what you’ve done!
16. purely Joan speak, was I mad as hell, of course, but the give away is that I never called her Joanie!
No Gert, the give-away that this outline letter is concoted by Joan (probably using some of the real letter Gert wrote and then “Embellishment by Joan”) is the telling fact that I, Ruth, am not mentioned ONCE in this letter. Go back and read Facts are Stubborn Things Part 3 where Gert tells what happened in 1982 from her perspective. She says over and over again that it was Joan AND Ruth who were to blame for her family being split apart. So if Gert wrote this letter, she would not be only blaming Joan, but both “Ruth and Joan,” and she would be wording it “You and Ruth.”
And what’s with all the exclamation points? Nobody writes a letter like that. This is just Joan’s blowing EVERYTHING up!!!!
Now as to the subject of Joan “not driving.” This is pure nonsense. Joan says in her book that she learned to drive “at the late age of 22 (1978). On page 211, we are in the time frame of the winter of 1981-1982,(and this outline letter was supposedly sent a few days after Joan’s father’s death on February 15, 1982). On page 211, Joan makes this statement, while describing DRIVING to the hospital to visit her father: “At one point, I made a wrong turn one block away from the hospital and got stuck in a snowdrift for an hour and a half.”
To back up a bit: in May of 1981, I moved from the West Side of Buffalo to the East Side. While I was living on the West side, Gert lived only 2 blocks from me. There was a neighborhood movie theatre and in the early part of 1980, they were showing the Charlton Heston/Stephanie Zimbalist movie “The Awakening.” It’s about the re-awakening of an ancient Egyptian Queen. As Gert, Joan and I shared a love of Ancient Egypt, we all went to see it, at a late night showing. When the movie ended, Gert and I WALKED home and Joan DROVE home. Joan had a car – mommy and daddy bought it for her.
When I moved to the East Side in 1981, Joan visited me there and DROVE there. What we have here is Joan mixing up events again. Perhaps Gert had said something to her about not having the time to always drive her around when we first met her in 1974. Because in 1974, I didn’t drive yet either. But by 1980 – Joan WAS driving and was most definitely driving in the winter of 1981-82, because she says so in her book on page 211. So why the hell would Gert write this? Answer: Gert did NOT write this – JOAN wrote this – to make Gert look like the villian here. For shame Joan. And once again, we see that when a chronic liar keeps lying – the thing that trips them up is they can’t keep the lies straight! It’s too much to remember what lie was told, what version of the “facts” were told on one day, and what version of the “facts” were told on another day. Perhaps one day Joan will finally learn to tell the truth and stick to the REAL facts – because whether Joan likes it or not, FACTS ARE STUBBORN THINGS.
Gert – November 10, 2010
As I reread this section I realized that I could have said alot more about that letter..alas…there is so much to say so little time to spend on Joan…truth is by the time I had gotten to that ‘outline’ in the book I was burning out…Joan does have that tendency on people, and I wanted to be done with that chapter.
I do want to say that Joan does have me speaking words and phrases that I don’t use and while I certainly so swear I don’t usually call people a bitch or worst as Joan has me saying in the book.
I wrote about this chapter back in april and since then I have read, thought about, and written much more of the book and I’ve gotten to know Joan alot more than I ever wanted to know her. I’ve come to see how she writes, thinks, what favorite words and phrases she uses and most importantly, her world view and how she projects onto others and puts words in their mouths.
So I could say more about that outline but, enough for the moment…there’s lots more coming..
oh and btw, Joan…give me the book!
Steak or Hot Dogs? Joan Wheeler hasn’t a clue what the Sippel kids ate – and this has WHAT to do with her adoption? November 9, 2010Posted by Ruth in Joan Wheeler's abuse and harassment of her birth family, Lies in the book Forbidden Family, Our Family History, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, Uncategorized.
Tags: adoption, adoption reform, adoption reunion, being downright stupid, Disrespect, embellishing the truth, faulty memory, harassment of an adoptee's birth family, passing assumptions off as truth, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements, spreading rumors, spreading untruths, stupidity, Urban Legends, whining
From Gert to Ruth:
I just had to address this issue, saw it late last night and stayed up late to do it….so unbelievable even though it is out of sequence I believe that it will serve a purpose… that she is no social worker…so Ruth if you can post this soon….
Joan Wheeler’s book is so full of nonsense it is an overwhelming bunch of garbage.
Taking a peek ahead into the depths of the craziness that Joan has written, I found something that just boggles my mind and felt the need to bring it up now. Chapter 38 is called ‘unequal treatment of 1 half-orphan out of 36 resulted in a traumatic life outcome – a Social Work Assessment’
It begins with ‘April – July 2009’ meaning of course she wrote it or massively rewrote it just before publication. It continues ‘this assessment is complicated to read, but necessary to understand’. I ask you what has Joan written that has been easy to understand? This entire chapter was an ‘afterthought’ of Joan’s so she could continue with her rants under the guise of ‘social work’. What a joke Joan is! Anyone with or without a degree can tell that Joan is nuts. This is the chapter that she says our father couldn’t understand, which btw caused him to say to others that it belonged in the trash! I’m not ready to comment on this chapter in full…in time it will be addressed…but there is one short paragraph that caught my eye.
Under a title of ‘known and unknown rumors against my natural father’ it defies reason has to what that title or what she has in it has to do with her adoption and how it was an ‘unequal treatment’ and how it resulted in a traumatic life for her, for she wasn’t there. It is Joan’s attempt to prove that her traumatic life is because of all the things she has put into this afterthought chapter.
Steak or Hot Dogs?
I can’t imagine how she can believe or devise these tales but as always she has to put her own spin on it. There are many outlandish tales cooked up by the adoptive family because they had some kind of weird idea about my parents and our economic circumstances and Joan has taken them to be ‘true’ and the reason why she is so traumatized. Bull Shit. Here then is one small paragraph that Joan has written on pg. 542 which caused her trauma! (Ruth’s note: how in God’s holy trouser’s could what we Sippel kids ate for supper when Joan wasn’t living with us caused her trauma is way beyond me!)
‘One story that has circulated for decades is that in the years before and after my birth and disappearance to adoption, my father fed my siblings hot dogs while he (and presumably my mother and then my siblings’ step-mother) ate steak. When I asked Dad about this, his explanation made sense to me since I, too, raised children. Parents do their best to provide quality food, but when children prefer to eat hot dogs because they taste better to kids, it is easier for parents to give in than to fight about dinner. There is also another explanation – that my father sent my brother to the Broadway Market to buy hot dogs for dinner. He took his time walking home, eating the uncooked hot dogs on the way. There was no dinner for the rest of the family.’ (Ruth’s note: this sentance makes no sense – it does not compute! – When she says that there was no dinner for the rest of the family – does she mean to imply that my father and mother (or stepmother) ate a steak dinner in front of us kids while we went hungry? HOW DARE YOU JOAN! We kids ate supper EVERY FUCKING EVENING! My father and mother/stepmother was responsible enough to make sure there was adequate groceries in our house for EVERYONE to eat. Not like JOAN and her ex-husband – in another section of her book she says that money was short that often HER kids had one meal a day. That’s a reflection of JOAN’S poor parenting and financial irresponsiblity! She couldn’t feed her kids? Yet she had money to zip around the place attending adoption conferences! Or going to rock concerts! But when money was short, and HER kids ate only one meal a day – did she get off her lazy ass and get even a part time job in the evenings at the Tops Supermarket one mile from her house? Before Joan starts painting the Sippel kids as deprived, she needs to take a close look at how she treated her own kids – like crap!)
This is pure hogwash! I haven’t a clue how she could possible believe such a tale and then put it in a book about her adoption! The basic true story was related from birth relative to adoptive relative and then turned into totally false-hood by the adoptive relatives for reasons of their own. But Joan NEVER researched the truth of the story and instead adds things on, that are of course not true and embellishes it with her own ‘time period’ thought patterns.
One can tell that it is another ‘Joan centric’ tale because she starts it out with her birth and ‘disappearance to adoption’ as if B.J. (before Joan) had some kind of great turning point in the way our family lived.
Here is the truth and beginning of the tale: My father was raised an only child after an elder brother died. His mother was very protective of him and of his health in particular. She always maintained that her son should have the iron in steak so that his blood was strong and he would not become weak like the son that she had lost. When my father and mother married, his mother would bring a steak to my mother, every week, telling her it was for her son. My mother, being a good daughter-in-law, thanked her mother-in-law and put the steak in the freezer till she had enough to feed the entire family. There is nothing more or less to the story, simply that my mother was no fool. She knew enough to keep her family fed with or without the additional weekly steak that her mother-in-law, my grandmother gave her.
Most of the time during and after my mother’s illness and death we children lived with or were taken care of by our grandparents. Then Dad remarried and his mother came again to her new daughter-in-law, my stepmother with the ‘steak’ for her son. This did not go over well with my stepmother and it was probably she who fed us other meat, again, because she was the wife and in charge of the household and kitchen, not my father.
What Joan tells in this tale is not true and it suffers greatly from total fabrications. She says that she asked Dad about this, well I have no way of knowing if that is true or not but it seems that even if he attempted to give an explanation of it that explanation was embellished by Joan. Dad is a guy and some guys just don’t think about how and what kind of food got on the table. Joan doesn’t think! In the 1950s the world was different, the husband gave the wife the ‘grocery money’ and that was that. So Dad did not feed his kids anything, his wife did! And he ate what was put in front of him!
Joan states, ‘Parents do their best to provide quality food, but when children prefer to eat hot dogs because they taste better to kids, it is easier for parents to give in than to fight about dinner.’ This is Joan’s inner mind working again, subjectively and certainly putting words into someone else’s mouth. This might have happened in Joan’s home with her adoptive parents and then with her children but it certainly didn’t happen in my father’s home. This statement is an editorial comment, has nothing to do with the story at all. Joan was NOT THERE, she would not KNOW that as a child, in my father’s household, if you didn’t eat what was put in front of you, you stayed there all night till you ate it and if you didn’t you had it for breakfast, or, you went without and went to bed hungry! (Ruth’s note: This is correct, not only in our house, but our grandmother’s house, and in the foster home that we were in for a few years. This is why I will not eat, to this day: oatmeal, lima beans or brussel sprouts. The women in our lives, our father’s mother, our step-mother, our step-grandmother and our foster mother, were strict. They did not cook a meal only to have a child waste it).
Here are some other very important facts that Joan does not know about. While there was the Broadway Market it was not in the neighbor and my father would never have sent my brother or any of us there to purchase anything. There was a local butcher within 4 blocks from home where we went for meat. Joan doesn’t know that because she wasn’t there and the adoptive relatives were not there! All she and they know is the Broadway Market!
Joan then continues saying about my brother that, ‘He took his time walking home, eating the uncooked hot dogs on the way. There was no dinner for the rest of the family.’ Again, made-up, sounds more like something The Beaver would have done, but not a real kid who was sent to the store to get something. If anyone of us did such a thing forget about dinner, which was called supper at our house, you would have been sent to bed with a ‘licking’. (Ruth’s note: again, the women in our lives were strict – we got a good smack on our backside when we misbehaved. Something more kids need in this world of kids AND adults not having any self-control or sense of self-responsibility).
Joan knows nothing about what happened in our family because she either wasn’t born yet or she was adopted out as an infant. (Ruth’s note: this sentence makes perfect sense to me – how the hell does Joan know what we Sippel kids ate for supper? SHE WASN’T THERE! I WAS! I KNOW WHAT WE ATE, WHAT WE DIDN’T EAT – AND HOW OUR FAMILY EXISTED! AND SO DOES GERT AND SO DOES KATHY – NOT JOAN. Joan keeps saying that her adoptive family, both her parents and the extended Wheeler family LIED to her about her adoption, and the existence of her siblings. How does she know that they weren’t also LYING to her about our family life? And how the hell do THEY know about it? THEY were NOT part of our family growing up! The only contact between the two families was my mother’s sister Catherine – and she raised her kids the same dam way – her husband always had liverwurst sausage in the fridge and limburger cheese – and NOBODY touched them! – and by god NOBODY touched Uncle Ray’s stuff! BUT, I ate dam well at Aunt Catherine’s house and I ate the same food that my cousins Norman, Ida and Gail had! – so this bullshit about what we Sippel kids ate came from the LYING WHEELERS! – And they sure taught Joan how to lie).
These tales are fabrications told to her by her adoptive parents and Joan hasn’t got the good sense to keep them out of print. She really ought to be ashamed of herself. She really ought to go after her adoptive relatives and leave the birth sisters alone.
(Ruth’s note: a competent social worker would know not to publish “urban legends” such as the steak/hotdogs or Butch eating hotdogs walking down the street. Better still, a COMPETENT social worker would get to the root of the “urban legend.” But since Joan DIDN’T bother to consider a family anecdote that sprang from either a faulty memory, or out-and-out LIES from her adoptive family, this clearly shows us that Joan is no dam social worker).
Addendum from Ruth:
I have already addressed this family anecdote about us Sippel kids eating hotdogs in my post Photos from the Past March 15, 2010. You have to scroll down to see what I wrote. But to save you the trouble here is what I wrote:
Joan also says on page 542 that our father fed kids hotdogs while he (and presumably my mother and then my siblings’ step-mother) ate steak. This is a family anecdote that Joan in her “brain fog” has gotten wrong.
What happened was this: my father’s mother was from the old-school, she would send over a steak every Friday for my dad. My mother, and then later my stepmother would say “thank you,” and put it in the freezer and the next week, another steak would come, and then we all would eat steak. and yes there were times that we kids would eat hotdogs.
As to the next “story” that my father sent my brother to the Broadway Market for hotdogs, and he ate them on the way home, leaving no dinner for the rest of the family, this makes no sense. Broadway Market was 2 and a half long blocks up Smith St. and then 5 short blocks over. There was Matty’s Deli right around the corner if we needed something in a hurry. Besides, there was Loblaw’s at the corner of William and Emslie only 5 blocks away and Joan was not there, I was. I went shopping every week with my stepmother. We had money for dinner people. come on. What Joan is doing is having “brain fog” in hearing another family anecdote that my brother was sent to the store and probably did eat the hotdogs. I WAS THERE, I HAD DINNER EVERY NIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH! (Ruth’s note, November 8, 2010 – Gert is right – we did call it supper in our house. My husband John and I call it dinner in these present days of 2010).
And if we were so “poor” how come we had one cat, 2 parakeets, turtles, fish, Visible V8 Engine set, chemistry sets, build your own radio kits, a backyard gym/swing set, electric football game, kitchen sets with hoses to a bottle to supply running water, the first Easy Bake oven, Chatty Cathy dolls, Nancy dolls, Janet Lennon dolls, Elsie the Cow doll, some doll, if memory serves, The Breck Doll, sponsored by Breck shampoo, where you learned to style hair, and these weren’t Barbie doll sized, but big – their heads were at least 3 or 4 inches across! I had a Drink and Wet doll who was at least 15 inches long! The first Lite Brite sets. Sno-Cone set. I had a chair and desk set with reversible top – chalkboard on one side, artist easle on the other, paint by number sets, the original Cootie and Mr. Potato-Head.
AND we had our living room set from Ethan Allen furniture (NOT cheap) – colonial style! with a couch that opened to a bed. Colonial style rocking chair, coffee table (of which I had until the early 80’s), colonial style dining room furniture, of which I have TO THIS DAY, one of the chairs – it’s sitting four feet away from me right now! I vividly remember being with my step-mother and step-brother bringing home the living room lamps from downtown Buffalo, Hens and Kelley. AND if we were soooo poor, how come every week, my step-mother took me, my brother and stepbrother downtown to the movies, usually to see the new sci-fi, stuff like “The Cosmic Man” “Hypnotic Eye” “Attack of the 50 Foot Woman” “Invaders from Mars” “Darby O’Gill + the Little People.” We saw Fantasia, went to the circus, I vividly remember not liking the clowns and my stepmother holding me. And all the junk we brought home. I also vividly remember my stepmother taking ME alone to see the brand new Hayley Mills film, The Parent Trap. My brothers and I had Roy Rogers capgun sets, complete with belts, which my grandmother didn’t like. Rubber Jim Bowie knives, Davy Crockett hats. I had a Howdy Doody doll who came to the hospital with me when I had my tonsils taken out at 7 years old, where I threw a temper tantrum because they shut my tv off just as Chuck Connors The Rifleman came on! (I had to leave my rifle home, dad wouldn’t let me take it). All these brand new toys, and pets, but we were poor? I DON’T THINK SO!
(Ruth’s note, November 8, 2010: The Wheelers [but I suspect it all came from Mama Wheeler] thinks we Sippel kids were soooo poor. We came from the “inner city?” Oh yeah? Well, so did THEY! We lived on Smith St. They lived on Coit St. – ONE BLOCK OVER, TWO BLOCKS UP! So Dorothy/Doloris (yes, she goes by two names), take your suburbian snootiness and shove it – ‘cos you came from 3 blocks where we lived – THE INNER CITY!)
And pray tell: what does all this have to do with the supposed purpose of the book Forbidden Family – Joan’s adoption, Joan’s reunion with us and adoption reform? – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Gert – November 9, 2010
‘And pray tell: what does all this have to do with the supposed purpose of the book Forbidden Family – Joan’s adoption, Joan’s reunion with us and adoption reform? – ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!’
True, absolutely nothing! Joan is totally against any form of adoption, because, she was adopted and her adoptive parents, lied to her, kept secrets from her, betrayed her and when she was ‘found’ by birth relatives, her adoptive family further betrayed, lied and harassed Joan for having a birth family. Nasty business for sure from the adoptive family, but hey, that is not the birth family’s blame.
Joan repeats, at nauseum, her tramatic life as a basis for adoption reform. NO! Joan’s life is what it is because of Joan, NOT adoption. It’s about time that Joan got out of the fog and get the hell over it! She was dealt a raw deal, well she isn’t the only one. She is suffering now because she CAN’T stand the fact that three birth sisters are finally able to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Joan get a life before you find your self on your death bed all alone and wondering how you got there with no one!
This blog will continue to truth tell and refute everything in that book of garbage!
Chapter 21 of Forbidden Family by Joan Wheeler – rebutted! November 5, 2010Posted by Ruth in mental illness, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: abuse, blaming people for your own mess, contradictions, embellishing the truth, mental illness, mental instability, Narcissistic personality disorder, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements
Before I get to Chapter 21, I want to address a remark that Joan made on page 186, where Joan relates that at one of the meetings of a local adoption support group she belonged to the group decided to go on television to publicize their plight. She says that I was “uncomfortable” with her going public with our family history of adoption. This is so bullshit! The timeline is early 1980 – and in early 1980 I accompanied Joan to WGRZ-television studios to do an on-camera interview with reporter Rich Kellman to talk about our reunion! If I was so uncomfortable, why would I then consent to being in a television interview myself?
Chapter 21, on page 204 is titled “Cancer and Sibling Rivalry.” Joan relates her adoptive father’s battle with cancer and tells of her part in her interference with Gert’s minor children. She then goes into telling her readers of Gert’s anger over this and accuses Gert of harassing her.
I want to take this chapter bit by bit. And this post is about the first 2 bits – the rest will be discussed in future posts.
The first bit is the title of this chapter – Cancer and Sibling Rivalry.
Ahem. Sibling Rivalry is a term used to describe children who are competing against each other for their position in the nuclear family and affection of their parents. Since we Sippel kids were grown by 1981, the time discussed in Chapter 21, this term does not apply here. None of us Sippel kids were “rivals” in ANYTHING. We were not competing in anything. There was no jealousy going on – at least not on MY part, or my sisters Gert and Kathy. Joan, on the other hand, is still jealous that WE were not adopted out of our original nuclear family.
In going over the events discussed in Chapter 21, I see nothing that alludes to Sibling Rivalry. I find the title inappropriate. The events involve Gert’s minor children – Gert is their parent – there is NO room for any rivalry there. As the mother of the children, she is the person who makes the decisions for them – NO ONE ELSE!
I thought Joan is a social worker and therapist! Did she not learn all this while getting her degree? What kind of a therapist doesn’t understand the basics of sibling rivalry? What kind of social worker doesn’t understand that a parent makes decisions about their children and none other?
The second bit I want to discuss is the cancer – or rather Joan’s adoptive father’s bout with it. Or rather, how Joan discusses it.
On page 207, she describes her father’s first exhibition of symptoms of his brain cancer. He had not been feeling right for a few weeks. The subject of alcohol keeps coming up here – why? But then he shows the symptoms of a stroke and he is taken to the hospital, with 2 Wheeler cousins in attendance. Tests did not show a stroke, and doctors suspected alcoholism.
When Ed gets home, he regains partial use of his right side and he telephones his siblings with this good news. Then he attends his oldest brother’s funeral, and he had trouble walking and his speech was slurred. His family thought of alcohol – why? Obviously the man has a history of drinking – why does everybody automatically think of alcohol? If my father had exhibited these same symptoms, nobody would automatically think of this because my father rarely drinks.
So at the funeral, Ed’s brothers and sisters thought he was drunk and made fun of him. Joan and her mother are disgusted. Joan “chokes back tears” at the cruel remarks and at the “insensitivity of the family.”
On page 210, Joan relates that now Ed is in the hospital and he “spoke in sentences and phrases that were unintelligible. This angered and frustrated him.” (This is called aphasia, and the anger and frustration is normal). Joan then tells us that she brought him a flower arrangement and without warning, he picked it up and threw it across the room. Joan says “I cried and shouted angrily at him.” Joan and her mother cleaned up the mess and scolded him like a child.
How dare you Joan? How do you dare yell at a patient? You just got done saying he spoke in sentences and phrases that were unintelligible, and he himself is frustrated over his own inappropriate behavior and then you yell at him!
Do you readers see what a contradictory bitch Joan is? On page 208 she berates his family for “making fun” of him, then 2 pages later relates how she herself yelled at him.
I visited Ed in the hospital one time. And witnessed something that must have been a naturally occurring event in the Wheeler household. I was sitting on a chair near the foot of Ed’s bed, on his left side. His wife was sitting across from me, and Joan sat at the foot of the bed. In making conversation, I brought up a news item that I heard on the network news the evening before.
In Florida, an engaged couple were seeking to get married in the Catholic Church. A priest denied to marry them, saying that in the eyes of the Church, the purpose of marriage was to create children, and the man was paralyzed from the waist down, and could not create children. I thought this was terrible. And I brought up this subject. Joan agreed with me, but her mother agreed with the priest. Raising her voice, Dorothy put forth her opinion that if you couldn’t get pregnant, then you shouldn’t be married. I was appalled! Here she was, a woman who couldn’t get pregnant, and she herself was married! But I didn’t say anything, I have too much manners to say that – but not Joan – she raised her voice in disagreement with her mother. And the fight was on! In a hospital room!!! With the patient witnessing it! At this point in time, Ed couldn’t speak. He just looked first at his wife, then his daughter, and a tremendous sad look was in his eyes. I sat there watching the three and felt sadness for Ed, disgust at Joan and her mother, and shame for myself for bringing up the subject.
Earlier in the book, Joan relates how she and her mother are having an argument in the family car, and Ed yells at them “do you know how the two of you sound?” Apparently this has been going on between the two of them, probably as soon as Joan began to talk. I had already related that I left Joan’s daughter’s 4th birthday party because they ruined the party by screeching at each other and I couldn’t stand the noise.
But getting back to the argument in the hospital room, all of a sudden Dorothy did a strange thing – right in the middle of the arguing, she changed the entire thrust of her argument. At first she was in agreement with the priest, then all of a sudden, she was against the priest. She said at first that if the couple couldn’t have children, then they shouldn’t be married. Now, she was saying that if the two people loved each other, what was the priest’s problem? People should marry whom they want!
I sat there stunned. I couldn’t believe what I was hearing! Joan continued with her original stance – against the priest –and then said “that’s what I’m saying Mom, the priest has no business saying they can’t get married.”
Then Dorothy did another astounding thing – she attacked Joan – “That’s not what you said – you said the priest was right.” Excuse me while I pick my jaw up off the floor! If I hadn’t witnessed this myself, I would not have believed that a human being could be capable of such turnabouts in an argument, then yelling at another person and calling them a liar to their face, when in reality it was Dorothy who was the liar.
It was really like the classic Bugs Bunny/Daffy Duck cartoon:
Bugs: Yes Daffy: No
Bugs: Yes Daffy: No
Bugs: Yes Daffy: No
Bugs: No Daffy: Yes
Bugs: No Daffy: Yes
Except that Joan didn’t switch sides! Dorothy was the one who switched sides and I was in such disbelief and disgust that I believe that was the last time I ever spoke to Dorothy. Up to then, I had respect for her – now I was in contempt of her.
In the car going home with Joan, I brought the subject up. Joan said, “Yes, that is how she is. Growing up, there were many times I was so confused. She had me going in so many circles, I didn’t know what to think, what to say. I was always in trouble.”
I was angry. This is how that woman raised and treated my younger sister? And we see just how and why Joan is the way she is. But that’s still no excuse. She’s been in therapy since the late 70’s. And she is self-aware enough to know that she didn’t like that kind of contradictory lies that confused her, so why does she do it to other people?
We have already pointed out in this blog how Dorothy and Joan have a love/hate relationship. It’s a relationship of hurting each other to show love. And each one seems to want to win the Big Argument. Each one is a control freak. Each one is determined to make the other one change their basic way of thinking, their god-given right of self-determination, which is to say, have their own opinion of a subject. The Big Argument between these two masochistic women is the Argument of Adoption. Dorothy of course sees nothing wrong in it. That is her opinion. That is her dam right to have her feelings on the subject. Joan, as we know, thinks adoption is wrong. That is also her opinion, her dam right to have her feelings on the subject. But do each of these women RESPECT each other’s stance? Does Joan RESPECT Dorothy’s opinion on adoption? NO! In the book, and on the internet, she relates how she keeps badgering Dorothy to change her mind! Even as recent as this year, 2010, where Dorothy is NINETY-FIVE YEARS OLD!
For God’s sake, Joan leave her alone! She has the dam right to feel the way she wants! If you don’t like it – then SHUT THE HELL UP ABOUT IT! But no, Joan is out to punish Dorothy – for the fucking sin of adopting her and giving her a roof over her head. Granted, this arguing, this contradictory behavior, the calling Joan a liar to her face was wrong, wrong, wrong. Then get the hell away from that toxic person. No, Joan couldn’t do that – because Mama Wheeler was paying all Joan’s bills her entire life. Joan has never been Woman enough to stand on her own two feet – get a dam job and support herself and her 2 kids. No, the stupid bitch even moved back to Mommy’s house after her marriage failed, and the arguments continued, in front of Joan’s kids. What a life those poor kids must have had.
But as much as I have some grain of sympathy for Joan for being subjected to that lying mother of hers, I have no sympathy of Joan’s life as she has chosen to live it. Because of the rotten things she has done to me – my feelings of familial love has withered.
Gert – November 5, 2010
In the book, and on the internet, she relates how she keeps badgering Dorothy to change her mind! Even as recent as this year, 2010, where Dorothy is NINETY-FIVE YEARS OLD!
The reason Joan badgers her 95 year old mother is because Joan is an ELDER ABUSER.
Joan has in the past attempted many times to do the same to our father and that is the REASON why he has continued to push Joan out of his home, as recently as 2007 or 08, and has told her that they can not be in each other’s presence. My father DOES NOT allow himself to be abused, now at 85 or never!
This is something Joan has never learned, that other people do not live with the constant arguing and yelling and drama and abuse.
The parents are not the only elders that Joan has abused…we have hard evidence and it will be posted on this blog in due time.
So I am naming it as I have seen it, in print, in Joan’s own words and in her own book…Joan is an elder abuser.
Even in her book she writes that during an argument in the car she yells “Fuck you” to her mother, gives her the finger, then jabs the finger in her mother’s face.