jump to navigation

What is the REAL reason behind Joan Wheeler’s rant on the Huffington Post? March 9, 2011

Posted by Ruth in Contradictions of Joan Wheeler, Refuting Joan Wheelers statements.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
trackback

by Gert McQueen and Ruth Pace

This is the particular exchange that threw Joan Wheeler into a huff on the Huffington Post:

 Joan’s post:

Mrs Delacour,

I am not grateful to be adopted. Why would I? My adoptive parents knowingly and willingly prevented me from knowing my own full blood siblings during my childhood and that is child abuse. Yes, my natural father relinquish ­ed me to adoption when I was 4 months old just after the death of my mother. He kept the other 4 children. That alone is hurtful, but my adoptive parents knew my father and open visitation could have been arranged. But my so-called loving adoptive parents kept me all to themselves ­, alone, in their sheltered cocoon of adoption-l ­ove. I should have been told the truth.

Now about the birth certificat ­e issue: I was born the 5th child to married parents. My original birth certificat ­e states that there were 4 other children born to this mother. I was given a name and my long form birth certificat ­e states the date and time of birth in the hospital. My natural father gave this document to my adopting parents when he relinquish­ed me.

Gert’s comment

Child abuse!!??? Get a grip! Not knowing any blood siblings is NOT abuse, dear sister!

And you should not throw stones around so freely particular­ly when you have called two false abuse charges at me in the past, because you knew better! Wrong, you were wrong, then and you are wrong now.

There are reasons why in adoption you don’t get to know the blood family, and it certainly isn’t because anyone is doing any kind of abuse! That is only in your mind!

There were NOT such things as open adoption/v­isitation in your case, dear sister. You are beating a dead horse! It was not hurtful that you were placed in adoption and separate from the other four…the ­re was NO ONE to take care of YOU, dear sister…a ­nd you did NOT have the same fates that we had. And don’t even go there and blame that on adoption!

Why don’t you stop being so hateful to the people who gave you so much!! Who paid for your college education, that you don’t use? Your siblings didn’t have all the benefits that you had in adoption. Being grateful is one of the greatest gifts you could give yourself, but, you would rather stay poor and in hate.

Instead of hating adoption and everyone who adopts, why don’t you try living a life for a change.

Ruth’s comment:

So, a couple of days after this exchange, because we Sippel Sisters DARED to post an opinion on an internet site, Joan goes on a rampage and cuts and pastes stuff from her lying cyberbullying page. In an effort to “silence” us. Joan thinks she owns the internet. Joan can post things, but her birth sisters are NOT allowed to post. Too bad, Joan, you don’t own the internet, you don’t own Huffington Post, you couldn’t control your sisters, and you couldn’t control Huffington Post. Your arrogance got you kicked off!

So when Joan saw she couldn’t control us by preventing us from opening an account on Huffington and accessing our American Constitutional First Amendment Right to Free Speech, Joan decides that even her own cyberbullying crap wasn’t good enough. So she adds an additional slur against us – the bullshit about our grandfather molesting us when we were kids.

I have to hand it to Joan – she really needs to get a job writing for a soap opera. She’s good at the cliff hangers! In her book and on her website, she hints that she has “secrets” that her birth sisters don’t want her to tell. We have gone on this blog about a year ago and asked her what those secrets are. She has never responded, until now. So this is the SECRET! Are there any more secrets Joan? Come on, OUT WITH IT NOW! STOP BEATING AROUND THE BUSH. I’M CALLING IN YOUR BLUFF! I WANT TO SEE MORE DELUSIONS FROM YOUR SICK BRAIN SO I CAN HAVE ANOTHER GOOD LAUGH! I want to see some more of your “torpedos of  truth.” roflmao! You could give Charlie Sheen a run for his money. — got Tiger Blood? ha ha ha!

O my gosh, do you people see what a scumbag she is? Let’s suppose for one minute that her allegations are true. Joan says she is a “social worker.” Ethical social workers do NOT tell things about their clients. I am not Joan’s client, but if I were, I’d sue the f’ing bitch for blabbing my confidentialities. And not even going by that, do you people not see her for the scumbag she is, that she hints in her book that she is holding “secrets” blackmail over her birth sisters? What kind of morals does Joan have that she threatens us in her book via emotional blackmail? And what kind of morals do readers of her book have and see nothing intrinsically wrong with a person who does that? Do you think people who write the laws of America is going to listen to this whackjob and take her recommendations to change birth certificate access laws?  They are going to see her for what she is – a liar and someone who tries to hold her own birth family blackmail by threatening to tell lies and secrets about them. And then makes sick lying allegations about a very serious thing – child sexual abuse! Every adult survivor of child sexual abuse should slap Joan in the face for what she has lied about, for it makes a mockery of what they endured. NO ONE has the right to lie about something this serious.

 I say again Joan: OUT WITH IT! Because me and my sisters are not going to succumb to emotional blackmail by you. Whatever “hold” you think you have over us, forget about it. You have none. All you have is your lies. And now, for the FOURTH time, Joan, I am challenging you to a lie detector test.  Silence speaks volumes. She won’t answer me on this one because she knows the truth would stick in her throat and choke her.

So now I ask you Joan, WHO told you that I was molested by my grandfather? My grandfather? Let’s see, nope, he died in 1959. My grandmother? Nope, she died in 1965. Me? Nope, because I wouldn’t tell you about something that never happened. Was it my father? Nope, because again, it never happened. And speaking of my father, notice how Joan comes out with this bullshit AFTER my father is dead – because now my father can’t get in her face for her smearing his father’s reputation! Like he turned his back on her in 2009 for her insulting his religion and his mother.

 So getting back to Joan’s statement to Mrs. Delacour “I am not grateful to be adopted.”

 Well, shit, if the allegations against my grandfather were true, wouldn’t Joan BE grateful to have been adopted out and escape the alleged molestation?

No, I believe something else is going on here. And it is something that I have wondered about for years. Joan HATES men. She HATES my father for giving her up for adoption. She HATES her birth siblings that were NOT adopted. She HATES adoption. She HATES the fact she was adopted. She HATES her adoptive parents. She is so full of hate and rage. So full of hate and rage, and  disproportionally so.

WHY?

 Because  it was not the Sippel Sisters were sexually molested as children, I believe IT WAS JOAN WHEELER HERSELF WHO WAS SEXUALLY MOLESTED AS A CHILD, PROBABLY BY A WHEELER RELATIVE! 

Gert McQueen adds this comment:

Joan Wheeler says she is a Social Worker and as such she is bound by their codes of ethics. Well perhaps she ought to be brought up on charges of violation of the codes of ethics of Social Workers. Any takers? I think I might!!!
 
In part Ruth has said:

“Joan says she is a “social worker.” Ethical social workers do NOT tell things about their clients. I am not Joan’s client, but if I were, I’d sue the f’ing bitch for blabbing my confidentialities. And not even going by that, do you people not see her for the scumbag she is, that she hints in her book that she is holding “secrets” blackmail over her birth sisters? What kind of morals does Joan have that she threatens us in her book via emotional blackmail? And what kind of morals do readers of her book have and see nothing intrinsically wrong with a person who does that?”

 It just so happens that I have the ethic codes and what do they say?

The National Association of Social Workers codes of ethics.

1. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO CLIENTS

1.07 Privacy and Confidentiality

(a) Social workers should respect clients’ right to privacy. Social workers should not solicit private information from clients unless it is essential to providing services or conducting social work evaluation or research. Once private information is shared, standards of confidentiality apply.

(b) Social workers may disclose confidential information when appropriate with valid consent from a client or a person legally authorized to consent on behalf of a client.

(c) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all information obtained in the course of professional service, except for compelling professional reasons. The general expectation that social workers will keep information confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or other identifiable person. In all instances, social workers should disclose the least amount of confidential information necessary to achieve the desired purpose; only information that is directly relevant to the purpose for which the disclosure is made should be revealed.

(d) Social workers should inform clients, to the extent possible, about the disclosure of confidential information and the potential consequences, when feasible before the disclosure is made. This applies whether social workers disclose confidential information on the basis of a legal requirement or client consent.

(h) Social workers should not disclose confidential information to third­party payers unless clients have authorized such disclosure.

(i) Social workers should not discuss confidential information in any setting unless privacy can be ensured. Social workers should not discuss confidential information in public or semipublic areas such as hallways, waiting rooms, elevators, and restaurants.

(q) Social workers should not disclose identifying information when discussing clients with consultants unless the client has consented to disclosure of confidential information or there is a compelling need for such disclosure.

(r) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of deceased clients consistent with the preceding standards.

 Gert says:

Sure looks like violation of the codes of ethics for the National Association of Social Workers to me! I say again, any takers? Anyone willing to press charges against Joan Wheeler for ethics violations? No takers? Well, I guess that’s the next thing I ought to look into!!

Advertisements

Comments

1. Evidence that Joan Wheeler has violated the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers « Refuting a Book of Lies: Forbidden Family – - March 10, 2011

[…] my post  What is the REAL reason behind Joan Wheeler’s rant on the Huffington Post? on March 9, 2011, I said the […]


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: