adoption reunions, being downright nasty, birth/adoptive families, browbeating people over adoption, bullying, carol schaefer, confrontations with Joan Wheeler, Doris Sippel, family honor, Forbidden Family a book of lies, insulting, jack ryan, obits, shaming others, sins of omission and suppress of one's own misdeeds, taking others to task, wedding announcement
#JoanWheeler ’s indignation, and belief that she is always right, does tend to show her dangerous mindset! #flipthescript
Joan wrote a post, in ‘defense’ of, and about a natural mother being left out of a wedding announcement in a newspaper. This post was the ‘letter’ she wrote to the editor of the on-line newspaper. I noticed that Joan’s comment/letter does not appear on the Huffington Post story, which to me, clearly points out that the editorial staffs, were DOING their jobs by NOT publishing Joan. This explains why Joan HAD to write a blog post. Joan doesn’t get it that her tactics of indignation, use of shocking language, taking others to task, and shaming them are not acceptable. In this ‘letter’ Joan clearly brings up the personal history of ‘her friend’, in colorful (?) language, while insulting the editing staff of a newspaper!
One of Joan’s former boy-friends used the same, wrong-headed, sense of ‘defense’ when he created a blog ‘defending Joan’ from her birth sisters where he used the same idiotic, insulting, mocking and hate-speech. After a couple of years of ‘using’ the guy, Joan dumped him! His hate-blog is still up….
Now before we ‘see’ this letter of Joan’s, I present a couple of links to posts in which Ruth and I addressed in regards to our father’s obit and Joan’s behavior.
Our father died Jan 11, 2011. It was not until the making of funeral arrangement did the family find out that our father had taken off, ie eliminated, Joan from ALL his papers. He had written his own obit and had pre-paid funeral arrangements. We children got those papers in 2006. At that time, Joan, and her children, were listed as ‘daughter and grandchildren’.
In 2009 after a series of arguments with Joan, and a couple of attempted con-jobs to our father by Joan, including asking him for $$ to pay for the publication of that libelous book, our father told Joan he didn’t want to see her again and he CHANGED his paper work removing Joan as his daughter. He had not told anyone in the family. Her children were INCLUDED as his grandchildren, but were NOT named just as MY children were NOT named. It was ONLY JOAN that was removed, because of her behavior towards him.
Because of decades of behavior issues with Joan, the birth family wanted nothing to do with her or to see her. The family gave Joan a specific time-slot to attend a ‘viewing’ at the funeral home. She was denied to be in the presence of the family, attend the church service and the burial.
When, she saw that she was not listed in the newspaper’s obit, the first thing she did was to go to the funeral home and proceed to ARGUE loudly with the ‘worker’, saying that THEY made a mistake and THEY had to fix it. The family was told about this encounter via a witness and the funeral home personnel.
Joan then had an obit of her own published in the newspaper…just naming her as his daughter. Which only brought more attention to WHY was she removed in the first place. But, to Joan, that doesn’t matter, she ONLY wanted the acceptance! Well, she had it since 1974 and it is because of her unacceptable behaviors that everyone wants her GONE.
Here are links to where we discuss Joan’s ‘obit’ for our father and more…
THIS IS A FORMAL NOTICE FOR LEGAL PURPOSES AGAINST JOAN M. WHEELER AND RUSSELL D. THOMAS OF WILSON NY (he made himself public by signing this on a separate page in the guest book January 16, 2011
Legal Notice to Joan M. Wheeler Part 3 by Gertrude McQueen, first born of Leonard Sippel January 17, 2011
And here is Joan’s link and her letter.
In defense of my friend, Carol Schaefer, who wrote this article today on Huffington Post: “The Right to Love: Two Social Movements Converge on One Family”, I wrote the following Letter to the New York Times.
To deny Jack Ryan’s mother , Carol Schaefer, who gave birth to her son in 1966, the joy, respect and dignity of being named as his mother alongside of the parents who raised him is to, again, slap her with the stigma of being “an unwed mother” the way she was so many decades ago.
New York Times: Your high society newspaper has chosen not to publish the names of the two people “who did the dirty” and who “had” to give up the baby to avoid being disgraced for life. Your staff has just reinforced those old stereotypes.
The shame now is on the editor and publisher and all the staff of the New York Times for disrespecting Jack Ryan’s mother and his father – the very two people who gave him life. Yet, come Mother’s Day, you will publish sentimental words honoring “all” mothers. It appears that only legal mothers are honored by your paper.
You have robbed Carol Schaefer of a once-in-a-lifetime event — of being named in your extremely-prestigious newspaper for the honor that belongs to her. Just because The New York Times is decades behind the times, does not mean we all are.
Joan M Wheeler, born as Doris M Sippel
Reunited Adoptee since 1974, Reform activist
Ruth January 18, 2015
ah yes, Joan’s indignation of her being “left out” of our father’s funeral and obit. And her refusal to see that it was because of HER behavior that KEEPS her out of family functions.
I was just at another family funeral a couple of weeks ago and one of my cousin’s told me “Joan better not come here – SHE IS NOT WELCOME HERE.”
A few years ago, at the funeral of another cousin’s husband, I was asked if Joan was coming. I answered truthfully, “I don’t know.” I was told – “I hope not – SHE IS NOT WELCOME HERE.”
As to my father’s funeral – when my father passed, my husband and I drove to the hospital, where my stepmother, her two daughters, their husband and one of their children were present. Shortly afterwards, my younger brother and his wife came. This made a total of 10 family members present.
While we were gathered there, some in my father’s hospital room, others right outside, the phone rang. My one stepsister answered the phone. She placed her hand over the receiver and turned to her mother, “It’s Joan.” My stepmother simply shook her head. My stepsister said, “Sorry, you just missed him,” and hung up. Twenty minutes later the phone rings again and I picked it up. It was Joan, who said really nasty, “May I please speak to my father?” I answered simply, “Sorry, he’s not available.” and hung up. I went out into the corridor and spoke to all those present – and everyone shook their head. No one wanted Joan there.
Joan’s indignation over her exclusion to the funeral and obituary is meaningless – As of January 1957, when she became the legal adopted daughter of Edward and Dorothy (aka Doloris) Wheeler, Doris Michol Sippel legally ceased to exist and her legal name became Joan Mary Wheeler. That means she is NO legal member of the Sippel family. Deal with it Joan.
As to being a loving part of the family – that ceased when she caused all sorts of trouble for not just me or Gert, – but my father, his wife, her daughters, our cousins, our aunts and uncles, etc. etc. etc.
Sorry Joan – you act like an idiot and nobody wants an idiot around. DEAL WITH IT.
Ruth January 18, 2015
I did go to the Huffington Post about this article – about Mr. Ryan’s birth mother being excluded from the New York Times wedding announcement and read the comments made by other adoptees – it turns out that Mr. Ryan had requested that his birth mother be included in the wedding announcement – and the New York Times refused to abide by his wishes.
The comments placed by the adoptees were well thought out and I agreed with them all.
JOAN’S comment was not placed because instead of staying to the topic, she goes off on an angry rant. typical jerk that she is.
GERT HERE…Jan 21, 2015…
It was brought to my attention that Joan’s ‘letter’ was indeed placed on the Huffington Post article. I can not see that as I can not see Joan’s facebook and neither can Ruth. And, upon looking again on Joan’ ‘blog post’, which I FOLLOW, she did place a comment on how the Times did NOT get the request, for the inclusion of the mother’s name, in time for publication.
None of this alters my and I’m sure Ruth’s OPINIONS about Joan’s writing.