A Tale of Woe - of a horrible adoption - Joan Wheeler/Doris Sippel slams yet again, the woman and the priest who she thinks is responsible for that horrible adoption

In my last blog post, "Another nonsense statement (lie) from Joan Wheeler/Doris Sippel about my mother" - I wrote about Joan/Doris' response on facebook to the news of the Catholic Diocese of Buffalo naming 40 former Catholic priests who had been accused of child abuse. Joan/Doris told how she had known one of those priests when she was 12 years. And she then related that my father had shown her my mother's high school diploma and she recognized that same priest's name on the diploma. -- HA! In my blog post, I related that my mom had not even graduated from high school (confirmed by her brother, who is still living) and besides, she attended a public school, not a Catholic school, before dropping out of school. But see, Joan/Doris never bothers to do proper research and get the facts - but even when she does have the facts, she likes to twist the story around to suit her fantasies. In other words, she makes up things and LIES.

This blog post is about her second comment - made after a fb contact of hers, Mary P. asked if the priest (who supposedly signed my mom's non-existent diploma) "Was this the same priest who leaned on your birth father to relinquish you after your mother died?" (a fictitous story that Joan/Doris loves to tell about how her adoption was first thought of - that at my mom's wake, a woman and a priest both came up to my father and suggested that Doris be adopted). I have the screen shot of this and Joan/Doris' answer. It is included in this blog post below. I won't type the whole thing out, but want to address a couple of things.

But first, the whole purpose of Joan/Doris' of telling this oh-so-sad, and totally FICTITOUS story is to ellicit SYMPATHY for herself. Witness what Mary says to her: Mary: "I'm so sorry, Doris. How unfortunate that this woman took advantage of your natural father while he was grieving. At that moment, he must have been so vulnerable. There's just some people who want what they want when they want it--no matter other people's feelings. And then the priest didn't intervene. Hugs to you, Mary"

Now, lets straighten this mess out.

My mom was in the hospital since Christmastime 1955. Very sick, pregnant. On January 7, she went into premature labor and delivered the baby, who being 2 months premature, was placed into an incubator. An exploratory surgery on mom was scheduled a couple weeks later and as soon as they opened her up, they saw she was full of cancer. Nothing could be done.

When the baby, named Doris was old enough to be discharged, she went 'home' with my mother's brother Richard and his wife Ann. Ann herself just had a baby in January 1956 and had little ones at home.

My mom's sister Catherine, who just had a baby girl on March 2, 1956, had a childhood friend named Helen. Catherine and Helen were still very close. Helen knew of my mom's illness and imminent death and the new baby. Helen's brother Edward's wife Dorothy was infertile and they had tried to adopt once before. Helen asked Catherine if my father would consider giving the baby up for adoption. Catherine called my father and suggested it. My father talked to our parish priest for guidance. My father did make the decision to relinquish the baby for adoption.

Now Joan/Doris loves to tell the tale that a woman approached my father at my mom's wake in the funeral home and asked about the baby be adopted. "I know someone who will take your baby." She has told that tale all over the place. And usually that's all she says. But this time she goes on to continue: "She (the woman) procured the baby - me - for her older brother and his wife to adopt."

Joan/Doris has also always told the tale as that AFTER (remember that word - AFTER) - the woman puts the idea of adoption into my father's head, he goes to his parish priest for advice and Joan/Doris has the priest telling him "the baby needs two parents." But now, in this NEW re-telling of her tale, Joan/Doris has the priest AND the woman badgering my father at the wake. AND she has the priest talking to my father BEFORE the woman talks to my father.

This is how the new tale goes: She tells of the priest talking to my father (answering Mary if the priest who was accused of child abuse is the same priest who talked to my father at my mom's wake) Joan/Doris says "NO! Good question though. " She goes on to say how she believes the priest who talked to my father had 'good intentions' and she continues her tale thusly: "AND, a woman came up to my father at my mother's funeral minutes after the priest. She said "I know someone who will take your baby."

Okay - so who approached my father first - the woman or the priest? Depends on when Joan/Doris tells the tale. Apparently the sequence of events changes. Well, you know what that means? Yes, Joan/Doris is a LIAR.

Remember how I said Joan/Doris tells this tale of woe to garner sympathy? Well, let's go over the timeline of Joan/Doris' oh-so-pitiful first year of life.

She is prematurely born on January 7, 1956 to a terminally ill woman, who dies on March 28, 1956. When Doris is discharged from the hospital, (I'm not sure of the exact date) she is taken by my mom's brother and his wife Ann. On March 4, 1956, Doris is baptized in Sacred Heart Church. Her godparents are Richard and Ann. She returns home with them. My mom dies on March 28, 1956. When exactly my Aunt Catherine spoke to her friend Helen is unknown. When exactly Helen spoke to her brother Edward is unknown. When exactly my Aunt Catherine spoke to my father is unknown. What is known is that sometime AFTER my mom's funeral, (according to my uncle Richard, who had offered to adopt Doris) my father called him up and told him to get the baby ready in a nice dress, as he (my father) was coming to get her (presumbly he had a ride, as my dad never learned to drive - his choice). He told Richard that he was taking Doris to meet other members of the family. But - he apparently he actually took her to the Wheeler's (or Surrogate Court, or some other meeting place). Now, I remember Joan/Doris telling me that she lived with the Wheelers for six months on a "trial basis." According to the actual adoption papers, my father signed his consent to the adoption on October 24, 1956. The Wheeler's verified their decision by signature on December 5, 1956, and the adoption was finalized on January 15, 1957. So if my father signed his final consent in October, six months before October was April - which jives with my Uncle Richard’s account.

But all this BULLSHIT about the priest and the woman is MEANINGLESS anyway. The exact time my father made the decision to relinquish the baby to adoption is unknown. Does it matter if someone approached him at the funeral? Well, it does if only for respect - but for the final outcome? My father had from April 1956 to the time he made the final signature on papers on October 24, 1956 to re-consider his decision. He did not. The adoption was not finalized until January 15, 1957, giving my father an additional two and a half months to change his mind - he did not.

Joan/Doris simply can NOT get over the fact that she was adopted. Her whole time on this planet is fighting that. She HATES the fact she is adopted and will try out any excuse as to why she should not have been adopted, and will try out any ridiculous scenerio on how her adoption could have been avoided. What's the purpose? No matter how much time she spends on it, no matter how much she fights it - the simple thing of her life is - she was adopted. NOTHING she says or does will ever change that. She's been trying for more than 40 years - she has wasted her life on trying to change something that cannot be changed. No kind of idea she can put forth will change the past. For example, in her facebook answer to Mary about the family priest who counseled my father, she starts talking 'what ifs' and says she thinks the priest meant well, but offered no real tangible help, like child care while my father was at work. She says "I don't think there was any malice intended by the priest ... only misguided advice." She goes on to say that she gets angry that the priest did not say (she actually made a typo and left out the word 'not' - but we get her point) "How can I help you keep your family together? You know, food baskets, baby clothes, diapers, church volunteers? I just can't understand why that was not arranged."

Uh DUH - First - there was NO lack of baby supplies and clothes - until Doris was born, I was the youngest of three sisters. And a brother two years older than me. There were plenty of hand-me-down clothes. PLUS the fact that in early 1956 - there were other babies born in the family - Richard and Ann had my cousin Jimmy, my Uncle Henry and Aunt Bertha had Dennis, my Aunt Catherine had Gail. Siblings and siblings-in-law of my mom - so I'm sure there would have been plenty of diapers and other baby supplies. Food? oh for crying out loud! Joan/Doris makes it sound as my family was absolutely poverty stricken (she has said this in her libelous bullshit book) but that was not the case. My father worked as a draftsman in the street paving department for the city of Buffalo in Buffalo's city hall. Joan/Doris keeps forgetting that in the 1950's there were no daycare centers like we have now. There simply was no one to take care of her during the day while my father was at work. AND four other young children. -- Church volunteers. That's asking an awful lot from other church members - you're talking possibly 18 years of daytime babysitting for a family of 5 young kids.

But as I said above, Joan/Doris can't reconcile the fact that she was adopted. All these what ifs, all these maybes, all these judgments on my father, my stepmother (the woman he married a few months after my mom died, who needed a father for her two sons, but at the age of 36 did not want to take care of an infant), judging and condemning my aunt, her friend, a priest, other relatives, everyone in our neighborhood and church who didn't step up to the plate to save HER from being horribly adopted -- what's the fucking point?

Joan/Doris' tale of woe of her horrible adoption and the planting of the idea of adoption in my dad's head at the funeral of my mom - is nothing but Joan/Doris to get people to feel sorry for her. Even if and that's a big IF someone did approach him at a vulnerable time - he had ample time to change his mind. HE DID NOT. End of story. She was adopted, that's it.

AND of course, Joan/Doris tells her tale of woe with the lie about my mom's 'fictitious' high school diploma the very week of the anniversary of my mom's death. Why? Because she writes crap like this EVERY year around this time - because she knows I and my other sister Gert are reading her shit - she does it to hurt us. But fool that she is, she doesn't realize this does NOT hurt us - just because we write a rebuttal and point out Joan/Doris' lies and other bullshit, does not mean we are hurt - we are simply telling the truth about our mom, who is being continuously DISHONORED by this continuous bullshit that Joan/Doris spews out.