`

       It occurred to me that many people in my family had some very interesting things about them. I thought that I would put those down, and honor all those people who had a hand in raising me.   Growing up without a mother and many times without my father around, my “parents” were the various adult relatives in my family. This is my way of saying “thanks.”

Small Fry Forum – Stefan Sippel and Lena Miller

In the late 70′s, early 80′s our local newspaper, The Buffalo News ran a cute column. Reporters went out to local schools and interviewed kids on relevant news and human interest stories. My younger brother Steve was interviewed on July 1, 1979 and my cousin Lena on January 17, 1982. Their answers are precious.

.

Psychiatry debates whether the pain of loss is really depression

 The following article has much merit and a dash of warning. Personally I understand that grief is a very personal thing…there is no one size fits all. I have grieved over the years for different people and situations and for different time frames. One thing I’ve learned is that no matter how long you feel the pain of a particular loss, it is not a good thing to constantly, actively be living in the state of grief. In other words, at some point you have to let your grief go and get on with the act of living…the life you have.

 

 

That is one of the many things that my father taught me…get on with the act of living and let go of what you can’t change. If you are alive then live that life, for you don’t get another! To hide behind the idea that you are ‘grieving’ is to cop-out of taking responsibility for your life!

 

Psychiatry debates whether the pain of loss is really depression

February 16, 2012  By Melissa Healy, Los Angeles Times

 

The pain of losing a loved one can be a searing, gut-wrenching hurt and a long-lasting blow to a person’s mood, concentration and ability to function. But is grief the same as depression?

 

That’s a lively debate right now, as the psychiatric profession considers a key change in the forthcoming rewrite of its diagnostic “Bible”.  That proposed modification — one of many — would allow mental health providers to label the psychic pain of bereavement a mood disorder and act quickly to treat it, in some cases, with medication. With the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual’s fifth edition set for completion by the end of this year, the editors of the British journal The Lancet have come out in strong opposition to the new language, calling grief a natural and healthy response to loss, not a pathological state.

“Grief is not an illness. It is more usefully thought of as part of being human, and a normal response to the death of a loved one,” writes the editor of The Lancet. “Most people who experience the death of someone  they love do not need treatment by a psychiatrist or indeed by any doctor. For those who are grieving, doctors would do better to offer time, compassion, remembrance, and empathy, than pills.”

 

The change under consideration would expunge any reference to the passage of time since a loved one’s death before a diagnosis of depression could be considered. The current edition of the diagnostic manual states that if a patient’s low mood and energy, sleep difficulties and appetite changes persist for more than two months following bereavement, a diagnosis of depression might be considered. An earlier edition of the manual had established a year as the period during which mourning should not be confused with depression.

 

“Putting a time frame on grief is inappropriate,” The Lancet’s lead editorial states simply. And in a “Perspectives” essay also published Thursday in Lancet, Harvard University medical anthropologist Dr. Arthur Kleinman agrees, eloquently exploring what’s at stake.

 

“Is grief something we can or should no longer tolerate?” asks Kleinman, who describes his own grief after his wife of 46 years died last March from Alzheimer’s Disease. “Is this existential source of suffering like any dental or back pain unwanted and unneeded?”

 

Kleinman calls the current two-month time period allowed for grief a “shockingly short expectation” that no religion or society would support. To allow grief to be redefined as depression with no allowance at all for the passage of time not only spells “the loss of grief”: it risks redefining vast numbers of Americans who are taking their time to adjust to the loss of a loved one as sick, he writes. And it powerfully rewrites cultural values about how we understand and mark the loss of a fellow human being.

 

Proponents of the change have argued that it would allow the bereaved to seek help for their suffering. And they add that it would not define all who grieve as depressed. They argue there is often no difference, but for the recent death of a loved one, between the behaviors that define depression and those that define grief.

 

The Lancet’s editors note there is no evidence that antidepressant medications improve the moods of people who are healthy to begin with. Citing fellow critics of the proposed move, Kleinman suggests that it might have been inevitable once the financial interests of pharmaceutical manufacturers collided with psychiatry’s loose definitions of mental illness and the profession’s tendency to expand its patient base.

 

“Its ubiquity makes grief a potential profit centre for the business of psychiatry,” writes Kleinman.

everyone has a story…in three parts

 On this year and a day since my father died, I, Gert, his first born, has a story, in three parts, to share.

My father’s memory tree.

 The Hospice unit, where I volunteer, has an annual candle light memorial service. At these services the unit gives out, to families that have lost a member, that year, and to the volunteers, a tree sapling. There are about a hundred tree saplings that are donated by my county’s soil and water conservation agency, given out each year. My first ‘hospice memory tree’ I received was planted, in the fall of 2010, on the personal property of my partner/companion David, where we have planted many trees over the years.

 

My Dad died in January 2011. In March of 2011 a very dear friend, who was the same age as Dad, 86, died. I had known my friend for 25 years. My friend was under Hospice care. I volunteered to stay with him for what was his last five days. I was there for his last breath.

 

In the summer of 2011, I attended another Hospice candle light memorial service. As my friend’s name was mentioned, during the service, and as all the words spoken, by several persons, I was aware of my own personal ‘need’ for this service. As my long-time friend’s name was mentioned, in the long list of those that passed, under my Hospice unit, I silently spoke my father’s name and knew that the service was in his honor and for my benefit as well.

 

Afterwards I took 2 pine saplings for my friend’s family, who were not able to attend. I also took a maple sapling in my father’s name. David and I planted it in the fall of 2011. It is planted on David’s property, in the front lawn. David had met and knew my father for several years. He was honored to have a tree, in Dad’s memory, planted on his property. In the years to come, as it grows, we shall continue to recall and remember Dad in his memory tree.

 

Family is complicated.

 

Family is complicated. No one gets to choose to whom they are born. There are some philosophies that DO say a soul ‘chooses’ their parents, but leaving that aside for now. As for the ‘human’ condition that we know, most of us do not choose the parents and families we are born into or marry into. Then, of course the family you were born into may not be the family that you know, as family, such as in adoption and foster care. And how about those mixed families? His, hers, ours and/or the first family, second family and third family? Who came first, who’s last, and who matters most? Yes, family is complicated.

 

Family matters. It is part of your identity, physical, mental, emotionally, spiritually. Family matters…greatly, deeply. But, family disappoints and sometimes family betrays. People and family disappoint and hurt us. Family members can really piss us off because they, more than anyone else, know our weaknesses and know how to hurt us. Family members can hold us hostage to emotions…long into life and beyond. Even when there is no malice in another’s actions or words, a family member may and can hurt another. Good intentions? They hurt too. Playing favorites? Yep, that hurts. Ignoring part of one’s family in favor of others? That’s hurts too.

 

Life is messy. Families are messy. Family has lots and lots of drama. Some in families like to play on and on with various people games. One destructive game is the silent treatment…non-communicating. You know what you did to piss me off and if you don’t know I’m not going to tell you and you can stew and figure it out by yourself…kind of game. Another destructive game is telling you one thing (a promise) and then not following through with it…a broken promise fucking hurts! And the one-up-on-you, that’s the game where someone’s got what another didn’t get and they rub the other’s nose in it…kind of game. There are many variations of that one. And that hurts the most, I think, because it’s based on fear (of losing something), jealousy and ownership. Claiming ownership, of one member, and denying the rights of others to have their own claim, within a family, not only is cruel, to those ‘left out’, but also makes a mockery of whatever kind of ‘family’ is being held on to by those who practice ‘ownership’. Other’s do see behind the smoke screen and wonder why and where are the others. Yep, life is messy, but Karma has a way of balancing some of these things out.

 

Everyone has a story and not all stories are pretty.

 

Purging is good for the soul…it releases the unwanted, unneeded garbage/toxins and sorrow…it allows you to move on and remember the good times. Emotions will always be with us but emotions become less raw as time goes on. Purging of ‘stuff’ is good for the body and soul. So is purging of people, people that do us no good, give us no honor and give us no respect. Purging is a means of ridding one’s self from toxins.

 

Dad, today as I write this, it’s a year and a day since you died, long enough now for emotions to subside, sort of. I have far too memories to forget you, sometimes I liked you, sometimes I didn’t. But I always loved, honored and respected you.

 

Each of your children had a different relationship with you. I can only speak for and about my own emotions. I’ve wanted to write some thoughts, at this year’s mark, since you died. There’s more I could write but I need to let it all rest. You are dead, like Mom is dead. Someday I will die. I can’t spend the rest of my life bemoaning.

 

On the first year anniversary of Dad’s death there are still lies…

In recent months Joan has spoken yet more falsehoods. As always we make them public and correct them. On January 4, 2012 I posted the following

Joan Wheeler is lying again about Dad’s care and when he died!

and then followed it up with the reposting here…as we daughters of Leonard and Geneieve have always said…beware of Joan Wheeler for she is a liar and she will not stop lying!

This is a reposting from Ruth’s blog. I did not have my blog until July 2011.

Joan Wheeler’s statements about my father, are false! February 14, 2011

 Having just recently died on January 11, 2011 my father’s life needs to be reclaimed and remembered for what it was, an honorable life.

Joan Wheeler’s versions of my father’s life, that she needed to create, to substantiate her inner reality and make it into her ‘truth’ which she published, is not a truthful portrayal of my father. Joan’s truth is NOT the truth. Joan Wheeler has gone to great lengths to present a ‘life’ history of my father, her birth father, and this life history is not based on any facts of his life but presented solely for the ‘convenience’ of Joan’s ‘story-telling’. Joan’s story has an agenda to it, and as such, her presentations of key individuals are geared for that agenda.

Joan’s book is long, way too long and because of its length, as well as being disjointed and perverse, can greatly confuse the average reader. It is not an easy task to show where the agenda is, how it is perverse and how the lies are incorporated because the author, Joan Wheeler, is a manipulator. She is counting on the average reader to be so overwhelmed with her bullshit that they won’t see the inconsistencies and the lack of proper protocol in her so called professional social work assessments. She is able to blind a reader with her bullshit, but anyone who really knows her and the people she presents are quite capable of seeing past the bullshit.

So I hope that I am able to point these inconsistencies out without confusing the reader anymore than necessary. I hope that the reader of my assessment of Joan Wheeler’s work understands that I have indeed read, deeply, this entire book of lies. I could write a book on this disgusting book of lies called Forbidden Family. In my study of the lies of Joan’s statements, as they relate to the falsehoods about my father, I have pointed out in several other posts, that may or may not have gotten on the blog yet, many inaccuracies but here I am going to address only certain issues within Chapter 38, pgs 482-566.

We must remember that Joan Wheeler says she is a social worker and that this chapter, called ‘A Social Work Assessment’, is her attempt to show that she can put together a ‘social work assessment’, sort of like doing a research paper. In my mind she failed! It is a piece of junk! According to Joan, the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’, that is Joan’s adoption, are very very important to Joan’s agenda! That is the whole purpose for Joan’s lies…for if she can present her bullshit and pass it off as the truth, than she has her research paper and her agenda. But, as her bullshit is exposed, for the lies that they are, Joan’s story is worthless! And she is worthless!

Joan’s assessment is limited and self-serving because it is only presented as proof for her agenda. Joan offers for the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’, her self, natural mother, natural father, stepmother (who btw has absolutely NOTHING to do with Joan’s adoption and is technically NOT Joan’s stepmother but is only Joan’s natural father’s currently wife/widow), adoptive father and adoptive mother. I repeat: Joan’s own title here contains these words ‘main people in my adoption’.

My father’s current wife/widow had absolutely NOTHING to do with Joan’s adoption. And by omission, Joan does NOT have any histories of her siblings, who were most definitely and most importantly part of the family dynamics related to her separation and adoption out of our family. One of the main reasons (the agenda) that Joan includes MY stepmother is because it is part of Joan’s agenda…that my father had more economic advantages than her adoptive parent (mother), later in life, which has nothing to do with the premise of this assessment in the first place, that being that of the ‘main people in my adoption’. You cannot shift the basis of an assessment at whim!

The assessment is either about the adoption or the economic situations in later years not both simultaneously. Joan’s assessment, also as part of her agenda, attempts to reconcile, in her mind, the differences, that prevented an ‘open adoption’ and at the same time the similarities that could have made possible that ‘open adoption’. The problem is that Joan has not presented the assessments in any coherent manner and does not take into account the facts that two separate family backgrounds were NOT similar in the first place and in the second place any attempt to make them similar makes the ‘assessment’ null and voided!

 Another problem with this assessment is that it is full of extensive use of Joan’s own editorial comments. A social work assessment, by nature is to be unbiased; it is to present facts free of and from any personal editorial comment. Therefore this whole assessment is null and voided! She failed! This work is junk!

But to make sure of its importance, Joan instructs the reader, on pg 482, that ‘this assessment is complicated to read, but necessary to understand.’ Why is that statement necessary, because, Joan is TELLING the readers, don’t worry, just read it and take my word for it all, it is most important…in other words…just listen to my bullshit and don’t worry that I’m just a talking head without a brain! This whole business of her assessment CAN NOT be understood because it is totally biased for one purpose only…to prove that Joan is CORRECT, when in fact she is totally INCORRENT. This assessment is not the work of a social worker presenting facts. Instead it is a self-serving indictment AGAINST all who ALLOWED her to be adopted. ***

 Joan’s has greatly dishonored my father by not telling the truth of his life. She not only lies about his life but also is very ‘selective’ in what aspects of his life are important to her agenda. Examples of how Joan’s truth is not the truth, and how she has an agenda to promote, is in her constant telling the reader, in the book and elsewhere, that her adoptive mother and her natural father are ‘dying’ or ‘had a turn for the worst’ or had this or that illness and hospitalization. Actually, the truth is that Joan has a great deal of illnesses herself, and has a great fear of death. She has a great sense for the melodrama; her constant refrain is that some parent is on their deathbed.

On pg 478, in one of her rants against the government she says that ‘the government better hurry up, my father is dying.’ The book was not published until November of 2009 so at the time that she writes this statement ‘father is dying’, he wasn’t in any immediate state of dying. He was dying then, as we all are, one day at a time. But Joan’s need for the melodrama makes it sound as if death was imminent. And it continues on…pg 553 with a date of 2008 in the text, Joan tells us, that she told a nurse, who was wheeling her adoptive mother back into her room, that ‘my father was dying, too’!

 And Joan’s gives us the very reasons why she speaks with such melodrama, because it results in her gaining some kind of sympathy, ‘the nurse compassionately called out, both parents at once!’ Joan has to tell the readers that she didn’t fully explain the situation to the nurse, that those ‘both parents’ were not married to each other nor that she ‘had a third parent who was aging, too’…namely the wife of the natural father. This is how Joan manipulates people…via clever use of words and phrases.

Again, on pg 556, with a date of April 2009, she states, ‘both of my parents were dying’ and again on pg 560, ‘both of my remaining parents are near death’ and even greater melodramatics ‘my natural father will die believing I rejected him’. And as usual, Joan does not give the whole story and omits her own misdeeds and wrongful words. No, long before Dad actually died, January 2011, he knew that Joan was a mentally disturbed person who wrote a book of lies and he finally had reached his limit with her and he rejected her. ***

Through out the ages, individual persons make memorable lives for themselves, their families and for future generations to remember. The only thing that remains after death is your refrain (reputation). My father, like so many of his generation, was a ‘self-made’ man. This quality is certainly not limited to my father or his generation, but I am speaking here of my father. My father’s obituary, which he wrote himself, ought to have ‘some’ elements of truth in it, after all who would know about a person’s life but the person himself! So we shall start with some basics.

 Some of the italics are directly from the obituary. My father was an Army veteran of World War II. In the army he was a technician fourth grade within a Fighter Squadron, stateside from 1943 to 1946. I worked as a civilian employee at a Veterans Administration Hospital and at an US Army base for over 22 years and know just a little about what troops go through during and after service. My father’s military service is no small thing; it means that he had ‘training’ and was ‘supporting’ the troops before, during and after their training and fighting, during a major world war! But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions my father’s military history, in this assessment or anywhere else in the book!

My father earned a GED and studied drafting for a year in technical school. I am not aware of what conditions existed in my father’s life that prevented him from finishing high school or when he received a GED but ‘earned a GED’ implies that ‘work’ was done and indeed had to be done to get a General Education Degree. My father married in 1946 and started a family in 1947 and he worked to support the growing family. In 1952/53, alone, my father was raising a family, working full time in a bike repair store and going to technical school part time to learn drafting…that is no easy task. But Joan NEVER mentions any of this in the book!

My father worked as a junior engineer for Buffalo’s Department of Public Works from 1953 to 1988, that’s 35 years! And of course, he had a good retirement. He earned it! My father was a civil servant; he worked within a major city department. His job depended on the knowledge and skills that he had to perform a certain job. There were years where my father worked two jobs to support his family! In the course of my working life I too was a civil servant within the federal government and know a little of how demanding it is to obtain and keep a job for that long. I too have a good retirement. I earned it too! Many people earn good retirements and my father deserved his pension. But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions this!

Joan only tells about her own lack of employment and her own low-income status. She too could have had a long-term employment with a good retirement, if only she ever went to work in the first place!

My father had many interests including painting, playing chess and reading. My father taught my brother and I the game of chess. Who taught my father? He taught himself as he taught himself how to paint! Whenever I visited him we played. I played 5 games of chess with my Dad in 2009 and again in 2010 and he never allowed me to win; I had to win a game by skill!

I know something about painting as I paint myself and it is not an easy thing to accomplish, it takes patience to read and study techniques and time to master the techniques. One of my father’s paintings, a replica of a Greek icon of Jesus, is in residence at the Greek Orthodox Church in Buffalo N. Y. Reading, I have many memories, since I was little, of seeing my father reading, late at night. He had a large library and we shared the thrills of reading many of the same authors! Some of the last gifts I received from him were two of his great books on painting and a complete set of Sherlock Holmes, leather bound! In the last two years of his life I shipped many books to him that he did not have and he enjoyed reading them all!

All of my siblings, not Joan for she was not raised as a sibling and was not privy to what was part of everyday life with my father, are avid readers. It is well known that when one reads and reads and reads, one becomes quite well rounded in all areas of life, for reading begets worldliness! But, it matters not what interests my father had per se. Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions anything about them!

My father also did some world traveling in his retirement; particularly France, Greece and England, and he studied languages. My father was a worldly man. He studied and involved himself in other cultures. He was a self-styled and self-made man. But Joan Wheeler NEVER mentions this! She probably is not a wide reader for her book shows the lack of well roundedness and worldliness!

My father was very active in his church. Joan doesn’t even know that Dad was Greek Orthodox! She maintains that he was Roman Catholic, which she insults at every opportunity. Joan never gets anything correct. On pg 294 she states that she confided, about her marriage problems, to her father, stepmother and adoptive mother and said that all three were Roman Catholic! She also states that the advice that all three gave her were based on ‘Jesus would help’ which she quickly pointed out, to the readers, that ‘they ignored that I wasn’t a Christian.’ The point being, that no matter what anyone said to Joan, if she disagreed, she would not tell you pointedly but instead kept it to herself as a another reason why everyone is out to get her.

 Dad had left the Roman Church in the late 70s when the Roman church would not recognize his marriage to a ‘divorced’ woman, his wife. She was always of the Greek Orthodox tradition and Dad turned to the Greek Church. That is the church that both of them were very active in. As I’ve pointed out here, Joan’s truth is just NOT the truth. ***

 Now let’s get to her assessment and it’s falsehoods and compare them with the truth. Italics here indicate quotes from the book pages 487 – 495. While I am not qualified to speak about Joan’s adoptive parents as to any accuracy in the assessments, it does seem to me that there is a certain amount of selective bias, by Joan, in what she presents and how she presents it. She must be true to her agenda and if you don’t understand that you will not understand the assessment. Each person has different segments that she assigns, at her whim.

This assessment does not follow proper scientific procedures. Just taking two aspects of this assessment here, Level of Education and Economic Class, she tells us… For herself: Level of Education: Two Bachelor Degrees: Art, and Social Work. She has nothing about what and how many languages for herself but has it for the others. What no high school education? Degrees without the work history to go with them are meaningless. This is presented to show that she is ‘educated’ and therefore has the authority to present this bullshit. Also, what is the purpose of telling us her current educational background or anything else about herself? It has nothing to do with her adoption! This is just a way to keep her agenda going…to show the world that adoption messed up her life! I would ask…who paid for that education that she has? But of course, it was the adoptive parents!

Economic Class: Born into poverty, raised in working class, when married took care of children while husband worked low pay jobs or was unemployed, divorce transferred back to poverty, trapped in low income temporary jobs, chronic illness in mid-life, disable, limited low income. This is purely a self-serving assessment! She was NOT born into poverty, her father had a job, and her adoptive father had a job! Raised in working class is neither special nor unusual; it is here purely to establish her own personal assessment.

What does her ‘life’ conditions have to do with her adoption? Nothing! She is presenting an agenda…she wants the world to know about her horrible life conditions. This assessment is supposed to be about the ‘psycho-social-economic histories of main people in my adoption’ NOT the adoptee! What Joan has written here and everything else on this segment of her assessment DOES NOT belong here, for Joan cannot assess herself as one of the ‘main people in my adoption’. Again, this only proves the inconsistencies and wrong-headedness that she has with all persons she is ‘assessing’ and the hidden reasons (agenda) behind it. I will be addressing this further as we go here but for now it is very interesting to note that Joan has painted a picture of herself that is self-limiting with the purpose of proving that adoption DID THIS to her, the adoptee. She has gotten ahead of herself here in an assessment by showing her agenda…this is another proof of the junk science of this ‘social work assessment’.

For my mother: Level of Education: High school; English only language Economic Class: Poor, working class, stay at home mother dependent on husband 1950s. Nothing unusual here except the insistence of Joan to portray parents as ‘poor’, as in inferior to some ‘other’ standard, known only to Joan. Joan really has no conception of what constitutes ‘poor’.

My mother’s family was NOT poor. There were long-held jobs within the railroad industry. I well remember large over-flowing dinner tables of food and people! Nothing that I have heard or seen, via pictures, show that my mother’s family was ‘poor’. During the time and culture that my parents lived, it was the ‘norm’, not the exception, for a wife and mother to stay at home raising the children. ‘Dependent on husband’ is another agenda phrase of Joan’s and has nothing to do with the true condition of my parents’ home life or circumstances.

For my father: Level of Education: High school, night school, English primary language She doesn’t say, in this assessment, what he went to night school for. It was for drafting. I would think it important to show the ‘upward mobility’ factor, even if that phrase was not in vogue at the time. If there is a reason to have language as a factor in this assessment it escapes me.

Economic Class: Poor, advanced to working class 1950s advanced to middle-middle class in 1970s, his present wife worked, two-income household. Again, this ‘assessment’ is tainted by the agenda of Joan Wheeler, who insists that her father was ‘poor’. As I stated above for my mother, my father’s family was NOT poor. My father’s father worked on the railroad, his mother was a cleaning lady (Ruth’s note, she also worked at Dixie’s Hats, designing hats) and there was an uncle who lived with his parents who contributed to the income. My siblings and I lived with my father’s parents when we were young or were taken care of by them, when my mother was ill. I remember many large over-flowing dinner tables of food and people! Nothing that I have heard or seen, via pictures, show that my father’s family was ‘poor’.

My father’s own status, after the war, was again NOT poor! Anything related to his economic class after 1956 is not and should not be a factor in this or any other assessment, for after 1956, he was no longer Joan’s father and his life circumstances are irrelevant! My father’s remarriages, after the death of my mother, which was the reason why Joan, as an infant, was placed out of the family via adoption, have absolutely nothing to do with Joan’s adoption.

The mentions of my father’s marriages are only presented to further Joan’s agenda…one, that her natural father had more resources in later life than her adoptive mother and two, that Joan’s siblings had various forms of ‘trauma’ that Joan believes supports her agenda that adoption is harmful. If you do not understand Joan’s agenda you shall never understand her assessments.

I am NOT presenting my father’s wives here because they have nothing to do with Joan’s adoption and should never have been mentioned in the first place in the book. I shall, in future posts, talk about what was said about these people by Joan and why they never should have been mentioned.

For adoptive father: Level of Education: Less than 8th grade, night school later in life So here we again see the mention of ‘night school’ but nothing about what was taken. As stated before I know nothing about the Wheelers but I do know, from pg 465, that this man worked for Dunlop Tires as an electrician.

Economic Class: Poor, working class 1940s-1980. Two-income household 1940s to 1956, one-income household after 1956 So for someone with only an 8th grade education and night school he had obviously learned a trade to support his family, therefore he was NOT poor! The inclusion of this statement, ‘Two-income household 1940s to 1956, one-income household after 1956’ is totally inappropriate for this assessment! It has no bearing on Joan’s adoption, but is only here to further Joan’s agenda…to prove that the adoptive family’s income went down when they adopted, therefore putting them in a lower income bracket from the natural family.

For adoptive mother: Level of Education: High school, Polish spoken at the orphanage, English taught but not spoken. Learned to speak English after age 16 when orphanage life ended and she moved back home with her father. This is a good point to look at the language ‘assessment’ by itself: self…no language mentioned natural mother…English only natural father…English primary language adoptive father…no language mentioned adoptive mother… contains an extensive explanation…Polish spoken at the orphanage, English taught but not spoken. Learned to speak English after age 16 when orphanage life ended and she moved back home with her father. Why is the parameter of ‘English’ not followed for all and why the variations of the parameter? Why the need for an extensive explanation when something like, perhaps, Polish primary language English secondary, would be more in keeping with the set parameters. Does Joan have a prejudice against Polish as a language and an ethnic group? She certainly says so in many places in the book! What is the purpose behind all this, what is the agenda, what is Joan Wheeler attempting to prove, assign and justify? Could it be some hidden prejudice against her adoptive mother? I believe that is the case, here and elsewhere. Joan Wheeler feels that it is her adoptive mother who is the central figure in all that has happened to her via her adoption. But that is only my opinion.

Returning to the adoptive mother’s ‘assessment’. Economic Class: Poor, advanced to working class 1940’s. As a condition to become an adoptive mother, she quit her full-time job as a commercial seamstress, became financially dependent upon her husband. One-income household beginning in 1956, reduced to fixed low income in elder years, 1982-2000s. (Ruth’s note – Joan fails to note that her adoptive parents lived in the inner city at the time of her adoption. In 1957, when the adoption was finalized, they had bought their own house in a northern suburb of Buffalo, and by the 1970′s owned 2 more properties for rental income.)

Ah…see the AGENDA! Joan wrote this assessment in 2009 just before publication of the book and after her attempts to get natural father to give her money to publish the book, fix her car and other things. Joan tells, all in the book and I shall get to it all, about how she sees that the natural father has more than the adoptive mother.

Joan describes, in painful details, how the adoptive mother tells Joan that the natural father MUST give her money for book, car, food, etc. On pg 554/555 we read a rant by the adoptive mother about how she and her husband ‘did all the work…paid for the upkeep of his child…he gave you up…we took care of you…my advanced age…fixed income…’ And it goes on and on in greater delusions. But actually the great agenda, that of the wide disparity of economic security between adoptive mother/daughter and the natural father began many many years before 2009.

We see the beginnings come out in 1992 as Joan tells everyone, in the book, what (supposedly) her adoptive mother told her, pg 299/300, ‘…(Gert) didn’t apologize for calling you repeatedly and yelling at you before and after Dad died in 1982.’ That is a reference to the one letter that I wrote to Dorothy Wheeler telling her about the misdeeds that her daughter Joan did to my minor children and my family. I never knew that her adoptive father was ill and died for I had problems to fix after all the trouble that Joan did to my family. But these two women began to harbor ill towards the natural family and in particular my father once the adoptive father died.

Getting back to what Dorothy, the adoptive mother said to daughter Joan, in 1992…‘that’s what’s wrong with your sisters…they didn’t have a mother and look how they turned out…’ and ‘he lived without you for 18 years…look at the heartache we’ve gone through these past 18 years, damn it…what has he ever done for you…you that father of yours…’

 Of course there’s much more of that kind of shit! What major fact that is missing here in the minds of Joan and her adoptive mother is this fact of adoption; when someone adopts they take all responsibility for the one they are adopting. It is NOT something that changes later in life. The adoptive parents were responsible, from the moment they adopted, and they have no right to impose themselves on to the natural parent later in life.

My father knew what his responsibilities were and he expected others, including the adoptive parent(s) to know theirs. My father was not responsible to pay for anything for Joan, as he was not responsible to pay for anything for myself or my other siblings when we became adults. A condition at the time of adoption, where someone, the mother, had to quit her job to take full care of the infant was the same condition that the nature father was forced to give up said infant…there was no one in his family that was able to take full care of the infant! This is a point that Joan does not want to accept…she was adopted out because there was no ‘full time care-giver’ and when her adoptive parents adopted her, the mother HAD to quit work to become the ‘full time care-giver’, period, end of story, fact of life.

I would have to state that this woman who became Joan’s adoptive mother, during her marriage, was NOT poor, her husband was an electrician at a major company and had a good salary and retirement. She was financially dependent on the husband in the same ways that my mother was to her husband as is the custom in our culture when SOMEONE has to stay with the children! And why would anyone adopt an infant and then leave that infant in someone else’s care!

My second husband and I adopted my own birth son, when he was 16. There was no need for a full-time caregiver and therefore I did not have to quit my job. But, I also no longer received ‘child-support’ from the natural father and my second husband TOOK FULL RESPONSIBILITY for the child he adopted! That is what happens economically with adoption. The adoptive mother’s, Dorothy, income was reduced just as the millions of elders are! It is not anything unusual. When her husband died, in 1982, she had a pension from her husband’s pension, that’s the way it is done! If she didn’t work whose fault is that? Certainly not my father’s. If Dorothy didn’t like the outcome of the decisions that she and her husband made in 1956/57 that’s too bad! That is the way of life, live with the consequences of your actions and decisions.

(Ruth’s note – and this goes for Joan herself, in the year 2011 – she never wanted to work – now that’s she too old to start a career, NOW she sees her mistakes – she IS poor, and forces her daughter to work 2 jobs to support them – I was in communication with her ex-husband last month and he corroborates this – he thinks it is “disgusting.”)

My father’s economic circumstances were never Dorothy Wheeler and Joan’s business, after 1956/57. His advancements and income and subsequent marriages and his pension have nothing to do with them and the decisions that were made in 1956/57.

I am an elder living on a fixed income of retirement and social security. I do not get any increases in my income! I and I alone were responsible to guarantee that I would have an income in my elder years. I was married twice but never long enough to gain any social security from them. I always had to depend on my self, alone. This is an example for others to learn and plan for your own retirement, early!

This assessment is junk science for another reason…because it changes its focus in the middle and becomes a mockery of itself! First Joan attempts to portray the natural father/family as poor and then in the middle the focus moves to the lower income status of adoptee herself and finally the focus goes to the NEED for the adoptive mother/daughter to have support from the natural father!

(Ruth’s note – see how Joan contradicts herself.) Joan’s agenda actually has several parts to it and the educational and economic segments became convoluted over time and, having to be altered, as the adoptive mother aged and income became a huge issue. Joan did some massive rewrites and additions to the manuscript to fit in her ever changing agenda; chapter 38 was wholly written between April and July 2009, as stated in the book pg 482.

And through out chapter 38 the reader learns more and more about Joan’s agenda, which isn’t adoption reform. Joan is so unconscious as she tells the entire world just how desperate she had become. I have already started writing about this chapter in another post. It will take several posts to complete all of the various pieces of mentally disturbed aspects of the agenda.

Joan Wheeler had the audacity to place, on the front page of ‘Part1’ of this book of lies two of the Ten Commandments. She herself insists throughout the book that she is NOT Christian. Yet, she feels that she can use Christian theology when it suits her purpose! Hypocrite! She ought to be ashamed!

The two she uses are: Honor your father and your mother and Thou shalt not bear false witness. So, Joan, how did it work out for you and your agenda! What have you gained? Disownment and disinheritance! Was it worth it?

Recovery – Experience the Tears

 I am a Hospice volunteer. Recently, I have had my own grief counseling session with a Hospice grief counselor, to help me with  my own and my sisters’ grieving process. During that session, my tear dam broke!

 

The following is written by a Hospice counselor and was sent to my by Ruth. In remembering and missing our Dad this piece has helped me.

 

Recovery – Experience the Tears

 

by Judy Tatelbaum

published in Meditation Magazine, Fall 1990

 

 “What is extraordinary about us is that we each have the capacity to rise like the phoenix out of our ashes, to create ourselves newly, to begin again. We can transform ourselves and our lives, regardless of what we have endured before now. Maybe the true purpose of suffering is that out of our pain we will rise, expand, grow and achieve.” – From “You Don’t Have to Suffer”

 

 Living in a death and grief-denying culture, it is sometimes hard to accept loss and death as natural parts of life. The truth is that in every full life one will experience loss, disappointment, hurt and failure. Grief is a natural response to be managed. We do have a choice as to how much and how long we suffer.

 

 It is natural to feel sad and angry, regretful and bereft. Not only over losses, but over many of life’s changes; changes in lifestyle, employment, home, health and heart. We need to accept that these mixed and intense feelings are healthy and that we can recover. Initially we may be shocked or overwhelmed. Still, we can move through our experience a step at a time, allowing and expressing our feelings, accepting what has occured, and eventually healing and becoming richer for having lived through powerful experiences.

 

 In countering the stoicism in the world, my motto is: Never miss an opportunity to cry. crying is the best way we have to release our distress. Having done so we must be as willing to be engaged in living even though life may have pain, imperfection and be missing something or someone that matters very much.

 

 Perhaps few of us were ever told that we need to go ahead and experience the pain in our hurts, and then to let it go. Yet this is the secret of recovery from the most painful of life’s offerings. Each of us is capable of learning this although we may doubt it. We humans have an awesome capacity for recovery.

 

 The ideal training for us as children would be the first time we hurt ourselves, or failed, or someone yelled at us, or we experienced a loss, that our parents sat down with us and say, “Sometimes life hurts. What you need to do is cry, get angry, feel your pain. Feeling and expressing feelings is healthy. Then let them go. Forgive and forget and go back out and play.” With simply this, how much better prepared we’d be the next time hurt or disappointment came around. How much more flexible we’d be in our dealings with pain. We wouldn’t be as shocked and resistant to experiences.

 

 Children have amazing resilience but we sometimes fear having them tested. They can be taught to feel their own feelings, to distinguish between sadness, disappointment, rage and regret. By giving them an opportunity to learn about what they experience, they can recover and go on to adulthood far better prepared.

 

 I could accept the deaths of animals and ailing grandparents but nothing prepared me for my vitally young brother’s death in a car accident at the age of twenty. I was seventeen. In those days there was more denial of death and grieving than today. I didn’t have the opportunity to allow and accept the varied feelings this loss provoked in me. It took fourteen years to finally be complete, and only after I admitted I was angry at him for dying. Fourteen years of grieving is not healthy. My work today is to help free people to feel all of it – the anger, the abandonment, sorrow, loneliness, disappointment, regret and guilt – and to recover.

 

 One common misconception in our culture is that of equating how much we loved someone with how we can grieve over their departure. We sometimes use our grief as a statement of love even though love never really dies and need not be replaced with grief. A more powerful testimonial is to heat, recover and live a full, satisfying life. If we need to we may create memorials out of work and service that make a difference in the world. Most of us would not want our loved ones to cease living because of our own death.

 

 Personal beliefs have everything to do with recovery. Often we say negative things like “I’ll never get over this” and “Life will never never be the same.” These statements may become self-fulfilling prophecies. If we can say, “I can recover” and “I will make it through this,” we can fulfill that as well. Our words have tremendous impact. Where we may not know just how to overcome pain, our commitment to do so will teach us how. Positive affirmations can help. They may sound far from the truth, yet affirmations are often the first step in mastering the necessary courage.

 

 Another aspect to consider is the view we have of our personal experience. When painful events occur we may wonder, “Why has this happened to me?” This can be a trick question leading us into self-judgment, self-doubt, invalidation and despair, adding to our pain. I’ve found the only satisfying answer to “Why?” is “Because.” Philosophically, it helps me to think of each of us as being on our own path with our own set of tests, lessons and experiences from which to grow and develop. We can not, then, compare our paths. However, we could realistically choose to view upsetting events as challenges and opportunities rather than predicaments and punishments.

 

 The steps toward recovery are: Allow the experience. Express the feelings. Do not stiffly try to brave or deny the experience.  Having fully allowed one’s feelings and thoughts, make positive statements from a posiiton of inner calmness – “I can recover.” Then be willing to go on with your life, willing to create a wonderful future, even though we have suffered.

 

 Lastly we will probably need, in order to accomplish the above, to forgive ourselves and others. From my years of doing grief work with people, it is clear that we become stuck or immobilized by our unwillingness to forgive what we or someone did or didn’t do. Often we find hardest to forgive the fact that we didn’t express our love. Our willingness to forgive, to find ways of expressing our love to everyone who occupies our life, and to allow for the ever evident imperfections in others as well as in ourselves heals us.

 

 Spiritual beliefs are a strong part of recovery. I’ve come to think of my departed loved ones as long-distance relationships. After my brother died I had many dreams in which he came to me saying he lived where there were no phones or addresses. Years later in a meditation workshop I sensed the continuum of life after death. This belief has helped me confront and accept many losses since.

 

 My knowingness about souls living on after death has come to me particularly in meditation. Quieting and freeing myself to be peaceful, I invariably get a sense that there is more than solid appearances. I also often use the time before sleep to search for answers that may not be available to me in everyday life. Before I meditate I often write questions regarding my life or about someone who has passed on, such as mother, father or friends. Sometimes I ask for help and guidance. If and when I receive the communications I request, I write them down so as to my experience concrete.

 

 It may be difficult to become quiet and meditate when very upset or stressed. Guided meditation tapes are particularly useful then. Also useful is listening to classical music, which for some may be easier to accept than words.

 

 Most important is knowing that we can face and recover from anything. Out of tragedies and ordeals we can heal and even transform ourselves.

 

A Gift of Love . . . to Yourself

by David Simon

 

Think of someone you love with every cell in your body. It might be your child, a parent who always encouraged you, or your spouse. Or maybe your beloved pet or a life-long friend. If you can feel or envision this expansive state of lovingness, you will recognize that it is possible to care for someone so much that your only desire is for that person or being to be happy. Now consider how you would feel if you could embrace this level of love for yourself.

 

If you loved yourself as much as a mother loves her children, what choices would you make?  You might imagine that, like a devoted mother, you’d want your kids to take good care of themselves. You’d hope that they would eat healthy foods, get enough rest, and avoid self-destructive behavior. You would encourage them to associate with intelligent, creative, and compassionate people. You would encourage them to find their passion in life and develop skills that would allow them to create material abundance while doing those things they enjoy the most. You would want them to have a life of happiness, health, love, and freedom.These are experiences that we all would like, and my hope is that if you aren’t already treating yourself as the magnificent, lovable being that you are, you will begin today. You can start by asking yourself how you are currently nurturing your body, heart, and mind. 

Here are some questions for reflection:

Body

• Am I nourishing my body with healthy food?

• Am I generally getting plenty of restful sleep or do I need to make this more of a priority?
• Do I take time each day to quiet my mind in meditation or another mindfulness practice?
• Am I giving my body the opportunity to move consciously through activities that enhance my flexibility, strength, and endurance (such as yoga, walking, hiking, sports, etc.)?
• Am I taking advantage of the healing power of the senses by surrounding myself with nurturing sights, sounds, tastes, touch, and smells?
• Do I need to let go of any non-nurturing habits or addictions, such as overeating, smoking, or overspending?

Heart

• Is there anything I’m holding onto from the past that is causing me pain in the present? If the answer is yes, am I taking steps to release emotional toxicity and heal my heart?

• Am I able to maintain healthy boundaries and honor my own needs?

• Do I practice conscious communication with the people in my life?

• Am I part of a loving community of like-minded individuals who share core beliefs and intentions.
• Do I have a light-hearted approach to life? Am I able to be responsible yet not take myself too seriously . . . allowing me to engage with others from a more expanded sense of self?

 Mind

• Each day, do I set my intentions with the mind-set that either my desires will be fulfilled or I will learn something of value?

• Am I open to seeing the world from new perspectives, even those that seem in opposition to my usual point of view?

• Am I continuing to learn new things that expand my mind and increase my enthusiasm for life?

• Am I cultivating an internal dialogue that supports unlimited possibilities for myself, my loved ones, and the world?

As you read these questions, notice if any of them resonate with you as something you want to shift in your life. Then choose just one area to begin with and write down the smallest possible step you can take to begin to give more to your body, heart, or mind. In reality, they are inextricably connected, so the benefits of nurturing one aspect will ripple out into all areas of your life – and beyond. Have fun and see what you can create!

Remembering my Dad, Leonard Sippel

Here are a couple of letters I wrote, which speak for themselves,  just after putting my Dad to rest.

Jan 20, 2011

Dear Ginette, Mariel and Joselyn and Stevie,

I want to express to each of you that I know how very much each one of you and Dad meant to each other.

From the very first I knew that Dad loved Ginette and who wouldn’t! You know, he asked me about my feelings about him remarrying and I told him he must, he must be happy and I knew he was happy with Ginette. Ginette, you changed his life, you gave him the love and contentment and family that had been taken from him.

Even with my own life and family, that kept we away and separate from each of you, I knew and saw that Dad loved, wanted and needed each of you as you needed him. Sure there were moments of jealousy but that was so small a matter because mostly what I felt, about the life Dad had with Ginette and with Mariel, Joselyn and Stevie was the sense that in you Ginette was something of my mother. Some long forgotten deep memories of how my Dad was with my Mom, how my Mom took care of us kids and my Dad. And suddenly there was that same love and happiness again with Ginette and in Dad! So I was very happy to know that Dad was going to have happiness in his life again and I know that he did with all of you. Thank you!

Between 1986 and 1988 I was 39/41 years old and was having major life changes with several crisis’s all at once; my children were gone from home, marriage fell apart, job and economic difficulties, bad decisions made and I had lots of emotional stuff. That’s when I moved toWatertownto start a new life without kids and talked with Dad, a lot. He came toWatertown for a visit and I was able to come to terms with my life, with him and with all of that other ‘stuff’ I had. I’ve been okay with Dad ever since. Some people didn’t, wouldn’t, couldn’t. I’m only talking about myself.

I’m a loner, physically and emotionally, by nature and never really did hang out much with other people, even with my own children, even within an intimate partnership. As much as I enjoy being with David I don’t want to live with him or want be married again. That is why I haven’t been around, not because I didn’t love Dad or each of you…it’s my nature to live my life more or less alone.

I’m very much aware of and happy about the closeness that Dad had with Butch and how deeply Butch touched us. We all miss him. Butch was, to and for Dad, that bridge that connected the families. We all must remember Butch for being that wonderful bridge.

There’s a line in the Muppets’ Christmas Carol movie and I don’t know if he comes from Jim Henderson or Charles Dickens, but it says, ‘life is a series of meetings and partings’.  That’s pretty much true, we meet and we part, but the memories are always there and as long as we remember Dad, he will always be around.

I want each of you to remember Dad and be happy that he was in your lives.

I’ve made a copy of this for each of you.

Love, Gert

To my children, Bob and Karen,  Jan 27, 2011

About Grandpa’s last days and his funeral. These are things I thought you ought to know.

Grandpa had all his affairs in order, as I do, for these things are important. Grandpa had a pre-paid funeral arrangement. He wrote his own obituary. He had everything the way he wanted it. Joselyn was his power of attorney and had been taking care of him for years. He told me in 2008 that every one of his kids was to receive an inheritance. After Grandpa found out that Joan had published the book of lies, he had removed Joan from the funeral/obit arrangements. The family did not know of that change until Joselyn went to the funeral home on Jan 12^th. I have no way of knowing but I would guess that Grandpa also made changes to the inheritance…we shall see later. Joan cut her own foot off when she published that book.

Here is the breakdown of Grandpa’s grandchildren: Gert has 2, Butch has 1, Joan has 2, Joselyn has 3 and Mariel has 3. That’s 11 grandchildren. He did recognize Dennis and Catherine from Joan.

Joselyn and I did miscount on the number of great grandchildren, the obit has 9, and it should be 11. The breakdown is, Gert has 7 grandchildren and Butch has 4 grandchildren. And then there is that one great, great grandchild. None of the grandchildren were named in the obit. I’m telling you this because Catherine, Joan’s daughter, believed wrongly that grandpa did not recognize her because she was getting her information from her mother who told her her name was not in the obit, of course it wasn’t, none were. Joan placed her own obit in the paper on January 16^th after she found out, from the funeral home, that Dad had removed her name himself. She wanted to establish her parentage, but Dad had told her, after she asked him for the money to publish that book, that she was a Wheeler not a Sippel.  

I had seen two facebook emails exchanges between Catherine and Kathy and then between Catherine and Ruth. I wrote one to Catherine myself sent by Ruth. Perhaps Catherine didn’t see her name on the flower arrangements at the calling hours, I don’t know. I had all ten names of my descendants on the flowers I purchased and there was at least one other from Marty and Christopher, Butch’s son. Doesn’t matter.

How events occurred:

I spoke with Dad on December 24, asked him what he was doing for Christmas; they were going to Mariel’s house. At that time he asked me for my phone #’s again, and for Kathy’s. He asked how everyone was doing. He sounded like himself and how he had been sounding for a few years and I detected nothing unusual in his health.

I got a call late evening on Wed Jan 5^th from Joselyn, that was the first time she ever called me so I knew something wasn’t right. Dad had gone to the hospital with pneumonia on Monday. She said that he was fine on Sunday and went shopping with her. On Monday he wasn’t feeling well and they took him to the doctor.

At that time, Wed, Joselyn told me that Joan had stopped at Dad’s the day before, on the 4^th and found out that Dad went to the hospital and got the name of the hospital from Ginette. Joan told Ginette to tell Dad that ‘she wanted to make peace with him’. It all happened so fast Ginette didn’t know what happened. Joan went that night, Jan 4^th to the hospital. She had her male friend, a stranger to Dad and Ginette, with her at Dad’s home and hospital. The reason Joan went to Dad’s was because her adoptive mother ‘had made a turn for the worst’ and Joan felt the ‘need’ to talk with Dad. But Dad had told her in 2009 not to come over that he ‘felt it was better that they don’t see each other’. The reasons were because Joan kept insulting Dad and asking for money. I had seen where Joan had posted about her adoptive mother on a forum dated Jan 4^th but at the time I didn’t pay much attention because Joan has been saying that for years. Who knows why Joan felt she had to go to Dad’s, but she did and she should not have.

When I spoke, on Wednesday, with Joselyn she was upset about Joan. I spoke with Ginette who also was very upset and she told me that both she and Dad did not what Joan around. So I said to them don’t worry about Joan, I’ll take care of her and I wrote something for the blog. I stayed up late that night writing and it was placed on the blog Jan 6^th. Grandma by then was staying at Joselyn’s because the family didn’t want Joan to get to her. There are more details on the blog and on Ruth’s facebook.

I called Dad and spoke with him on Thursday and Friday Jan 6^th and 7^th. Then again on Sunday Jan 9^th when he said that if all goes well he’ll be home in a couple of days. I called him on Jan 11^th at about 7:30 am and someone who answered said he was moved and gave me the main number for patient information. Before I was able to place a call back to him I had gotten the call from Joselyn telling me he died. Dad was having problems with his swallowing and they were going to put in a permanent feeding tube. That is where and what was happening to him when I called early on the 11^th. Joselyn said that he was doing well, after that surgery, was in his room and Joselyn’s daughter Victoria was there. Dad told Victoria that she should go and get something to eat and she left. When she came back there was a lot of activity at Dad’s room, his heart had stopped.

On the morning of the 11^th I was writing a letter to a friend, on my computer and my eyes got tired. I decided to just rest my eyes for a while and then go to the library at 2pm. I sat in my recliner at 1:05 pm, closed my eyes and got into a nice breathing and healing space that was filled with the color yellow. I opened my eyes and came out of the rest about 1:50, got ready and went to the library. I came back at 2:30 and there was a message from Joselyn. I didn’t want to call her back for I knew what happened. Dad had died at 1:30 pm while I was resting in the color yellow.

Because Joselyn didn’t have the phone number with her, I called Ruth and Kathy and then I waited till heard about the particulars to make my plans. I left Watertown on Thursday Jan 13 with David and we stayed at Grandpa and Grandma’s house. Mariel and Joselyn brought grandma back home, when we got there, and then they went shopping for food. Marty and Christopher and later his wife Rita came in that night. Marty stayed with us with Grandma. Thursday night we went to Joselyn’s home where we met family. Ruth and I put together a picture board that included the first family. Most of grandpa’s family was the third and they are all so much younger and so far removed from the second, which was short lived, and the first which was long gone before most of them were born. I don’t really think that the young ones really understood the age differences from me on down. So the picture broad that Ruth and I put together started with a picture of my mother and father before they married, in 1946, he was still in army uniform. We had some pictures of when we all were little, a couple of pictures of Butch and you two and then Dad and Ginette’s wedding and all us ‘older’ kids there, including John and then some pictures of Ruth’s wedding. So we tried to show the long span of his adult life.

At the funeral home, there were several picture boards and lots of albums. I saw pictures I never saw before or had forgotten about. The one I liked the best was in a frame, of Dad at his office and behind him was a framed picture of me, my high school graduation picture and tucked in the corner of that was a picture of Bob and Karen, Bob was one and Karen was just born. There were many pictures of your father too. Ruth has already scanned them and is going to be getting them to you.

I had ordered the flowers; they were real beautiful. Ruth took some pictures. Later, after the calling hours were over we found out that the family was to take all arrangements that they wanted except for those they wanted at the church and burial. I could not take and keep them on the drive home so I gave them to Ruth. She did a real nice thing…she made two small bouquets, from the big arrangements, so that we could more easily place them on the casket at the burial. One was of roses that had the names of our mother, me, Kathy, Butch, Ruth and John and his mother. The other one of daisies was for all the descendents from me and had everyone’s name on it. Farther down here, I’ll tell you what we did with those small bouquets.

There were lots of people that came to the calling hours, it was rough at times, but we got through all of it. In between the afternoon and evening hours we went back to Dad’s, now just Grandma’s, and had some food. David was doing a lot of driving, we had his truck and sometimes we followed someone but then we wanted and needed someone in the truck with us because we didn’t know where we were going and people we were following kept taking different routes. David is not use to big city driving and he was stressed over it. The weather was okay until Fri night when the snows came. On Sat the 15^th we were in almost whiteout conditions! During the procession of cars from the church to the cemetery, going less than 30 mph, David was in four-wheel drive the whole time.

So we had said our goodbyes, to Dad, at the funeral home, on Friday night, not expecting to have the coffin reopened at the church. The church services were from the Greek Orthodox tradition, which Dad had joined with Ginette after the Roman church refused to acknowledge their marriage. I had been to that church years before and knew about the Greek Orthodox services because of my friend Lydia, who belonged to it. Dad had taken me to that church sometime in the 90’s so I was familiar with it. They were very active in the church.

We had met one of the priests on Friday night when there was a brief prayer ceremony for those that would not be able to make it to the church.

Pallbearers were…3 sons in laws, John (Ruth’s husband), David (Mariel’s husband) and Ken (Joselyn’s husband) and 3 grandsons…Christopher (Butch’s son), one of Mariel’s sons and one of Joselyn’s sons. I don’t remember their names.

The pallbearers carried the casket from the front of the church down the aisle and up to the altar. Then, the priest reopened the casket and that was a bit rough, we didn’t expect that. They had positioned it so that the person in the casket was facing the altar, which meant that we, in the congregation, saw only the top of the head. Two priests said the liturgy, one in Greek the other in English and it was very very lovely. They were doing the speaking for the dead. One of the phrases they kept using was ‘Leonard, who has fallen asleep’; I thought that was interesting. After that they spoke about a painting that Dad had made as a gift for the church. He had painted a oil, of a Greek icon of Jesus. I had seen it many years before and it currently hangs in the Sunday school room. The priest also talked about Dad’s and Ginette’s work within the church and their commitment to their faith. Dad had the priest come over to them every Tuesday.

Then everyone was invited to go up and say the last goodbyes, which was difficult, it affected David deeply, as it did all of us. The casket was closed and the pallbearers carried it back out to the car and everyone left to get in the cars. By this time it was snowing very heavily but all the cars were marked with flags and we stayed in procession to go to the cemetery.

At the cemetery there was a very brief service in a large chapel that also served as a mausoleum. Anyone who wanted to, but no one did, could follow the casket to the plot and wait, in the car, for the burial, so yes; he was buried at that time. So in this chapel, after the pallbearers brought the casket in, they stood to one side, everyone else gathered around. A US flag draped the casket and there were 4 US Marines who folded, with precision, the flag and presented it to Grandma and then played Taps; that was something, it brought many to tears, still gives me goose bumps. The priest gave some final prayers and gave each pallbearer a rose. They placed them on the casket and then Ruth and I placed our small bouquets on the casket, so Dad was buried with memories of all of us.

Then we all left and went to a restaurant to have a meal provided by grandma. Afterwards, we went back to Joselyn’s home to say our final goodbyes to all there. We stayed that night at Grandma’s with Marty and on Sunday morning after coffee with left to come home. It had been a long 4 days, with travel times.

And so that is what happened. Thank you both for leaving such nice comments on the websites. And we keep remembering him!