Myka Stauffer of The Stauffer Life: Where's Huxley???

[katilac]

On 5/25/2020 at 8:21 AM, AmazonGrace said:

Well I guess any parent can act angry and frustrated with their kids occasionally but why would you post a video of yourself doing it on the internet?

Did you follow the Gannon Stauch case? The stepmom (accused of killing him) released a recording of her talking to Gannon about about a candle that burned the carpet. Everyone who heard it was shocked and horrified, many to the point of crying and feeling sick. But stepmonster released it on purpose, she thought it made her look good. 

I'm not saying Myka or these other youtube moms are that level of crazy, but that they share the same skewed perspective. They have no idea how others view them. With Myka and the meltdown video, I think she imagined that asking him if he was over himself, but in a calm tone, made her look impressive. Like, dang, Myka kept her cool, but she doesn't take any shit, either! When actually most people were cringing and wondering how she could be so mean to him and embarrass him that way. 

31 minutes ago, Stormy said:

She added that there are, indeed, legal reasons that they are not posting about him at all "during this season" and mentions therapy.  

That sounds like he's in the system in some way, either in foster care or still at home but with an open case (and an open case doesn't have to mean abuse is suspected, it can just be the family needing help). Posting photos of foster kids is a hard no. If he's not considered under foster care, it still may have been an, ahem, very strong recommendation of child welfare. I wouldn't be surprised if that's what's driving the absence of the older kids as well. 

It has to be child welfare or the adoption agency (if they're not finalized). What other legal reason could there be? 

[Stormy]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

Did you follow the Gannon Stauch case? The stepmom (accused of killing him) released a recording of her talking to Gannon about about a candle that burned the carpet. Everyone who heard it was shocked and horrified, many to the point of crying and feeling sick. But stepmonster released it on purpose, she thought it made her look good. 

I didn't think I'd heard of it, but is sounds familiar (and horrifying ). It's not a far cry than the institution of child abuse that's discussed on this site frequently, or the glorification of "going to war" with you kids... There are enough people who feed into it and validate parent who do this, so that's probably where she got the idea.

I saw you on the adoption thread, so you're probably familiar with the adoptive mom bloggers who constantly write horrible things about their children while being oblivious to how bad they sound (particularly Kimi/fencingmama). Even though these blogs are usually very obscure and fairly uninteresting to in the outside non-FJ world, you can usually find a few cheerleaders in the comments section that have very similar experiences and views. Myka made the mistake of being a very public, popular YouTuber who got everyone invested in Huxley, so she didn't get away with it. (And I'm half-convinced that FJ had something to do with Sissy successfully getting away from Kimi, with how many people were talking about filing a report.)

[hoipolloi]

3 hours ago, katilac said:

It has to be child welfare or the adoption agency (if they're not finalized). What other legal reason could there be? 

Agree. If the Stauffer parents are under some kind of agency supervision that also includes oversight of their biological children, that's to the good. 

 

[Nikedagain?]

It seems he has been rehomed. 

[anjulibai]

Poor little guy.

[Stormy]

Everything pointed to this outcome, but I still can't believe it... I feel so terrible for Huxley.

[Queen Of Hearts]

1 hour ago, Nikedagain? said:

It seems he has been rehomed. 

Where did you see this?

[Stormy]

27 minutes ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

Where did you see this?

The latest video on Myka Stauffer’s personal channel is of Myka and Jim explaining the situation. It’s pretty haunting.

[Trying to understand]

They were very vague, but it sounds like this was done properly and they didn’t  just give him away like so many rehoming cases. It sounds like they were assisted by doctors and case workers. As much as rehoming is terrible, it’s more terrible to keep a kid that you can’t properly care for, that you haven’t bonded with and give it a horrible life as a result.  They weren’t prepared for Huxley, they didn’t want to learn how to work with him. People with autism can and do bond and so can people with  R.A.D.  Although I disagree with the concept of rehoming, there are some cases that it probably is better for the child.  This is one of those cases.  My husband and I began the adoption process, but in the end ultimately decided that we were not prepared for what adoption entails. The agency we went through gave us no education on bad situations and tried to make it sound like every kid we adopted would be perfect. It was through our own research that we learned about R.A.D. and various other issues that kids who are adopted face. Adoption is messy and it’s not for everyone.  It was heartbreaking to realize that we would never be parents, but in the end we wouldn’t be doing any kids any favors. The adoption agency would have approved us, on paper we look like good amazing people that would be perfect parents, but we know our flaws and ultimately decided that parenting isn’t for us.  I share this because I think that Myka did as much research as the adoption agency gave her, she didn’t dig any deeper into what adoption is. She wanted a perfect sunny adoption and there is no such thing.  It’s horrible it’s sad, but in this case Huxley needed to be with different parents.

Edited May 27, 2020 by Trying to understand
Spelling errors

[hoipolloi]

6 hours ago, Trying to understand said:

They were very vague, but it sounds like this was done properly and they didn’t  just give him away like so many rehoming cases. It sounds like they were assisted by doctors and case workers.

I agree. It also sounds like the Stauffers have received some serious assessments of their parenting by various professionals. They've removed all the videos from their family YT channel:

I truly hope that Huxley is doing as well as they imply in their update video. 

[Toothfairy]

It was obvious from the beginning she didn't prepare herself. As an adoptive mom every child suffers loss and trauma. Huxley was ripped away from everything he knew and Myka expected him to be perfect asap. She didn't put in the work or time. She didn't even learn his language. She expected too much too fast. Rehoming is very common too. I just hope she never adopts ever again. She used Huxley for sponsorships and views. I'm happy this is getting attention because this is so common. 

[Nikedagain?]

She definitely makes this sound like this little boy did something that was not safe for the family. It was a bit sinister.

As an adoptive mom of a severely autistic child, I just can't see a "medical" condition that warrants this drastic step. I also can't see any professionals making that recommendation to them. 

I call so much BS on this. 

[EmmieJ]

I hope Huxley is with people who truly come to love him and understand his needs.  I hope the Stauffers never adopt again.

[Queen Of Hearts]

They seem to have taken all the videos off of their family channel now.

[SuperNova]

I'm wondering about the languange that's used here. "Rehoming" is a term that I've only read in relation to animals. My honest reaction to it in conjuction with children is strong disgust. It feels dehumanizing and unacceptable under virtually any circumstance to rehome a child. I agree that in a case like this, where staying in the home is detrimental to the child's well being, removing the child is a necessity. But I wonder about the validity of the parent's reasoning for doing so. It deeply concerns me that this kind of situation has happened often enough to necessitate language terms for it that are meant to convey the best interest of the child but seem more like a way to soften the truth that these parents didn't get the designer kid they were hoping for and want to return like a dress that doesn't quite fit. I couldn't get through the video because this Myka person came across as incredibly self serving and insincere. Like why the hell would she be concerned about her Instagram followers during a time like this? 

I apologize in advance if my comments are inappropriate. I'm admittedly an outsider to adoption and the culture that surrounds it and I'm open to hearing a reasoned response. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by SuperNova
Clarity

[Giraffe]

https://people.com/parents/youtuber-myka-stauffer-rehome-adopted-son-with-autism/. Here's a People article on them. There's a link to their video.

I also hope they don't adopt again. @SuperNova, for what it's worth, I didn't feel any empathy for them in that video, either. 

Edited May 28, 2020 by Giraffe
adding words

[katilac]

25 minutes ago, SuperNova said:

I'm wondering about the languange that's used here. "Rehoming" is a term that I've only read in relation to animals. My honest reaction to it in conjuction with children is strong disgust. It feels dehumanizing and unacceptable under virtually any circumstance to rehome a child. I agree that in a case like this, where staying in the home is detrimental to the child's well being, removing the child is a necessity. But I wonder about the validity of the parent's reasoning for doing so. It deeply concerns me that this kind of situation has happened often enough to necessitate language terms for it that are meant to convey the best interest of the child but seem more like a way to soften the truth that these parents didn't get the designer kid they were hoping for and want to return like a dress that doesn't quite fit. I couldn't get through the video because this Myka person came across as incredibly self serving and insincere. Like why the hell would she be concerned about her Instagram followers during a time like this? 

I apologize in advance if my comments are inappropriate. I'm admittedly an outsider to adoption and the culture that surrounds it and I'm open to hearing a reasoned response. 

I don't think there's a word that would make it better, y'know? Disruption, rehoming - it is what it is.

And I actually do think it can be the right decision in certain situations. In this one, I think the parents are all kinds of wrong from beginning to end. I don't expect every person to necessarily be familiar with the idea that adoption always involves trauma and loss (bc we are sold a different narrative), but I would expect absolutely everyone who actually applies to adopt a child from a different country to know that there will be trauma and almost certainly a variety of problems. We are way past the point where anyone should just accept it if the agency says, oh, no problems whatsoever - I know that, and I have zero adoption experience. In the case of Huxley, they were absolutely told that Huxley had various problems. Some of the information may have been wrong, but they are absolutely spinning an untrue narrative when they say they didn't know he would have severe problems. And they absolutely did so many things the wrong way - not that anyone is perfect, but they seemed to go out of their way to do the opposite of what is recommended. 

I don't know what things are like in other countries, but I've come to detest the relentless American narrative of every child deserve a forever family and that you are supposed to instantly love a child you really don't know, and they're supposed to instantly love you back, and the kids are instantly supposed to think of you exactly the same as the siblings they've know since birth. I think there's a lot to be said for the old fashioned idea of wards and guardians, where you take the child in and care for them and about them,  but you don't necessarily regard each other as parent and child. Maybe sometimes it turns out that way, but it's not this horrific failure if it does not. The child who needs a home gets one, hopefully with plenty of affection and support along the way, and that should be counted as a win. 

Adoptive parents are supposed to love a child they've never met with all of their heart, supposed to consider them 100% their child and part of the family before they even meet them. Same for kids already in the family. And I just honestly don't think it works that way. Humans aren't really wired for that. I don't believe the best people in the world can love a 3-yr-old they've seen a picture of in the same way they love the 3-yr-old that they've had since birth or close to it, but that's what people are expected to feel and say. There's something to be said for getting a child out of a risky situation and offering them stability and care and affection, in more of a guardian setting. We need an additional narrative that gives space for this to happen, in both domestic and international adoption. We need for kids to not feel like they can't have a good life without that happily-ever-after, forever family ending. This would be a great help to kids who just happen to not get that, and a great help to kids whose trauma means they may not be able to handle such intense emotional demands. 

[kiwi]

Rehoming = we have decided to give up on one of our children, thank goodness he wasn’t biologically ours, it make the process so much smoother!

He’s *lucky* though, his new momma is a medical professional [emoji849]


They say they are concerned about his privacy.... after she made tens of thousands of dollars on using him for content [emoji2360]

Absolutely disgusting.

[squiddysquid]

Well, their story is all over the news.

Guess when she used that kid as a prop to become YouTube famous, this wasn't what she imagined.

[kiwi]

I wonder what was in the video that shes made private? Super surprised they havent removed all of the adoption series, they have been quick to remove any other evidence.

[ignorantobserver]

7 hours ago, katilac said:

I think there's a lot to be said for the old fashioned idea of wards and guardians, where you take the child in and care for them and about them,  but you don't necessarily regard each other as parent and child. Maybe sometimes it turns out that way, but it's not this horrific failure if it does not. The child who needs a home gets one, hopefully with plenty of affection and support along the way, and that should be counted as a win. 

This sounds like a reasonable perspective, and a great idea. Where I live, the options are either to adopt or to foster, but foster parents are treated as professionals and not supposed to get attached to their foster children (no joke, that's the official guideline - they are not allowed to love these kids). Obviously, under these circumstances, few people are ready to foster. It would be more reasonable to allow some kind of compromise between the sentimental, overbearing, completely hypocritical "love" that our culture expects from adoptive parents, and the cold, professionnal detachment that foster parents are asked to exhibit. Both are pretty much against human nature. Giving the adoptive parents of older children a status similar to that of a guardian or a dry-nurse would allow them to be deeply invested in their childrens lives, to love them and care for them without trying to replace the original parents, allowing the child to keep his identity. Historically, a lot of influential people kept their old nurses around forever as trusted confidants, and the relation between a child and his "milk-brother" was legally similar to actual family bonds, and often very close well into adulthood, but without nullifying the dynastical attachment of the milk-siblings to their families of origin. In the case of children old enough to remember a different family, this solution sounds a lot less intrusive than the insane "change the child's given name to an English one because it is now mine" and similar behaviours.

Edited May 28, 2020 by ignorantobserver

[squiddysquid]

28 minutes ago, ignorantobserver said:

This sounds like a reasonable perspective, and a great idea. Where I live, the options are either to adopt or to foster, but foster parents are treated as professionals and not supposed to get attached to their foster children (no joke, that's the official guideline - they are not allowed to love these kids). Obviously, under these circumstances, few people are ready to foster. It would be more reasonable to allow some kind of compromise between the sentimental, overbearing, completely hypocritical "love" that our culture expects from adoptive parents, and the cold, professionnal detachment that foster parents are asked to exhibit. Both are pretty much against human nature. Giving the adoptive parents of older children a status similar to that of a guardian or a dry-nurse would allow them to be deeply invested in their childrens lives, to love them and care for them without trying to replace the original parents, allowing the child to keep his identity. Historically, a lot of influential people kept their old nurses around forever as trusted confidants, and the relation between a child and his "milk-brother" was legally similar to actual family bonds, and often very close well into adulthood, but without nullifying the dynastical attachment of the milk-siblings to their families of origin. In the case of children old enough to remember a different family, this solution sounds a lot less intrusive than the insane "change the child's given name to an English one because it is now mine" and similar behaviours.

I do think kids need a parental figure, not just a nanny in their lives.

By your definition, if foster parents aren't allowed to get attached, how is that different from a guardian?

 Are adoptive parents a replacement for biological parents especially if the kid remembers them - no. But it is possible to accept a Step parent as another parental figure in your life, in my best friends case the only father figure.

Obviously that bond won't Form overnight. Though there are enough parents out there who don't immediately bond with their biological newborn - and get shamed for it. At the same time it is absolutely tp come to love a child as if they were your own flesh and blood, even if they aren't your "natural" children.

 

[Glasgowghirl]

Poor Huxley, this child already had a terrible start to life and then after spending 2 years with a family he is given away. The clips of her filming his tantrums and duct taping his thumb because he sucked his thumb but her being fine with her older children doing it, is sad and horrible. They made money off him and could have gotten him a lot more help and therapy for him and them. Resettling an adopted child should be a very last resort when it is clear it is the best option for everyone, not something people do because they now see the child as more trouble than they are worth, which happens too often with family's we follow on here. I hope Huxley is with decent people who don't give up on him. 

Myka is getting dragged on twitter and people are contacting sponsors to tell them that if they don't drop her they will be boycotting them. I am never usually one for getting people to lose sponsorships but in this case I am all for it. I feel sorry for their other children especially the oldest ones who will be wondering why they no longer have a brother living with them. 

[ignorantobserver]

48 minutes ago, squiddysquid said:

By your definition, if foster parents aren't allowed to get attached, how is that different from a guardian?

Sadly, it's not my definition but a requirement by authorities. (I have looked into fostering once and was quickly put off because they asked applicants to not develop any kind of emotional bond with the child. Foster parents are still supposed to care lovingly for these kids... by lying to them, it seems, if they can't have real feelings). It seems inhumane and impossible to me, and it's probably one of the reasons why there aren't enough foster parents.

51 minutes ago, squiddysquid said:

At the same time it is absolutely tp come to love a child as if they were your own flesh and blood, even if they aren't your "natural" children.

I agree entirely ! What I meant is the issue brought up by katilac : adoptive children are "supposed" to become children of the adoptive family, there is heavy social pressure to completely deny that they are from a different family of origin or that anyone in the family might feel differently about the issue. The romanticised idea of a "family" and a "parental bond" makes it necessary for adopted children to basically leave their old identity behind. I see why that could be problematic in some cases. It also has to cause insane feelings of guilt in adoptive parents who don't quite love the adopted children as much as their own - that happens a lot - by completely devaluing the actual care and effort they provide for them because they fail to live up to a sentimental fantasy. That's unnecessary. It would make a lot more sense to ask them to care well for their adopted children, to control that, and to focus on the fact that a child brought up in a loving and stable household, even if it has the status of a cousin or ward, is still a very good thing, and certainly better than abusive parents.

[JermajestyDuggar]

Poor Huxley. They would never give up a biological child with special needs. So why are they giving him up? I’m sure she will birth more kids they can take care of. But not the adopted one. Ugh.