Jump to content
  • Sky
  • Blueberry
  • Slate
  • Blackcurrant
  • Watermelon
  • Strawberry
  • Orange
  • Banana
  • Apple
  • Emerald
  • Chocolate
  • Charcoal
Stormy

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

Recommended Posts

AmazonGrace

I hope Huxley is ok. Never a good sign if you can't tell authorities where your child is.

Did they hire lawyers before or after the sheriff got involved?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace
Posted (edited)

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/huxley-stauffer-youtube-adopted-investigation

Authorities Investigating The Huxley Stauffer Case Say The YouTube-Famous Child Is "Not Missing"

The Delaware County Sheriff’s Office says they are "confident that the appropriate process is occurring" to place YouTubers Myka and James Stauffer's son with a new family.

Stephanie McNeal BuzzFeed News Reporter

Last updated on June 3, 2020, at 9:56 a.m. ET

Posted on June 2, 2020, at 12:26 p.m. ET
 

Quote

 

The Delaware County Sheriff’s Office has been working with "several other agencies" to investigate the case, a spokesperson told BuzzFeed News. While the investigation is ongoing, Tracy Whited, the office's community and media relations manager, told BuzzFeed News authorities have confirmed Huxley "is not missing."

"All adoption cases are confidential, and must go through a thorough process, with specific requirements and safeguards," Whited said in a statement. "In private adoptions there are the same legal requirements that must be adhered to. These include home studies as well as background checks on the adopting parent(s)."

In this case, Whited said, authorities "are confident that the appropriate process is occurring."

"In addition, both parties are being represented by attorneys to ensure full compliance with the court process," she said.

Whited added that the office is continuing to investigate and "will include contact with all children to ensure their safety." The Stauffers have four other children.

 

 

Which court process?

Compliance with what?

Edited by AmazonGrace
  • Upvote 1
  • Sad 2
  • WTF 1
  • Thank You 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormy
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Queen Of Hearts said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8381649/Ohio-sheriffs-office-trying-locate-YouTube-star-Myka-Stauffers-autistic-son.html?fbclid=IwAR0yrW0UzQdG7CnqQTT05lzwr-kELX8uw45UJeiCtgEDPWPrJKq5iFtZxB0

 

For the first time since this began I am starting to worry if little Huxley is even alive. Sure hope my worries are unfounded.

Okay, for real, this is precisely why I initially got so revved up, but I didn't want to say it out loud because it sounds so absurd...  I was actually relieved when they uploaded their "family update" because, even though it wasn't the ideal outcome, I assumed that they couldn't/wouldn't say something if Huxley couldn't be accounted for, so he had to at least be safe. The fact that the local and state law enforcement don't already have tabs on him makes me really worried, and also because looks like the Stauffers have given up trying to salvage their image across social media platforms.

I've heard too many stories like this and the only difference here is that the Stauffers are public figures. (And yes, I try to remember to say "the Stauffers" instead of just "Myka Stauffer", because I agree that there's not enough blame on James as well. While his wife clearly wears the pants, he's just as responsible.)

Edit:

16 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/huxley-stauffer-youtube-adopted-investigation

Authorities Investigating The Huxley Stauffer Case Say The YouTube-Famous Child Is "Not Missing"

The Delaware County Sheriff’s Office says they are "confident that the appropriate process is occurring" to place YouTubers Myka and James Stauffer's son with a new family.

Stephanie McNeal BuzzFeed News Reporter

Last updated on June 3, 2020, at 9:56 a.m. ET

Posted on June 2, 2020, at 12:26 p.m. ET
 

 

Which court process?

Compliance with what?

This bodes well for proof of life, but why wasn't this ironed out before the Stauffers made a statement and let the narrative get out of control?

Edited by Stormy
New info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Olivia Marie

I pray this is not a Lori Vallow case......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Glasgowghirl

Glad he isn't missing but I still have concerns for his wellbeing, I hope he is ok where he is but this child has gone through so much in his short life and I hope he gets all the love and support he needs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeftCoastLurker
8 hours ago, Tatar-tot said:

The child now automatically has citizenship once he lands on US soil.  The laws were changed around 2002.

If I remember correctly, it depends. With a two parent adoption BOTH parents would have to travel to China in order for the child to automatically receive citizenship. Did both parents go?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
hoipolloi
56 minutes ago, LeftCoastLurker said:

If I remember correctly, it depends. With a two parent adoption BOTH parents would have to travel to China in order for the child to automatically receive citizenship. Did both parents go?  

Didn't their whole family go? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeftCoastLurker
6 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Didn't their whole family go? 

I don’t know 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nike
15 minutes ago, hoipolloi said:

Didn't their whole family go? 

I think she said they did to make it a "family affair"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stormy
1 hour ago, LeftCoastLurker said:

If I remember correctly, it depends. With a two parent adoption BOTH parents would have to travel to China in order for the child to automatically receive citizenship. Did both parents go?  

I can confirm that their whole family went. They basically treated it like a vacation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatar-tot
1 hour ago, LeftCoastLurker said:

If I remember correctly, it depends. With a two parent adoption BOTH parents would have to travel to China in order for the child to automatically receive citizenship. Did both parents go?  

It is not dependent on the parents travel.  It is dependent on the adopting parents citizenship.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
  • Thank You 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MirrorMirror
21 hours ago, Toothfairy said:

International adoption has many flaws. Many countries closed down due to corruption, kids were being stolen and closed down because Americans would adopt then rehome or murder the child. Adopting from China you have to be healthy, have a net worth of $80k, meet income requirements, and other requirements. China mostly has special need children available for adoption. 

What happens is the adoptive parents don't even learn the language and expect the child to love them and be grateful for them. Myka said the child wasn't bonding or understood English. I remember an adoptive parent calling her child's country a mess and dirty. 

 

Every child has trauma. As a foster parent and adoptive parent you have to parent differently because their circumstances are different. I've had broken items, doors, hospitalizations, lying, stealing, food issues, etc. These kids need to know you're there. They often test you. Imagine being abandoned by one family. You test your adoptive/foster parents commitment to you. Unconditional love is what should happen. Many people don't educate themselves or think they'll try it out or live a fantasy. Myka adopted for money and views. Adoption is seen as the new trend. I've fostered and adopted kids who were rehomed. Trust me, that pain still lingers. Abandoned twice. The forever family is a lie. It happens in every adoption. There are even kids adopted at birth rehomed. Many rehoming situations happens with no oversight. You can go online post your adopted child and basically send the child away to the person you met online. It's a huge issue in the adoption community. We need oversight and  higher requirements. I have a feeling Myka was approved because she's white and upperclass. So yes money. Holt adoption agency is also a problematic agency. 

I second ALL. OF. THIS. To emphasize the bolded, the group home my husband and I were houseparents at had many of our children come from an online FB group for rehoming. The Admin sent her daughter to our home after she had lived with them for 11 years! Then anyone who had an "issue" with their child, she would legit hand out our number like she was recommending her pool guy.

It was a public group (don't even get me started on that. You are talking about minors here folks!), & another housemother and I used to lurk on there all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SolomonFundy
11 hours ago, Stormy said:

This bodes well for proof of life, but why wasn't this ironed out before the Stauffers made a statement and let the narrative get out of control?

They gained nothing by releasing the information when they did, and even assuming they are both too stupid and self-absorbed to realize that there would be backlash, they still probably would have waited until Huxley was firmly settled elsewhere before speaking. 

That leads me to believe that they didn't actually choose the timing of the reveal. I assume that they were under pressure by people who were aware of the situation to come clean, so they had to slap something together to avoid a bigger scandal. It could be that a well-informed friend of the family disagreed with their choice, and threatened to publicize what happened, or perhaps some of the many followers concerned about Huxley's whereabouts called and requested a welfare check or CPS involvement. 

Nothing about the video or their actions directly surrounding its release seems like a coordinated effort. These people stage literally every moment of their lives. It's unthinkable that they wouldn't have put more care and effort into portraying themselves as victims if they'd had full control of the situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AmazonGrace

Life goals: hope my family issues never end up in the news on the other side of the world. 

 

  • Upvote 10
  • Haha 1
  • I Agree 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JermajestyDuggar
Posted (edited)
32 minutes ago, AmazonGrace said:

Life goals: hope my family issues never end up in the news on the other side of the world. 

 

If you don’t live your family life for a vlog, you have a much better chance that will never happen. If she hadn’t exploited this child and put every part of their lives online, this wouldn’t be a story reaching to Australia. So many families rehome and it’s never mentioned in the media. 

She’s finally taken down pictures of Huxley off of her instangram. I hope that little boy now has a childhood with lots of privacy. 

Edited by JermajestyDuggar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
FluffySnowball

First of all, I find this video analyzing Myka Stauffer very insightful. It doesn’t come across as wanting to provide gossip for the sake of entertainment but actually shows and calmly discusses clips the Stauffer family published about and with Huxley throughout the years. The focus on how MS talks about Huxley and expresses her feelings was especially eye opening for me. I’d recommend watching it. 

Secondly, I’m so torn regarding your opinion that adoptive parents shouldn’t have the option to get rid of their adopted children, @JermajestyDuggar. Instinctively, I want to completely agree with you. However, when I think about it more, I wonder whether “forcing” a family to keep their (non-biological) child might potentially increase abuse and mistreatment. Then again, abandoning a kid is scarring in and of itself. So it’s an incredibly tough matter and one should hope that most adoptive parents would never consider getting tot of their child. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alisamer
9 minutes ago, FluffySnowball said:

Secondly, I’m so torn regarding your opinion that adoptive parents shouldn’t have the option to get rid of their adopted children, @JermajestyDuggar. Instinctively, I want to completely agree with you. However, when I think about it more, I wonder whether “forcing” a family to keep their (non-biological) child might potentially increase abuse and mistreatment. Then again, abandoning a kid is scarring in and of itself. So it’s an incredibly tough matter and one should hope that most adoptive parents would never consider getting tot of their child. 

I personally think once a child is adopted, they are YOUR CHILD. There are options, if a family truly can't handle a child, but they are the same as they are for the biological children. If there is abuse and mistreatment of a child, it should be handled the same way as if this was a biological child. 

I feel like instead of having the option to re-home a child like you might with a pet that didn't quite fit in, there should be far more support available for all families - more education and preparation pre-adoption, more support for new parents whether the child is biological or adopted, etc. And, all this support should be easily accessible. (I get that this is pie-in-the-sky and very expensive, but I'm brainstorming an ideal, here.) This is as much a social services (and funding of social services) issue as anything else.

 That would all probably reduce adoption numbers as a whole, actually, especially if combined with access to contraception. Which would be a good thing, IMO. Adoption can be wonderful, but there's automatically a separation from the child's biological family even in a fully open adoption. Ideally all children would be wanted and loved from the beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Giraffe
1 minute ago, Alisamer said:

I feel like instead of having the option to re-home a child like you might with a pet that didn't quite fit in, there should be far more support available for all families - more education and preparation pre-adoption, more support for new parents whether the child is biological or adopted, etc. And, all this support should be easily accessible. (I get that this is pie-in-the-sky and very expensive, but I'm brainstorming an ideal, here.) This is as much a social services (and funding of social services) issue as anything else.

This is a huge thing. There needs to be so much more pre-adoption education! Adoption is traumatic on a child, even if they are placed in their second parents arms from their first mother’s womb. Too many evangelical/fundy families go into adoption to “save” the child. That’s a terrible reason to adopt! I wish people would stop this idealistic version of adoption where god has “called” these families to adopt. “God has called us” seems to be synonymous with “we don’t need to educate ourselves on our future child’s psychological or behavioral needs because God will make everything perfect because if he called us to it, he’ll bring us through it.” And then they get home and reality kicks them in the ass. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sparrow

I saw that a couple people on here referenced the parents being encouraged by doctors NOT to adopt Huxley... after his MRI / CT results were reviewed. Am trying to wrap my head around this. What could a doctor have seen that would cause them to discourage adoption? Wouldn’t the doctors WANT to see the child adopted? Particularly if he had special needs.  Or, better yet, wouldn’t the doctor’s role be to just present the medical facts and not  to offer their opinions on the child’s worthiness to be an addition to the family. It just seems like a weird overstepping of bounds to me. Am I wrong? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Queen Of Hearts
38 minutes ago, sparrow said:

I saw that a couple people on here referenced the parents being encouraged by doctors NOT to adopt Huxley... after his MRI / CT results were reviewed. Am trying to wrap my head around this. What could a doctor have seen that would cause them to discourage adoption? Wouldn’t the doctors WANT to see the child adopted? Particularly if he had special needs.  Or, better yet, wouldn’t the doctor’s role be to just present the medical facts and not  to offer their opinions on the child’s worthiness to be an addition to the family. It just seems like a weird overstepping of bounds to me. Am I wrong? 

You assume anything Myka said was true. I think she is a lying liar who lies. The doctor may have cautioned them on the amount of care Huxley would need, but I doubt they said 'don't do it.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howl
50 minutes ago, sparrow said:

I saw that a couple people on here referenced the parents being encouraged by doctors NOT to adopt Huxley... after his MRI / CT results were reviewed. Am trying to wrap my head around this. What could a doctor have seen that would cause them to discourage adoption?

It may have been that the doctor realized STAT that the parents weren't an appropriate fit for a special needs child.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fluffy

What I watched said the poor child was missing part of his brain and his needs would be severe. The father was quick to dismiss the doctor's expertise because evidently the boy's eyes were "tracking" around the room. They were out of their depth from the get go. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mhainlen
1 hour ago, sparrow said:

I saw that a couple people on here referenced the parents being encouraged by doctors NOT to adopt Huxley... after his MRI / CT results were reviewed. Am trying to wrap my head around this. What could a doctor have seen that would cause them to discourage adoption? Wouldn’t the doctors WANT to see the child adopted? Particularly if he had special needs.  Or, better yet, wouldn’t the doctor’s role be to just present the medical facts and not  to offer their opinions on the child’s worthiness to be an addition to the family. It just seems like a weird overstepping of bounds to me. Am I wrong? 

Autism and reactive attachment disorder don’t show up on brain imaging (source: I’m a pediatric brain neurologist specialist doctor like JRod brings Janessa to).  I have sat in on a few international adoption clinics during my training.  My speculation is that the physician reviewed the brain MRI and could see that there was not a brain tumor present like the orphanage had told the Stauffers.  They likely warned the family that the orphanage was not being up front with them about his condition or needs and to be cautious in their dealings with the orphanage.  They probably didn’t straight up say “You shouldn’t adopt this child.” Children with special needs can be difficult to find placements for and perhaps the orphanage thought “brain tumor” would garner more sympathy and be more acceptable to an American adoptive family than reactive attachment disorder. And I can’t help but wonder if this would have been right - would the Stauffers have rehomed a child requiring surgeries and chemotherapy and radiation? Or would that just have been used for more instagram posts and influencer points? 

  • Upvote 12
  • Thank You 9
  • Love 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.