YouTube Influencer Myka Stauffer "rehomes" adopted son

[Anonymous]

I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

I agree the welfare of the child is what is most important which is why I want to know the child is truly alive and well cared for. I also think they MUST turn over all the money they made off of him and put it in a SN trust. If I had confirmation he was in good hands and got the money HE earned, I would be pushing people to lay off this family.

I also agree they should have been allowed to adopt him. I think we desperately need child labor laws related to the internet. There should be limits on how much you show your child and proof the money earned goes toward their care and future.

[Anonymous]

should NOT have been allowed to adopt him

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

They absolutely shouldn't have been approved by our standards but by the agency and home study standards there was probably nothing to deny them if everything looks good on the surface. Its not so much that they couldn't handled it its how they went about it. They should have used a licensed agency or foster care system to make sure that it was done properly. They shouldn't have used this child for money making/social media and kept his image/name to a minimum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

I agree the welfare of the child is what is most important which is why I want to know the child is truly alive and well cared for. I also think they MUST turn over all the money they made off of him and put it in a SN trust. If I had confirmation he was in good hands and got the money HE earned, I would be pushing people to lay off this family.

I also agree they should have been allowed to adopt him. I think we desperately need child labor laws related to the internet. There should be limits on how much you show your child and proof the money earned goes toward their care and future.

+1, its how they used him for money and didn't meet his needs and then just walked away is what bothers me. He is in so many of their videos and the constant talk about him is what bothers me. And, them saying he didn't bond when it wasn't him that was the issue and they didn't bond.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand the reasoning. Lots of people have bio children with special needs. In many cases, the parents really struggle and their lives are basically ruined. You're still not allowed to give them away!

Why are you allowed to do this with adopted children? They're piling trauma on top of trauma on that little boy.

How many homes has he been in? In a prior video, they mention that he was in a foster home in China so that's two (give up by his birth parents, Chinese foster parent, then their house, then a few other houses, and now his "forever" family? Until they get sick of him??)

Well my brother was adopted by my parents as a newborn and his birth parents did this. They gave him up and a couple of his siblings.

Its impossible to say how many homes he was in prior but its pretty normal for a child of that age to be in several homes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:should NOT have been allowed to adopt him

a lot of people shouldn't be allowed to adopt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

They absolutely shouldn't have been approved by our standards but by the agency and home study standards there was probably nothing to deny them if everything looks good on the surface. Its not so much that they couldn't handled it its how they went about it. They should have used a licensed agency or foster care system to make sure that it was done properly. They shouldn't have used this child for money making/social media and kept his image/name to a minimum.

I think the fact they have all of these other bio kids and make their money as Influencers should have been sufficient. Seems like Huxley would be better served as an only child of someone who has a lot of time to devote to him.

[Anonymous]

My sibling gave a child (about 8 years old) back into foster care after attempting to have him live with their family for a while. The child was a sibling of another child they had adopted. I wasn't there so I don't know what exactly happened but from what she said it was just so, so much more than they were prepared to deal with. I had tried to give them a warning going in to really think about it first and especially not to promise too much up front but they were adamant that their family had the resources and would be able to handle things. It came down to the safety of the other kids in their family.

They are very religious and just felt that they would be able to make it work, but in the end they didn't feel like they were able to.

[Anonymous]

(The child didn't live with them for 8 years -- just for a few weeks.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sibling gave a child (about 8 years old) back into foster care after attempting to have him live with their family for a while. The child was a sibling of another child they had adopted. I wasn't there so I don't know what exactly happened but from what she said it was just so, so much more than they were prepared to deal with. I had tried to give them a warning going in to really think about it first and especially not to promise too much up front but they were adamant that their family had the resources and would be able to handle things. It came down to the safety of the other kids in their family.

They are very religious and just felt that they would be able to make it work, but in the end they didn't feel like they were able to.

This sounds like a really sad situation.

[Anonymous]

Haven't read the thread/don't know the family but I do believe when this situation happens it is not decided upon lightly and there are scarier reasons/details than we will ever know, as thankfully (though these people are social media whores it seems) they are trying to protect this child's privacy as much as possible by NOT sharing details. But if this is anything related to a form of attachment disorder or sociopath, be thankful that you cannot imagine.

-no judgement here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My sibling gave a child (about 8 years old) back into foster care after attempting to have him live with their family for a while. The child was a sibling of another child they had adopted. I wasn't there so I don't know what exactly happened but from what she said it was just so, so much more than they were prepared to deal with. I had tried to give them a warning going in to really think about it first and especially not to promise too much up front but they were adamant that their family had the resources and would be able to handle things. It came down to the safety of the other kids in their family.

They are very religious and just felt that they would be able to make it work, but in the end they didn't feel like they were able to.

Huge difference when kid was in foster care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Haven't read the thread/don't know the family but I do believe when this situation happens it is not decided upon lightly and there are scarier reasons/details than we will ever know, as thankfully (though these people are social media whores it seems) they are trying to protect this child's privacy as much as possible by NOT sharing details. But if this is anything related to a form of attachment disorder or sociopath, be thankful that you cannot imagine.

-no judgement here.

The child had brain injury. They knew it on placement. This is not a attachment issue. Those things can be normal with brain injuries. The parents were not attached. Big difference.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I read a blog from Rebecca at Fosterhood, who herself was adopted as a child and who has fostered with the intent to adopt 2 kids of her own.

Her view on this is that the parents were unprepared and never should have been allowed to attempt this adoption in the first place because of that unpreparedness. And who knows, maybe they are terrible people.

But the important thing, she says, is the welfare of the child, and for that she is grateful that these parents recognized they were in over their heads and gave the child another chance somewhere else. The outcome of that child, in that household, was not going to be good.

It's easy to bash this couple and I'm not defending them. But we don't really want the child to end up with them when they weren't able to take care of the kid. To want these parents to keep the child, given the parents they are, is to effectively root against the child.

Just another way of looking at the situation.

They absolutely shouldn't have been approved by our standards but by the agency and home study standards there was probably nothing to deny them if everything looks good on the surface. Its not so much that they couldn't handled it its how they went about it. They should have used a licensed agency or foster care system to make sure that it was done properly. They shouldn't have used this child for money making/social media and kept his image/name to a minimum.

I think the fact they have all of these other bio kids and make their money as Influencers should have been sufficient. Seems like Huxley would be better served as an only child of someone who has a lot of time to devote to him.

Sadly no and adoption is a business.