Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.

You obviously haven't read her posts on Internet adoption sites looking for another kid to adopt with special needs while in the middle of all this!

Seriously?

Yes, but looking for a child with special needs that was easy to manage, but that most people wouldn’t think was easy. For real.

https://mobile.twitter.com/hannyyy08/status/1266126433803436035/photo/1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.

You obviously haven't read her posts on Internet adoption sites looking for another kid to adopt with special needs while in the middle of all this!

Seriously?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.

You obviously haven't read her posts on Internet adoption sites looking for another kid to adopt with special needs while in the middle of all this!

Most of those would be agency and hopefully she wouldn't be approved.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.

You obviously haven't read her posts on Internet adoption sites looking for another kid to adopt with special needs while in the middle of all this!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, they are using the term “rehoming” like they have given their pet dog or cat a new home.
I have never heard the term rehoming in regards to a child.

Second, would they rehome one of their biological children if they had a special need later on?
Or would that put them in jail??!

Finally choosing to be a parent requires an initial commitment + promise of unconditional love.
1000%.

They failed miserably at this.

I am ecstatic that her endorsement deals are dropping her left & right.

Rehoming is an adoption term for kids.

No it's not, adoption is!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this person? Why are we supposed to believe what she says about Myka is true? This lady needs to get a life and a real job imo.

Myka needs to get a real job and stop exploiting her children.

Do you say this about the 58373838 other family vloggers out there?

Yes, all those that film and exploit their kids - they all need to be shut down and evaluated as they all seem to home school, have large families, and film everything without kids permission! Too many to mention, but it's exploitation and the kids have to perfom like monkeys!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.

You obviously haven't read her posts on Internet adoption sites looking for another kid to adopt with special needs while in the middle of all this!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this person? Why are we supposed to believe what she says about Myka is true? This lady needs to get a life and a real job imo.

Myka needs to get a real job and stop exploiting her children.

Do you say this about the 58373838 other family vloggers out there?

Yes, absolutely. Not only these atrocious vloggers, but also all the wannabe vloggers who exploit their children. It's sickening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this person? Why are we supposed to believe what she says about Myka is true? This lady needs to get a life and a real job imo.

Myka needs to get a real job and stop exploiting her children.

Do you say this about the 58373838 other family vloggers out there?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.

You obviously haven't read her posts on Internet adoption sites looking for another kid to adopt with special needs while in the middle of all this!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is this person? Why are we supposed to believe what she says about Myka is true? This lady needs to get a life and a real job imo.

Myka needs to get a real job and stop exploiting her children.

Do you say this about the 58373838 other family vloggers out there?

Yes, absolutely. Not only these atrocious vloggers, but also all the wannabe vloggers who exploit their children. It's sickening.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:First of all, they are using the term “rehoming” like they have given their pet dog or cat a new home.
I have never heard the term rehoming in regards to a child.

Second, would they rehome one of their biological children if they had a special need later on?
Or would that put them in jail??!

Finally choosing to be a parent requires an initial commitment + promise of unconditional love.
1000%.

They failed miserably at this.

I am ecstatic that her endorsement deals are dropping her left & right.

Rehoming is an adoption term for kids.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced the Stauffers deliberately adopted a special needs kid to make money off of him because I think they've done a good job of convincing themselves that their lifestyle blogging is a valid choice for their family.

But I don't for a minute think that the effect on their lifestyle blog was never considered.

Hopefully the child is better off, but the whole thing is very disturbing. The Reuters story linked from page one makes it clear that the "re-homing"/abandonment process is informal, whereas the adoption process is very formal.