A quick introductory note: I've already written this post three times (twice in its entirety). I apologize for any parts that are disjointed or out of place, I decided it was best to just publish it before any more time went by despite being thoroughly pissed off by what I'm posting about -- although I then delayed posting to honor the BLM "blackout" online. I'll be putting up a more usual (and much less angry) family/Pipsqueak related post in a couple of days.
Hey, all... Welcome back...
No, I'm not going to talk about the asinine, hateful travesty of simply being alive while Black being a dangerous crime. I absolutely abhor the violence & destruction we've seen where protests turned to riots but it's long past due that this nation address and
terminate the complete and utter bullsh*t of treating people differently based on the amount & shade of melanin in their epidermal layers.
No, I'm not going to talk about COVID-19. I'm assuming we're all big boys & girls here and understand the need for continued precautions as things slowly morph to a new normal.
No, I'm not going to be talking specifically about the Pipsqueak in this post (there's another looking back/looking forward post coming in just a few days).
I am going to be talking, for a little bit, about some adoption-related news that's been blowing up in, and slowly spreading beyond, the world of online social media.
Back in early-to-mid 2018, I was looking for China adoption videos on YouTube (something I still do from time to time) and came across the channel of a couple adopting a little boy with special needs. I liked the first couple of videos about the actual adtoption, Gotcha Day, etc. so I subscribed to the channel.
For the next several months I periodically checked in & watched a couple of videos, but after a while something -- I don't know exactly what, but
something -- made me feel uncomfortable enough with the overall content that I unsubscribed after 8-9 months. I bumped into the channel again from time to time (the mother was big in social media and getting bigger all the time, and once YouTube's algorithms know you've watched something they never let you forget) and every one of the videos I watched left me thinking that my decision to unsubscribe had been a good one. It got to the point where I simply ignored any videos from that channel or the other channels that the family had estalbished, and I kinda forgot about them.
Until all kinds of videos about the family in question began filling my YouTube feed a few days back.
I am, of course, referring to Myka & James Stauffer and their recent "re-homing" of that little boy I watched them bring "home" from China. For those who don't know, Myka Stauffer is a "mommy vlogger" with a channel of her own (~700K subscribers), her husband James has a car detailing channel of his own (~930K subscribers), and they share a "Stauffer Family" channel (~300K subscribers); Myka also has a notable presence in Instagram.
When I found the family's channel, they had 3 bio kids and Huxley, the little boy they'd just adopted from China. Huxley is a special needs child, and it seems that the problems listed on his adoption papers weren't quite right but (long story short) he's on the autism spectrum. Things in the videos were mostly relatively slickly-presented unicorns and rainbows and fluffy clouds... except for the videos in which the meltdowns one
should expect from a three year old / adopted child / autistic child were shown, in which case you'd be watching an obviously unhappy toddler and an impatient mother who often sounded condescending and rarely (if ever) put down her video camera long enough to actually deal with her son's needs.
Oh, damn, there I go again -- using judgmental language in this post.
Now that I think about it, I probably
SHOULD use judgmental language in this post.
I'll keep the background information as short as I can:
- In multiple older videos before and shortly after the adoption, Myka talks about her expectations of a loving, possibly clingy, wonderful child she can cuddle with and then emphasizes that's not what she got.
- In older videos, Myka and James talk about how they specifically chose a special needs child, and in one video Myka speaks about how a doctor they had review Huxley's records in advance of the adoption advised them not to go through with it because his needs were more serious than what they had indicated they really wanted but "it went in one ear and out the other" (her exact words in the video) -- but in the most recent video they both talk about how they were never made aware of how severe Huxley's needs would be and had no idea what they were getting into.
- In at least one video, Myka talks about how she was an RN and her knowledge & first-hand experience dealing with medical situations would help prepare her. Problem is, she was a licensed RN in Ohio only 2012 through 2013 but let the license lapse... possibly because of some very serious issues & at least one lawsuit. She may have been re-licensed in another state for about a year after that, but that job also ended suddenly & mysteriously... and both jobs were in SNF[1] environments having nothing to do with children.
- The Stauffers were not a childless couple incapable of making babies the classic way; they already had three kids between them that they were working to raise when they adopted Huxley.
- Despite complaints (mainly more recently, post-rehoming) of how difficult it was to deal with Huxley and his effect on the family, they chose to have 4th bio child a while ago.
- Despite using "crowd funding" for Huxley's adoption -- that is, soliciting donations (including creating a 1000-piece online "puzzle" of his first photo that was assembled & revealed online by selling pieces at $5 each) -- and despite many comments about trying to find cheaper therapists for Huxley, the Stauffers have a much higher income than the average American family; the average annual family income in the U.S. is currently just over $59,000 and in one of the family videos Myka talks about how just one of James' videos had already earned $42,000 and was still garnering new views (and thus continuing to generate income).
- Despite the Stauffers' newly-hired lawyer releasing a statement calling for (among other things) granting Huxley his privacy, the Stauffers made him the focus of many of their videos and used him as what is often referred to in social media circles as "clickbait" to draw viewers to their channels. Those videos not only showcased Huxley, but they made large amounts of information about his medical status & needs public knowledge.
- Some of the Stauffers' older videos (all monetized to generate income) showed photos & videos of Huxley before they traveled to China to complete the adoption, which is not supposed to be done (there is a law covering this action but I'm having trouble locating which of the many subject documents describe it).
- Despite several videos in which the high cost of Huxley was mentioned as a probem for the family, they purchased a house for nearly $700,000 and also found the funds for two expensive cars and a lot of expensive clothing & accessories. (For example, several YouTubers have mentioned that the wristwatch Myka is seen wearing in some videos cost about $1000; she did a giveaway on her channel in which the prize was a large Louis Vuitton bag; the couple vacationed in Bali after the rehoming, etc.) Myka also has/had sponsorships with a number of large companies[2].
- In videos where the Stauffers' bio kids could clearly be seen sucking their thumbs undisturbed, Huxley had his hands almost completely covered in duct tape to stop him from sucking his thumb.
- The Stauffers established a bedtime for Huxley an hour earlier than for their bio kids (even his younger sibling) and often spent "family time" all together in bed for that time while Huxley was alone in his bed.
- Despite keeping all the monetized videos of Huxley online for what is apparently several months after the rehoming, the Stauffers said nothing about it in any of their social media accounts; the story came to light mainly because a growing number of their followers noticed his sudden absence and began asking for, then demanding, an explanation. (One devoted follower with her own Instagram account dedicated to following the Stauffers has stated that as soon as she posted a question about Huxley's whereabouts in Myka's channel, she was blocked -- and many people have stated that any similar comments were quickly deleted from Instagram and YouTube.)
- In their carefully-framed explanation video, the Stauffers stated that numerous medical professionals advised them to terminate the adoption -- the opposite of what the majority of adoptive families with special needs children (especially those involving emotional issues) are commonly advised against doing.
- The Stauffers have also stated that the choice for rehoming was made in part by Huxley himself, which many people point out is a pretty amazing level of mature understanding for a child to exhibit at the ripe old age of four and a half years.
I could go on but that's already far more than enough; this is clearly a case of an adoptee being a second-class citizen in what is supposed to be his own home, and adoptive parents using the image of their adopted child for profit without fully providing proper care for his special needs. Go to YouTube and search on "Stauffer rehoming" and you'll get enough background material, analyses, commentaries, and timelines to keep you busy for days, all of which includes the above information and more backing up my statements.
Quick side note: After a great deal of pressure from people following the story on the Internet the authorities in Ohio opened an investigation and ascertained that Huxley is safe and that the proccess is ongoing. The Stauffers are incredibly, perhaps nastily, flawed people but they are not monsters... and this type of "rehoming" of adopted children is legal in Ohio.
As you might imagine, this entire situation can be described as an unholy mess: claims, counter-claims, lawyers, police, at least one very large adoption agency, the Stauffers, at least one other unnamed family, and probably a bunch of other folks are directly involved and now something like half the Internet is sticking their noses into it as well. So why all the noise?
I'm going to avoid judgments of Myka Stauffer's mothering skills; much of that is opinion and personality, and Huxley's now-four ex-siblings all seem okay. Likewise, I'm not getting into the many ongoing arguments over legality; as I mention above, private rehoming (as opposed to formal agency-mediated adoption dissolution
[3]) is legal in the Stauffers' state of residence. And I'm not going to talk about the Stauffers continuing to earn money from videos featuring the little boy they just gave to someone else because (perhaps reacting to news of a popular online petition to do so) they have apparently purged all videos & pictures with him from their online presence.
But let's talk about the 800 pound gorilla in the corner of the room. A couple chose to go through the process of adopting a child. They had the financial wherewithal to do so on their own (despite begging for thousands of dollars in donations to defray the costs). They specifically chose to adopt internationally. They specifically chose to adopt a child with special needs. Prior to the adoption (and for at least some time after it was completed) they repeatedly spoke at length in a globally-accessible open public forum of their love for the child, their ability to deal with the child's needs, their desire to perhaps adopt a second special needs child(!), and how the child would never be given up. (A direct quote from Myka in a video from, I think, 2017).
And after roughly three years of being his "forever family" the Stauffers privately and semi-secretly rehomed the child. After a year of soliciting and receiving thousands of dollars in donations for the adoption. After four years of monetized videos featuring him as a draw. After three and a half years of having him bond with them to the best of his ability. After three and a half years of his being a sibling to three other children.
They made the choice to specifically apply for a special needs adoption, had the medical records professionally reviewed before completing the adoption, were told by at least one medical professional what the child's actual needs would be before completeing the adoption, and repeatedly spoke about the child needing special care -- and now they claim to not have known what they were getting into, that they had no way to know what his needs would be, that it would be difficult to parent a special needs child.
I honestly don't know which direction to go in.
Maybe I should talk about how badly this whole thing was handled -- how strongly it looks like the entire adoption was about image and profit, how strongly the odor of "White savior" permeates much of what was said & done, the amazing level of naiveté about and lack of understanding concerning the issues of adoption in general
and special needs
and adopting internationally the couple seems to be demonstrating, how there seems to have been an effort to hide the rehoming as long as possible, how the reasons given for it seem to be counter to everything the couple said in numerous earlier videos?
Maybe I should talk about the use of adoption and one's children (adopted, fostered, or bio) as the subject of monetized YouTube videos -- how it exposes the children's images to the world, how it exposes the children's personal information to the world, how it often exposes PHI (Protected Health Information) to the world, how it avoids all the laws in place to protect the health & interests of children shown in a similar manner on TV and in films?
Maybe I should talk about the practice of rehoming -- how it can lead to (and has been linked to) child trafficking, how it skirts the laws in place to protect children involved in adoption, how it frequently is done "under the radar" so no third parties can supervise, how it treats a child like chattel instead of a human being?
Maybe I should talk about adoption dissolution -- how it can teach a child they're expendable, how it can make a child feel like an object, how it builds blocks against forming attachments and close relationships in children bounced between families, how it perpetuates the myth that an adopted child isn't really "your" child?
Maybe I should talk about this story's effect on adoptees -- how it reopens multiple psychic & emotional wounds, how it reaffirms the possibility of repeat abandonment, how it infers they share the status of too-large dogs and misbehaving cats?
Or maybe I'll just let y'all read over the preceding paragraphs a few times and (hopefully) learn something about the issues and feelings adoptees have to deal with.
Yes, there are cases in which an adoption has been so badly botched (or a life situation has changed so drastically) in which it is appropriate to dissolve the adoption. But think back to how many stories you've read about a family saying, "It's difficult to deal with the child I gave birth to a few years ago, so I'm giving them to a different set of parents" -- probably not many, right? Even in more extreme cases of single-parent and/or unexpected births, the majority of mothers want to keep the baby they have given birth to; compare that to the experience of an adoptee who may know nothing more of their origins than the fact that their birth mother
gave them up. Think of
that being at the root of your very existence, and then think about wealthy, famous YouTubers with multiple bio kids making a big deal out of an adoption (and making big bucks off it) and then deciding, "Nope, too difficult, I'm not enjoying this" and quietly giving the child away to someone else.
Okay, my writing is descending rapidly into unstructured ranting (which should give you some idea of what I think of the Stauffers and what they've done) -- it's time for me to close this post out. All I can say is that I am angered, appalled, incensed, furious over what this couple has done and how they did it. They treated the act of adoption almost frivolously, and they treated their son (who is likely to eventually be able to more fully see & understand the whole story, likely to his detriment) like a pet too large for the new apartment or a video prop that no longer fits the story. They're catching hell for it and deserve to continue doing so.
Remember to hug your kids --
all your kids -- and let them know how much you love them every day. I'll see y'all again in a couple of days.
[1] SNF = Skilled Nursing Facility, more commonly known as a "nursing home." Despite how most people picture SNFs in their mind, residents/patients there are given much more advanced medical care than in assisted living or a "retirement home" environment. In addition, speaking from over a decade of experience working in one myself, they are often blamed for problems they are forced to accept from hospital discharges that they may not be equipped and/or staffed to deal with properly. (Yes, there truly is such a thing as a horrible death trap of a SNF, and there are plenty of such to choose from, but the majority are
not the hellholes one hears about in stories about when someone talks about the death of Aunt Dora's third cousin on her mother's uncle's side.)
[2] Although many of the sponsors have terminated their contracts with Myka Stauffer since the news of this issue went public (many seemingly due to public pressure that numerous online sources state the couple's lawyers are trying to block), her sponsors weren't exactly the neighborhood pizza joint or local hair salon. The list of brands sponsoring her YouTube channel at one time or another includes: Big Lots; Chili's; Danimals; Fabletics; Kiwi Botanicals; Mattel/Barbie; Playtex Baby; and Suave.
[3] There are several ways an adoption can come to an end, which I'll list here in
extremely generalized form. The nastiest, most damaging, unethical, illegal and downright stupidest is actual
abandonment, which is expressly forbidden by national & international laws; used by the Russian government as an excuse to permanently cease all adoptions to the U.S. from Russia. A second way is
disruption, which involves either the adopting parties revoking their consent to continue with an adoption or the prospective adoptee (or a party acting on their behalf) revoking consent to allow the adoption; this usually happens before the adoption process is completed but there are a handful of cases where it happened afterwards (often involving a hitherto-uninvolved parent becoming involved). The third is
dissolution, in which an adoption that has already been legally completed is voided/annulled by the adoptive parents; this usually involves children with medical and/or emotional needs that go beyond the adoptive parents' capabilities, and the vast majority of cases include the use of an actual adoption agency to make arrangements and vet any prospective new parents. The process of
rehoming (a term originally used by
animal shelters finding homes for abandoned
pets) is a form of dissolution that exists in a gray area. Outright illegal in some states, completely legal in others, it is a process in which adoptive parents who no longer want to keep the child they adopted seeek out someone else to adopt the child from them -- sometimes via religious groups, sometimes via Facebook group, sometimes (believe it or not) via Craigslist. In addition to many questions about child trafficking, the process of rehoming also frequently minimizes (or eliminates outright) the involvement of adoption agencies, social workers, medical professionals, and other parties & processess specifically designed for/tasked with protecting the interest of the adoptee(s).
