YouTuber Stauffer rehoming adoptive child.

This Social Worker in the US looks at the Stauffer family and dissects it. She's angry and I get why.

Huxley is not missing but it's clear that the Stauffer's 'rehomed' him without the adoption in place and it's not clear what was done in terms of background checks before he moved out...and what Myka says here, hmmm, I don't think Myka would 'rehome' her biological child but seek all the support that was needed...

'Multiple scary things happened inside the home towards our other children, and if these events happened with one of my biological kids, after all the help and after the behaviors we witnessed sadly we would have no other choice then to seek help and get their needs met.'

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8385725/Ohio-sheriffs-office-says-adopted-son-YouTube-star-Myka-Stauffer-not-missing.html

Ok I see your point, I didn't understand that was what you meant but I get it now and can understand your perspective.

I agree that this language or phrasing again makes it about the adults desires or 'needs' being placed above the child's needs.

Both surrogacy and adoption have been presented as an 'option' that is 'available' to couples with fertility issues or same-sex couples. It's always spoken about as fulfilling a hole in their lives and putting it like this doesn't centre the child. It's vile.

The point of adoption, though, is for a child that needs a home to find a home, not for adults to use adoption to fulfil their "right" to be parents.
We are adoptive parents (did I say that above?) and yes we wanted to be parents but we knew our children needed homes (and in one case, there had been a match before we expressed interest that had fallen through - fortunately our DS was a baby and had no idea this was going on).
Telling hopeful parents that adoption is "there for them" is telling them that babies are in existence to complete them. No child should have to do that.

*is the intention to create a human life, for he/she to be separated

I think the position on surrogacy vs adoption Dr is due to the fact that surrogacy is intent is only creating a human life, a baby, for to be separated from the mother at birth and adoption being to find a loving parent/s for a child that cannot be with their biological parents for whatever reason.

What's your position on it?

There's been a bit of discussion around the Ukrainian surrogate babies who are (AFAIK) still stuck in the Ukraine where people ask "why didn't the parents adopt when it's 'possible'".

This is one of the reasons I get annoyed when people tell the infertile they should "just adopt" or try to make adoptive parents feel guilty because they won't take on special needs children. It is much preferable that people are honest in the beginning about what they can cope with, and only adopt a child if they are fully committed.

Adoption breakdown happens here too but it used to be the case that stats on it weren't kept. I hope that has changed.

I believe so, I think it led to some tightening of regulations.

Wasn't Victoria Climbie privately fostered by her aunt?

Passing children on in this way isn't completely illegal in this country (you can send your child to live with anyone you like but they count as privately fostered and they will have regular SW visits).
Both birth and adopted children with severe SEND often end up part or full time in foster care in the UK but usually they will remain legally the children of their parents.

I found that Reuters article really disturbing! I just hope laws have since been made to protect the rights of adopted children. How can it be legal.just to pass your legally adopted child onto someone else with no involvement from the authorities? These poor children are vulnerable to any predator who wants to take advantage of such a lax system. I hope the UK has strict enough laws that it can't happen here. That YouTube couple put the chance of some easy money before the needs of ALL their children. I.just hope Huxley is loved and cared for by whoever has him now.

I only read about this yesterday

Adoption should be for life. I think what annoys me about the use of the term “forever home” in this context is that they adopted him so their home should have been his forever home. It’s meaningless if they just passed him on.

And yes how can they just pass him off to another family?

I’m sure that wouldn’t be allowed in this country ?

Would they rehome their biological child if he/she had additional needs? I doubt it.

Adoption breakdown is very common in the US - something like 2 out of 3 adoptions break down, but the children often (like in this case) don't go back into the care system, just handed off to someone else. I read a shocking article on it a few years ago about how many children go "missing" after adoption in the US as they end up in the care of people who aren't their legal (adoptive) parents, and the people who went to such lengths to adopt them don't know or care where they end up.

I know troubled children can be impossible to live with, but how horrific for them to have to face the loss of a primary carer for a second time. Attachment issues are something we are only starting to really understand these days, and the impact on a child is profound.

The white saviour complex they oversold but couldn’t see through.

A story of such horror it makes me want to hide away in a cave.

Maybe one day it will be illegal to pimp your children for cash on social media. Maybe one day proper stats on adoption breakdown will be collected and policies changed as a result.

"Forever home" is the expression used by animal re-homing charities.
"Forever family" is fairly common, if a bit vomit-inducing, phrase in adoption.
But there are just so many other things wrong with this situation.

I'm no fan of witch hunts, but I have zero sympathy for the backlash this family are getting.

That poor boy.

I have just found the Instagram, it’s quite heartbreaking to see the photos of the little boy with his siblings only a couple of months or so ago.

They have privately ‘rehomed’ him too without going through official channels. How is that even allowed?

I rarely criticise Melania for what trump says, so why would I criticise james for what his wife says?

It's not the same situation, Trump is president and he and Melania are not making decisions together.

In the adoption case, both parents worked together to adopt the child and then 'rehome' him so both are responsible for what has happened.

Yes, all of the vitriol has been directed at the mother and not the father.

I briefly watched a couple of the videos and it does seem they did try with a child who had more complex needs than they were led to believe, they talked about 6 hours a day of autism therapy for example. They said they had to give Huxley up because of incidents with their other children, it is possible he had been violent with the new baby.

I do hope this boy is now with someone with the resources to care for him properly.

Apparently God softened their hearts to adopting a special needs child. So I suppose it was God who hardened them to it when they sent him to live elsewhere.

I didn't realise so much of the online content featured Huxley and his life has essentially been 'monetised'. Horrid.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/stephaniemcneal/myka-stauffer-huxley-announcement?utmsource=dynamic&utmm_campaign=bffbbuzzfeedtasty&ref=bffbbuzzfeedtasty

This is why overseas adoptions not carried out through social services based process is a really bad idea. Adoptions do break down, they're far more likely to break down when a child has severe end needs, and if an adoptive parent wasn't thoroughly vetted, their situation and motives thoroughly checked, and legally enforced that if the adoption broke down, the child goes back to a government system.

The 'rehoming' of very traumatised and disabled children in the USA when adoptions break down is horrific, in some cases the new family hears of the child on the grapevine or advertised on sites, and in one case I knew of, the new family just went out there, signed the papers and the child left with them 48 hours later, having been barely introduced to them. In that case the family the child went to included a professional who'd been horrified by the circumstances the child was in and how a child was just signed away in a few hours by the authorities, and it later turned out the child's original adoption had been in dodgy circumstances and at least one of the child's adoptive families - there had been a couple - had very seriously abused them.

This is one of the (many) reasons why surrogacy worries me so much: where parents can get a child by bypassing the very detailed process, training and vetting involved in adoption which dig right into the adult's baggage, their motives, their ability to put the child first, we are setting children up in the UK for equally horrific circumstances.