Myka & James Stauffer are being investigated by authorities for ‘rehoming’ their son

Gwyneth Paltrow at the Grand opening of the JVP International Cyber Center

I was just looking through Myka Stauffer’s Instagram to find some of the “inspo mommy” photos she posted of her family when her family included Huxley, the son she and her husband James adopted from China. Myka and James raised Huxley for three years. Huxley has autism and some behavioral issues and so Myka and James “rehomed” him, but don’t worry, Huxley “wanted” to be rehomed, and he can make that decision even though he’s only 4 years old and developmentally disabled. Anyway, as I was saying, I was looking through her Instagram and guess what this absolutely awful woman has done? She’s gone through her posts and deleted all of them which included Huxley. I can’t even believe how f–king grotesque these people are. Huxley, the child she adopted and raised for three years, no longer gets to be part of her inspo-mommy-Instagram life. She doesn’t even want to see him on her IG.

So, true story, everyone is appalled by the Stauffers and what they did. Myka and James had corporate sponsors for their YouTube channel and those sponsors are dropping them hard. Not only that, but local authorities are now looking into this whole “rehoming” issue, which sounds a lot like human trafficking.

Local authorities are investigating the status of Huxley, the adopted child who was “rehomed” by his YouTuber parents Myka and James Stauffer. Last week the Ohio-based parenting vloggers announced in a video that they gave up the 4-year-old child they adopted from China more than two years ago. “Numerous medical professionals have felt that he needed a different fit. He needed more,” said a tearful Myka in the clip.

Now, the Delaware County Sheriff’s Office and “several other agencies” are investigating the case to locate the child, according to a new report from Buzzfeed News.

“We are investigating, but it is an active case and, as such, we cannot divulge too much information just yet,” Tracy Whited, who manages community and media relations for the department, told the outlet. In their original family-breakup video, Myka said that an adoption agency helped find Huxley his new home. “He’s thriving, he’s doing really well, and his new mommy has medical, professional training,” she said. The Stauffers did not reveal the names of Huxley’s new parents and urged viewers to respect their privacy.

However, a statement from their lawyers after the couple began to receive stark backlash contradicted that narrative. “To be clear this did NOT include any considerations for placement in the foster system, but rather to hand-select a family who is equipped to handle Huxley’s needs,” the statement read.

Val Turner, a spokesperson for Franklin County Children Services, confirmed to Buzzfeed that Huxley was not in their custody.

“The adoption for the Stauffer family is an international adoption, which does not involve our agency. It appears that [Myka] made arrangements with an individual person, versus an agency,” said Turner.

Myka, who was dropped by some of her sponsors after the backlash, had previously said on her YouTube channel that she and James used the World Association for Parents and Children to originally adopt Huxley from China, according to the report. The agency could not comment as to whether they were involved in the child’s second adoption, but did point out that this case was uncommon.

[From The NY Post]

The best case scenario for all of this is that Myka and James Stauffer illegally trafficked their legal son Huxley into a loving family. The worst case scenario is that “trafficking a child to a better environment with zero oversight” is only a horrible cover story for something a million times worse. I’m glad the local police are investigating and I hope that if illegality is uncovered – and I don’t see how the Stauffers did NOT do something illegal – then they are actually punished for this tragic situation. You can’t just give away a child – excuse me, “rehome” a child – when it gets inconvenient. And you especially can’t rehome a child through some kind of shady (human trafficking) scheme.



Photos courtesy of Myka Stauffer’s Instagram.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

117 Responses to “Myka & James Stauffer are being investigated by authorities for ‘rehoming’ their son”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Snazzy says:

    When I read the title I literally shouted “Good” out loud at my screen
    Let those two be charged and lose all their sponsorships and fame. They deserve, as the bare minimum, our collective disdain and disgust

    • josephine says:

      I would love to see a list of remaining sponsors so that we know who is still supporting this garbage. Who could possibly still be supporting this????

      • lucy2 says:

        I can’t imagine why anyone was sponsoring them to begin with. WTF cares about them or anything they have to say? This “inspo” culture is off the rails and needs to stop.

    • Hmp says:

      Devil’s advocate here, but if they found him a truly loving home equipped to deal with his needs, isn’t that the best solution for everyone? Having a severely developmentally disabled child isn’t something that only affects that child and parents. Often it leads to lifelong relationship/mental issues for the other children in the family because such an uneven amount of attention is distributed around the one child. I know a couple families with this and it really severely affected the other kids well into adulthood. The only two options are often 1) put the child in a home or service/institution and feel like you’ve abandoned it, or 2) keep the child at home and have your other children experience some pretty irreversible developmental damage. What they’re doing seems like the kindest thing.

      • lisa says:

        I think the backlash is from the fact that their main focus over the last few years was on the monetization of him, and not his health and well being.

      • hmp says:

        @Lisa – thanks! I don’t know much about this couple, and that is vile. I just think that in general, it’s a more nuanced topic than people are acknowledging.

      • S2 says:

        @hmp…Yeah, no. First off, you “re-home” a pet, not a child (and even then I side eye the heck out of, as you don’t dispose of family members, be they four-legged or two). Second, saying a four-year-old “wanted” to be “re-homed” is a huge red flag, as there’s a good reason we don’t allow preschoolers to make their own living arrangements, even without taking into consideration how they’ve said Huxley is developmentally delayed. Last, this is clearly is not a situation in which a family went through proper legal and public service channels to genuinely, adaquetely and sincerely try to find “the best solution” for a special needs child. There are lots of public and private resources, and even if it got beyond that point, legal recourse through adoption agencies. Instead, they just pawned him off on another family and tried to claim it was for the child’s good, rather than their obvious own convenience.

        Not only should these ghouls have no “sponsors,” they should also lose custody of their biological children, as their actions show they are utterly unfit to be parents.

      • Em says:

        What you’re not considering is the humanity and life of a child who has already experienced the trauma of living in an orphanage, being ripped from his only known environment at the doing of others, being cared for in god knows what way and touted on social media, then being displaced yet again. You aren’t considering the trauma, lack of stability, and trust that comes with a lack of permanency and constant changing of hands. It is inhuman. No one should be entering this without complete understanding and awareness of disabilities and the capability to handle that. They had him for such a short time. And just because they say he is in a “loving home”, you never know that. These children are more susceptible to abuse than you realize. Do you think the family was neglecting their own related children for this child? No. Anyone who thinks their motives were purely selfless is kidding themselves.

      • Jana says:

        what do you think the other kids think of the “rehoming” of their brother? I think they will feel if they misbehave or act up, they to will get shipped off…that is how a kid thinks, not oh, he’s in a better environment than we could offer him.

      • Pandora says:

        If he was placed somewhere then the family would know where he was and Police wouldn’t have to be involved in looking for him.

      • A says:

        @Hmp, “but if they found him a truly loving home equipped to deal with his needs, isn’t that the best solution for everyone?”

        That’s nice, but the fact is, that type of upheaval still has an impact on a child, regardless of whether the intent behind it is good or bad. Children need stable, consistent environments to grow and develop in. When you’ve been adopted in and out of different homes twice already by the time you’re 4, that 4 year old’s brain is starting to learn that the world is an inherently unreliable place, that their needs won’t be met. Some kids extrapolate from that and come to the conclusion that the reason their needs won’t be met is because something about them is inherently unlovable and undeserving of care and affection. And the hurt you feel at that age from that revelation is something you carry with you your whole life, no matter how many loving homes you wind up in afterwards.

        These people did a terrible thing. They added and compounded to the issues Huxley has, first by adopting him as some kind of trophy, second by parading him around on their channel for clicks and money, and then third by getting rid of him when they felt overwhelmed and like they weren’t getting an appropriate return on their child investment. Imagine being a 4 year old and not even being looked at as a human being, but rather as something to show off and make bank for your parents, who will get rid of you when they don’t want to milk you anymore. Yes, Huxley might wind up in a good home with great parents and a loving family. But children don’t forget or get over things as easily as people think. They carry these scars with them. And so will Huxley. That’s why these people, and anyone who does what they do with such callousness, is a bad person.

      • Angel says:

        Jana, considering that one post said that the other children made fun of him and such, it’s possible that the parents have brainwashed the siblings into thinking that Huxley is “less than human” and must be removed from the family because of it.

        I personally think that it’s the best thing that could have happened for them to have given him away, provided that his new parents are actually good people.

      • josephine says:

        Here’s the thing – if that’s not an option they would entertain for their bio kids, it’s not an option that should entertain for their child-by-adoption. They’re making clear that children by adoption are disposable. Disposable. This kid is going to grow up and know what they did. Can you imagine the impact on that child? It’s beastly. They were in a fantastic position compared to most families. She had medical training and they had money. But their adoptive child became too much work, became inconvenient for them. There is a flippin child market for this kind of thing. Who do you think these kids end up with? It’s immoral, unethical, disgusting. And I’m hoping it’s illegal so we can put an end to it.

    • AnnaKist says:

      I’ve no idea who or what they are, as I have no social media, and therefore don’t look at people’s’ lives, but I did read an article about them in a Sydney newspaper. Wow. “Perfect children only here, please”. As vile as they sound, it’s probably best that they don’t raise the little boy. He needs really special parents, and they’re not it. I wouldn’t leave a sick skunk in their care.

      • NatureLover says:

        @S2, I agree that since they didn’t go through the legal process of finding Huxley the proper home environment would constitute an illegal action. They couldn’t care for Huxley but THEY determined his new home and he wanted to be “rehomed”? This screams the need for local authorities to become involved and for this abhorrent family to be investigated by social services. I don’t know who they are, I have never heard of them until this rehoming issue came about. But they clearly need to be investigated.

    • angie0717 says:

      Oh Kaiser, I’m SO mad at this! That poor boy – where in earth is he and is he ok??? You are right, this is a human trafficking story and that family needs to be investigated.

  2. Erinn says:

    This is why I’m thankful that morons have at least somewhat of a platform. If they weren’t ‘influencers’ this probably would have never been brought to light. There’s a hell of a lot wrong with social media platforms, but in some ways I do think it’s better for these kind of people to show the world who they are.

    • Holly hobby says:

      Yes that’s the only good thing that they over share. Now we have proof.

    • Emma33 says:

      But on the other hand, if they weren’t influencers, they probably wouldn’t have done a performative adoption. I wonder how many adoptive children are relinquished each year? It would be interesting to know. The whole situation is so sad, and the lack of oversight in finding this little boy a new home is really concerning. I just hope he is in a better home now.

    • LaraW" says:

      The irony of being an inspo family. When a child stops showing up in the photos, people start to ask questions. They must have thought they could get away with it if he was phased out gradually. What other reason is there for them not to be honest and upfront about the struggles they were having? Actually in the long run, they missed out on great opportunity to monetize Huxley even more. I’m sure they could have promoted lots of toys or special gadgets and books they were using to “help” him “adjust.” Or maybe that was their initial plan, but it didn’t end up the way they wanted it to. He didn’t PERFORM the way they wanted him to.

      I’m cynical tonight.

  3. Esmom says:

    I never knew about her or followed her but I wonder why she wanted to adopt him in the first place? And it struck me as kind of despicable of her to mention that the new mom has “medical” training. That implies that all of us parents of kids with special needs — who’ve never considered “rehoming” them when things got rough — aren’t qualified to care for our own kids.

    • Lara says:

      Because having/adopting special needs children makes some people believe they’re better than others. It also gets them more social media clout. They were going on adoption forums specifically asking about what disabilities were easiest to deal with, but look hard from the outside.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        @Lara Really???

      • AppleTartin says:

        @Andrew’s Nemesis yes, she was in FB groups for China Adoptions asking what disabilities look bad but aren’t that hard to deal with. She wanted maximum exposure for minimum effort.

      • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

        Dear God, @AppleTartin, that is absolutely repugnant. Disability-shopping. Just when you think humanity couldn’t get any worse…
        I guess we should be profoundly thankful for Tim Berners-Lee and all those who worked on the Web/Net, though. These things cannot be hidden. The wicked cannot hope the public will forget. They will always be out there, their rotten characters writ large for all to see.

    • Nicole r says:

      …and she is a nurse.
      Can you imagine if medical professionals suggested a bio parent give up their child?
      It wouldn’t even be suggested as an option. They definitely asked a doctor who gave a vague passive aggressive “if you feel you can’t provide for his needs, then that may be best for him..” and they latched onto that excuse.

      • Meg says:

        Wait? Shes a nurse?!?

      • Holly hobby says:

        You mean she had a job? Is she the second coming of Kate/8 and Michelle Duggar all wrapped in one? Someone call TLC! I’m sure they want to exploit that.

      • Betsy says:

        I do not defend this couple, but people do surrender medically complex children when their needs overwhelm a family’s ability to care for them or to pay for their care. This little boy’s medically needs don’t seem to rise to that level, but it is a thing.

      • Holly hobby says:

        @betsy while that may be true, how many “surrender” their kids after they squeezed every red cent out of him? That’s the crux of the issue. Also because they Allegedly treat him like a dog (Rehome, the name).

      • Betsy says:

        @Holly hobby – oh I definitely do not condone what they did, neither the giving the child up when he was no longer cute, basically nor monetizing any child. I have only known of one other family giving up their adopted child (who was adopted from Russia as a teen) and I found that as appalling as this story.

    • Jess says:

      Wanna hear something hilarious? She is actually a registered nurse and worked as one for a hot second before deciding it “wasn’t for her.” (pouty face) So Myka has medical training! How about that?!

      I admit, I used to watch her cleaning videos, but initially shied away from her family content because I found her to be personally annoying. Her husband is an absolute moron, she is a monster, but her kids were always so sweet, especially Huxley. What I think happened is that she decided she’d had enough of Huxley’s tantrums because she was dealing with her new baby Onyx (as a sidenote she should be arrested if only for the dumb names she gives her children). It’s so normal for children that young to become jealous of a new baby, but with all of Huxley’s needs it was probably doubly so….She used to ship him off all day to “school” but with the quarantine it was probably too much for her spoiled self to handle.

      Bottom line: Myka Stauffer has impulse control issues. She never should have had an additional baby when she couldn’t take care of the children she already had. She adopted a child with special needs because it was “like, totally fun and cool” without thinking of any of the ramifications. I am SICK every time I think about how I contributed MONEY to this monster by watching her cleaning videos. I hope and pray that Huxley is safe and in a loving home and I fear for the children she still has at home. They are props in her altered reality.

      • minx says:

        She has such a fake/innocent face, I want to slap her.

      • Esmom says:

        Holy hell, she’s worse than I thought.

      • Holly hobby says:

        I’m glad I never heard of Me-ka (is that how you pronounce that) or put money into her pocket. I really think she’s trying for a tlc show with the fake adoption and punching out babies like there’s no tomorrow.

        Too bad she didn’t get what she wanted. Onyx is a horrible name for a child. I thought Huxley was bad too. I can’t imagine what they called the girls

      • cine says:

        Not only that – but she crowdfunded the adoption fees; and with little oversight, who knows where the money went? We do know she upgrade her home considerably, AFTER she quit work (could be sponsorship money?). Her husband has now ALSO quit work. So as near as can be seen, the only income left is the sponsorship money (now terminated). So maybe there’s a plus side to this whole thing? they’ll have to get off youtube and earn some freaking money directly.

      • Allie says:

        @Hollyhobby: I looked on her page. The other boy is named Radley and the girls are named Jaxa and Nakova.

    • Skwinkee says:

      @esmom about the medical training. She ALSO has medical training. She used to be a nurse, before she was fired for having a physical altercation with another nurse -who happened to be pregnant at the time.

      So…… all around trash forever

    • JanaTHING says:

      Myka herself is an RN, what more medical training would she need? The fact is this kid cost them NOTHING. They crowdsourced the adoption, asked specifically for child with special needs and then monetized their every move on her Instagram account. How do you think they can afford to live in a $700K home when neither of them work? These are not nice people, these are people desperate for attention and money.

  4. Lurker says:

    I did hear that they were being called out for still having his images/videos up and basically still making money off of him, also he if he isn’t there son “anymore”, they have no right to post a damn thing about him.

    • Jennifer says:

      This. She absolutely should have taken them down. He’s someone else’s child now.

      • Erinn says:

        Not only that – she could set them to not monetize if she’s insisting on having them up. But we all know that’s not going to happen.

    • BonnieT says:

      I heard this too. It wouldn’t surprise me if she had scrubbed him from her IG, like she’s trying to get rid of any reminder of the atrocity of their actions, but I believe the outcry was that there were several posts of him that were still being monetized.

  5. Giggles says:

    IMO, yes they should remove all the videos and IG posts with him in it. They adopted him because it looked good and contributed to the image they were trying to project. His privacy has been shattered. I think it best to not contribute to that ongoing.

    They *should donate the money they earned from him to him, but that will never happen. These people suck and Hux is hopefully better off in his new home. So sad for him, and they deserve every single bit of vitriol they are getting.

  6. Lara says:

    They’re awful people obviously, but I also wonder what people think they should have done? As that murder in Miami shows, situations where parents are unable to deal with special needs children often end in tragedy. The optimal thing would have been for those a-holes to never adopt a kid in the first place, but him staying with them would not have been a good thing either.

    • KL says:

      “They’re awful people obviously, but I also wonder what people think they should have done? ”

      Not been awful people.

      Once they made good on the decision to “re-home” their child, they had crossed into the land of No Return. But literally every second up until that point was a chance for them to accept that child’s humanity and relinquish their own hypocrisy. They were not helpless — they had far, far more options than most. Certainly a lifetime of options more than a goddamn toddler. Yes, I’m glad he’s away from them. They still caused possibly irrevocable damage to a disabled baby because they prioritized their fame over his basic needs. They deserve every bit of censure possible, since I doubt the factors that allowed them to do so — their wealth, their white and Christian privilege — will be much impacted, however great that censure is.

      • S2 says:

        All of this. Every word.

        Glad that child is away from these monsters, but sick that any so-called parent would discard a child like an out-of-style outfit. The casual way they announced it shows they lack all capacity for shame.

    • Mia4s says:

      They are privileged white people with money (more than a bit of it made by exploiting this child). They should have hired help, they should have sought out top carers and therapists, if that failed they should have looked into residential care where they could have been a part of their (THEIR) child’s life. Failing all that? They should have gone through proper legal channels with checks and balances as opposed to essentially trafficked a living human child. I don’t care how well intentioned or how lovely the new family is. This is human trafficking in all but intention. Do you think every “rehomed” child ends up in a loving, safe place? Spoiler alert: They don’t.

      • lucy2 says:

        This all day. They could have hired professional help and worked hard to help him, like good parents do.
        I don’t have kids, but have family and friends whose children have special needs. I’ve watched all of them move heaven and earth to do the best for their kids, some with limited resources and support. My childhood BFF’s parents have done it for their son for nearly 50 years.

      • L4frimaire says:

        This sounds absolutely horrific and illegal. No wonder so many countries have stopped international adoptions. These poor kids are treated like commodities.

    • Mignionette says:

      I think people are upset with the fact that they adopeted a special needs child in the hope of bolstering views. Allegedly they even sought advice to that effect.

      Her whole social media feels one step above teenagers who post inspo quotes on Instagram.

    • Esmom says:

      I don’t know, it seems pretty bad when the rationalization for her sending this kiddo to another family is “at least she didn’t kill him.”

      But I hear you. It’s complicated. But I think just “returning” a kid when things get too hard is cowardly and despicable.

      • smcollins says:

        Thank you @esmom! I swear if somebody brings up what happened in FL one more time as if it somehow “justifies” what these garbage people did I’m going to f-cking scream! I mean is this the bar now when it comes to parents of special needs children? At least they did kill them?! As the mother of an autistic child I find this highly offensive.
        And Amen @mia4s! I couldn’t agree more.

      • Kkat says:

        Until the child is located and known to be safe, we don’t know that she didn’t kill him and that this is just a cover story

      • Sam the Pink says:

        The Florida case isn’t being used to “justify” what these people did or make it seem not so bad. It is an example of a sad truth in this country: that we do not adequately support parents with special needs kids.

        The Stauffer case is not analogous to most other cases for a lot a reasons. Let me lay down a few:

        1.) Most parents of special needs kids birth them themselves. The Stauffers not only adopted, but SOUGHT OUT a special needs baby. They don’t get to cry about the burden of special needs when they made a conscious, intentional decision to adopt this way. It is a lot different then birthing a child you are fundamentally unprepared for.

        2.) Most killings of special needs kids happen when the parent reaches the absolute end, resources run dry. The Stauffers are people of means – they live in a home valued at over 700k. They could have afforded to provide their son with a lot, but did not. Did they exhaust every single possible option first, up to and including residential treatment? I don’t get the impression that they did.

        3.) They had this boy for 3 YEARS. Most dissolved adoptions occur within weeks of the placement – which, while not good, do not cause this level of damage. He was fully integrated into the household, his siblings knew him as their brother. The ripples of this damage will extend far beyond this.

        In short, you don’t get to actively seek out a special needs kid, be warned that you were likely unequipped to handle it, go through with it anyway, integrate him for 3 years and then just *poof* pass him off. The Florida case DOES raise some very messy, dark issues about the burdens put on parents and what society can do for them, but it’s not an apt comparison.

  7. JaneDoesWerk says:

    As others have mentioned, they were getting heavily criticized for not removing posts and pictures featuring Huxley because they were sponsored and they made money off every post. Think about the amount of people who just went to their insta and looked at those posts before they were taken down. I bet they just made a small fortune on a boy who they “rehomed” like he’s an animal or something.

    If I ever find out that someone is a fan of theirs I’m going to assume they are trash. Seriously, who could ever support this?!?

  8. OriginalLala says:

    These vile people keep looking worse – private disrupted adoptions like this (sorry, “rehoming” barf) are super shady, often illegal, and have long term emotional consequences for the kid.

  9. LeaTheFrench says:

    My mother was adopted. And although she was adopted by a deeply loving family she always considered her own, and her real family, adoption did leave deep scars on her. I can’t even begin to imagine the pain being abandoned TWICE would have inflected to her. This is cruel beyond measure. There’s a special place in hell for people like you, Myka and James.

    • AppleTartin says:

      There are a lot of videos on YT discussing this and unpacking more information about them. A few things that jumped out at me.

      1. she went from 4,000 subscribers to 700,000 using the Huxley adoption for content.
      2. They originally wanted to foster but when they found out you can’t use foster children on social media. They were no longer interested in fostering.
      3. They acted like they specifically wanted a special needs child, when in reality. In China you can only adopt out a special needs child. When the one child policy was ended. They won’t let “healthy” children out of the country.
      4. Their highest viewed video was the picking up of Huxley which netted them $42,000 on ONE VIDEO.
      5. When they dumped Huxley off they took a trip to Bali with their newborn (the other 3 got left behind) and never once mentioned anything about Huxley.
      6. They were forced to address where Huxley was as questions kept being asked and they were deleting them and only letting “positive comments” . It was months before they addressed it this week. Which is why it was so obvious they were forcing themselves to cry. They were over it by then.

      The Ohio Sheriff dept put out a new statement that they know where Huxley is and proper procedure is happening. But a YT discussed that state there is a shady but legal way to adopt. You can give power of attorney and basically just “transfer” the kid over to another person through lawyers (which seems to be the case here) with no oversight from CPS. It’s just incredible everyone has lawyered up to protect their interests but not one mention of a Guardian Ad Litem for Huxley.

      As more people use Social Media for careers and “Mommy Bloggers” use their family for content and views. YT has to regulate how children can be viewed or de-monetize them. If you take the financial aspect away. Less people will be interested in exploiting kids for coin.

      • lucy2 says:

        Excellent points.
        YT and wherever else they sell their family should ban their accounts.

      • Holly hobby says:

        This is very informative. Ohio cps should definitely be involved in this. I don’t care if a POA was signed.

      • Mignionette says:

        They really thought their subscribers would just forget Huxley existed ?

      • adastraperaspera says:

        This data is so telling. And shocking.

      • FicklePickle says:

        Yeah, realistically speaking Youtube work should be treated as non-union acting, but heaven knows the law takes forever and at least one high profile tragedy before it catches up to the reality of changing technology. And trying to enforce child labor laws on small independent film productions like a Youtube channel would be…difficult.

  10. lanne says:

    They should have their bio kids removed as well. For child exploitation. Temporarily home them with relatives while these bozos are investigated. Maybe this will start to end the scourge of YouTube child exploitation for money. These kids do not consent, and this content will follow them for life. So many kids of mom bloggers are growing up angry and resentful, as they should be. Companies should stop sponsoring this shit. kids lives are a stake!

    • GR says:

      @Lanne – Yes, 1,000%!

    • Mrs.Krabapple says:

      Yes! And, they should be investigated for child abuse as well, since people were pointing out how they “handled” their child’s special needs by duct taping his hands together and locking him in a closet.

  11. Eleonor says:

    I have been adopted…so you can rehome a child? Is it legally possible???

    • Still_Sarah says:

      @ Eleonor : I used to work for a child protection agency in the legal department. If you have already adopted the child, then he/she is legally the same as a biological child. You can decide to have your child live with relatives or friends. You may or may not decide to make this change permanent (my nephew lived with us for a year). You may or may not decide to change your child’s legal status – i.e. custody (custody remained with his mother). I think the child protection agency would get involved as they would with any child to determine if the child was being properly cared for where they were living.

      Of course, all of this sidesteps the issue of whether the adoptive parents are awful people for having done this. Even at this young age, it would be very traumatic (even more for a special needs child) to be moving to his third family. I saw this happen with a friend who fostered two children. When her husband went away for a weekend, the foster children said “Uncle Mike” had left and was never coming back because that was what other caregivers (their parents) had done.

      • AppleTartin says:

        Apparently they were able to side step that legally in the State of Ohio.

      • S2 says:

        CPS gets involved in very few cases. They almost always rely on tips, and there is a definite racial and socio-economic bias to which cases they get involved in. (Conversely, high profile cases like this will also often catch their attention, just by their ubiquity.)

        It’s not even a little bit uncommon for kids of all ages to go and live with relatives, friends, etc. for a variety of reasons for years, if not lifetimes, without a single legal check or balance being put in place, or protective service awareness being triggered.

    • Smore says:

      Search for the Reuters article on this. It’s a heartbreaking and from years ago, but parents that have actively just dumped their children with abusive parents and even a sexual offenders have never been prosecuted. It’s rare that the parents are held accountable, even if they re-home their children to dangerous strangers. Unless Huxley was taken across state lines or was left in a dangerous home, I doubt they will be charged with anything. It’s shockingly legal and easy for them to just give POA to someone else to care for their child.

  12. Jess says:

    These people make me sick, and she’s clearly a very good liar because she posted hundreds of times over the years saying how wonderful Huxley was and how he’s her son forever no matter what. Plus, he’s been gone for months and they just carried on life as normal and kept filming as if nothing happened, that’s fkng twisted. They absolutely should be investigated and have their channels shut down. They don’t deserve another dime off their children.

    They had the resources to get him better help, they simply didn’t want to. I wish they’d just admit that, but they think we can’t see the 700k house they just bought? Or the trips, cars, and clothes?! They had a new baby and decided Huxley was too much to handle and didn’t fit their perfect family narrative. His special needs weren’t “easy” like they hoped. They wanted the views from having an adopted special needs child without having to put in too much work.

    • AppleTartin says:

      There was a video of her complaining about how they didn’t want to pay $500 a month for Huxley Therapist. So they found a cheaper one for $70. All the while showing off her new $6,000 Cartier bracelet. They also bought a $670,000 “dream home” and two Mercedes. All off the back of using Huxley for content coin.

      • Katie says:

        Buh-bye sponsors. Now, you two can get rehomed to a 2 BR rental. Poor all 5 children. Now or at some point they‘ll understand what their parents have done. Can you imagine what that does to the 4 that were allowed to stay? Talk about ruining the safety and security of family.

      • Mtec says:

        Wow. They are absolutely horrid.

        I joined a lot of ppl on Twitter calling for them to be investigated for this, i’m glad to hear it’s happening. I hope they don’t just get a slap on the hand for doing this “semi-legal”, hand-picked, private, child-abandonment just cause they’re christian and white and you know the world offers people like that way more sympathy and benefit of the doubt than they deserve.

  13. Sean says:

    “It appears that [Myka] made arrangements with an individual person, versus an agency,”

    Good God, they really were treating this child like he was a commodity or pet.

  14. Liz version 700 says:

    These people are evil. I do not get good vibes. I admit I watch too much Discovery ID television, but we need to know that child is ok.

  15. Mumbles says:

    Megan Twohey (now at the NYT) did an expose of “rehoming networks” when she was at Reuters a few years ago. There were (are?) actual Yahoo newsgroups where people would give away of trade off children with no oversight, often to people who weren’t fit to take care of any living being, let alone a child, never mind the trafficking. It’s a nauseating but important read. The article is called “The Child Exchange” and is on line.

    • Léna says:

      thank you

    • Imogene says:

      I posted the link to this story, but it seems like the comment got removed (maybe not allowed to post links?). The article you mentioned is really good and explains exactly what might have happened to Huxley. Thank you for mentioning it, I just spent the past hour reading it. It appears to me that underground rehoming (the actual term that is used) is a pretty common way to get rid of children you no longer want. Myka and James mentioned he is with another “mommy” one who is equipped to take care of his needs, and if they did not do proper vetting it is impossible to know if this is true. What I read in the article suggests that people on these exchanges will say whatever it takes to get access to these children. It is truly sickening.

    • adastraperaspera says:

      This sounds like human trafficking.

    • Andrew’s Nemesis says:

      @Mumbles I’m reading the article right now and oh! My God. I’m absolutely distraught, I feel physically sick; how can such dreadful abuse go unnoticed, underreported; how can people like these Easons get away with it again and again and again?
      If little Huxley is in this situation – my God, I dread to think. I’m too shocked and horrified even to cry

    • Smore says:

      I just finished reading the article and the fact that none of people ever saw the inside of a courtroom left me shaking. And oh god, that effing woman who wanted consumer protections for adoptions, who gave away her daughter to someone she only ever spoke to once over the phone!

  16. Allie says:

    Removing his images from social media is the only right thing to do. They should also remove the images of their bio kids and get a real job instead of using their children as cash cows.
    Children have a right to live their lives in privacy without being exploited by their parents. There are so many white Jesus people with way too many kids who play happy family on Instagram and post pictures of their children every day, shilling products left and right. They did not and cannot consent! This is abuse!

    Huxley had been branded by them as the hard-to-deal-with autistic child. He deserves better. I hope he grows up in peace, without being recognised by anyone as “the child who hat to be re-homed”.

  17. Nia says:

    I think she 100% had to take down every photo of him TBH. She should have done it sooner too. Profiting off his image was not right.

    I hope he is in a better «fit», for his sake. I get that he didnt have the disability they were informed about, but so what? What if one of their white babies suddenly, God forbid, has a health crisis that leaves them disabled? I think 100% they would never ever do the same thing.

  18. Mabs A'Mabbin says:

    Is this a great week or what? Nematode Voldemort with the Cheeto dick is being dragged by more people and publications than I’ve ever seen. Republican members of Congress are being called out. Houston had an impressive protest yesterday illustrating so many positives from protestors to policemen and even masks! The policemen responsible are being appropriately charged. More and more companies are actually saying the right things and dropping collaborations with the unfit. Lea Michelle is gettin’ some. And now this? Did y’all fail to mention it’s actually Christmas? Because I feel awash in gifts.

    • Anners says:

      Thank you for this Mabs – I desperately needed someone to point out the bright side. This lifted my heart a bit and reminded me that hope is hard to kill.

  19. Ladyjax says:

    My nearly 3 year old son is severely autistic. These people sicken me. By blood and birth or via adoption, one cannot just give up on their child because the child is a handful. I don’t doubt they were in over their heads. And that is when you dig deeper, find the help and resources to help your child thrive, and throw your back into becoming a stronger, more creative person and parent.

    They could have done so much good to raise awareness of developmental disabilities. If they had been honest with their struggles and tried like hell to fight the good fight, they could have shown a slew of people that it’s possible to work through the difficulties that arise while raising an atypical kid and even find happiness and thrive. They could have made the world a better place for Huxley and millions of kids like him.

    F*$@ these people to the moon and back. How disgusting.

  20. Amelie says:

    I think a lot of posts on Instagram featuring Huxley were sponsored content so it made sense for Myka to take them down. If she takes down a few, she might as well take down all of them. Huxley isn’t a part of their family anymore and it would be disingenuous to keep the pictures up. They never truly bonded and I believe Huxley subconsciously always knew she didn’t have his best interests at heart since he always gravitated to the dad. We don’t know what he was like when they weren’t filming but it’s clear this family would not have been equipped to handle any adoption from China (I read a comment above saying China mostly allows adoptions of children with special needs and this NBC article confirms it):

    I’m glad the authorities are involved and best case scenario, Huxley is doing really well with his second family. I can’t imagine him doing well in the foster care system, being bumped around from family to family. He needs stability and too many changes in environment would only ruin any progress hey may have made. I just hope that Myka and James are done on Youtube. They need to stop exploiting the rest of their kids as well.

    • Mignionette says:

      Also as the agreement with sponsors has come to an end bc of breach of some sort of morality clause i.e. abandoning your child, the sponsors would have asked her to take down the posts.

      I also suspect that they god rid of Huxley once they’d paid off the house and cars. This is the very definition of child expoitation and trafficking, it;s disusting.

      I see a Netflix docu in the pipeline re vlogging families and exploitation.

    • cine says:

      Wouldn’t it be awesome if she had to payback the sponsors ? What she did was basically a bait and switch (imho). Did she alert the sponsors that their content was changing??? Shouldn’t that be required?

  21. HK9 says:

    Since she made the wrong choice regarding Huxley, I don’t trust her “decision making” regarding the choice of the new family either. Everyone needs to be investigated regarding this. Shallow bitch.

    • lucy2 says:

      I agree with everything you said, but don’t forget the dad. There are 2 parents here, equally to blame.

  22. bradensmom4 says:

    My son is 24 and has autism/behavioral issues. Yes, it’s been tough, at times. All parents face challenges at some point. That’s just life. I wouldn’t let these 2 adopt a goldfish, much less a child. Horrible!

  23. Holly hobby says:

    I’m surprised they didn’t have to file some kind of paperwork to give their child away. After all on paper they are officially the legal guardians. How do you transfer that? It’s because you can’t without getting a family law judge involved!

    Seriously it would not surprise me at all they sold that kid for cash. Garbage people and most likely Rump supporters

  24. emmy says:

    Children shouldn’t be used on social media for profit. It’s such black hole of ethics imo, it should be illegal. This couple literally got a disabled kid to sell him on YouTube and then give him away like a used designer bag. Despicable.

    • S2 says:

      This. Children are not property. They are not yours to use, profit off of or dispose of at your whim.

      There is a very dark underbelly to the entire reality show/mommy vlogging, sponsored life-style, where the draw is the children, and the parents are profiting off their likeness with zero oversight, because it’s “real.” There are protections in place for child stars due to exploitation, though probably not strong off, but no such shield for kids being used by their parents for profit in “real” life, self-produced content. This is a huge loophole that is dangerous and unhealthy for dozens of reasons.

      At the very least, every one of these children should be entitled to a protected portion of their parents’ profits and some sort of watchdog group to make sure they’re being treated properly and safely.

      • cine says:

        Maybe a move away from you tubers with children, as a family project, and go towards child-actors, whose income is protected, and filming is regulated, etc. Really, what is the difference bt YouTube “workers” and SAG/AFTRA?

  25. Cari says:

    This is just such a sad situation all around. I wonder what they would have done if this was a biological child?
    I am trying not to judge….but it’s hard not to. We don’t know the struggles they faced…but honestly this child may be better where he is. Most would fight youth and nail to keep there child. The fact that they are “re-homing” him, I wonder if they had a true emotional bond with him. Poor little guy

  26. Mina_Esq says:

    She seems to hint in some of her statements that this little boy was somehow a danger to her other children. That annoys me so very much. I also hate the use of “fit” when describing a family member. Guess what, lady? That’s not how families work.

  27. samipup says:

    Wonder how she got the red “crying” eyes….cayenne pepper maybe?

  28. LunaSF says:

    Ugh I just hope that precious boy is happy and thriving away from these douche bags. While I realize that dealing with special needs children is hard and challenging and if your other kids are in dangers you might need to make some tough decisions (and the US doesn’t do near enough when it comes to support for individuals with high needs), the fact that they put on this fake ass front of being perfect “influencers” and profited off of this kid really angers me. Adopting children from different races seems to be some white Christian savior tend right now that needs to stop. Kids aren’t a trend and should not be treated like this.

  29. S2 says:

    ICYMI, saw this Twitter thread about the Stauffers, who I’d never heard of before seeing this on Celebitchy, and it is quite a ride of enraging details, filled with receipts.

  30. Dear dear says:

    They abandoned Huxley in January, kept monetized videos of him online until now (at least last night when I watched some) and left for a long vacation in Bali while posting for four months “fun content” without mentioning Hux and blocking anyone asking about him. They kept profiting from a child they abandoned. Sociopathic and greedy.

    I feel like sh*t for giving them views. Huxley is adorable, seemed very sweet, self-sufficient and showed a strong emotional bond with his then family.

  31. JanaTHING says:

    So if one of her other 4 (natural) children are diagnosed with Autism, will she rehome them as well? Because autism doesn’t care about your racial, social or economic background.

  32. Zengirl says:

    I usually agree with your point of view Kaiser, but largely disagree on this story. 1) 25% or more of adoptions don’t work and children have to be found a new home. I don’t think this is ideal, but it is realistic. As a mom who has had difficult situations raising my own children, dealing with health conditions, etc, there are times when you think about the fact that your children may be better off in an environment that can better meet their needs. 2) Myka may have either decided or been told to (by the new parents or lawyers) to remove Huxley posts, since he is no longer their child and his privacy is now up to his new family. 3) Based on other articles I have read, it seems lawyers, therapists, and others were involved in this. If so, this was probably done as best as it can be, and I strongly doubt anything illegal was done. One report had comments from local officials preliminarily investigating that at least some of above (re: lawyers etc.) is true. 4) As someone who works with at risk children and those with handicaps, I have to emphatically state that some behaviors can be violent towards others and destruction of property to the point of self injury. I have had biological parents in tears regarding how to deal with their own children and have occasionally had to have their children institutionalized or put in temporary situations. This had NOTHING to do with their love for their child. All of this can definitely happen with autism as well. 5) This violence could have been directed at other children in the house as well, including a newborn. That can be a very scary situation, and I have heard horror stories about this happening. A good parent would need to consider all children. 6) It is possible for 4 year old children to non-verbally show preference. People can be heartbroken when this happens, but it can be as clear as a child continually running towards, clinging to, or hugging a person in preference over another. Huxley may have preferred to be in an environment where he is an only child or one of fewer children. Five with a newborn is A LOT, and he may have not gotten near the attention he needed or wanted. 7) Many people nowadays choose social media as a way to make a living and their children play a part. Our society has not, yet, determined this to be wrong. So, they are doing something that has become a norm.

    I think the bigger issues here are: 1) social media and all of the crap that comes with it (I am not a big fan of the performing, faking of backgrounds, emotions, etc.), 2) children’s privacy issues. I had huge issues with this back in the Jon and Kate days, which I found awful and hellacious. I think this is where we should concentrate our time. 3) Issues with foreign adoptions not doing due diligence. In one of their posts, Myka stated that they originally, when considering adoption, had not considered special needs, then became open to it. In other videos, she states that they had no idea how intensive Huxley’s needs are, and that they later found that part of his brain tissue was dead/missing. So, there are issues with not making sure adoptive parents are realistic and not making sure good medical history is done. Culture also plays a part (for example, Chinese culture prizes health and strength (Asian studies major here), so Huxley may not have gotten thorough medical diagnosis – also care should be given to educating and requiring adoptive parents are culturally responsive (Huxley as a name??? Yikes!). Just my opinion.

    • KL says:

      “In other videos, she states that they had no idea how intensive Huxley’s needs are”

      That’s the story NOW. If you search YouTube, people have uploaded clips from videos (now inaccessible via her original channel) from 2017 where Myka, even before the adoption went through, was bragging about how a doctor from the States saw Huxley’s file, consulted with colleagues, and attempted to dissuade the Stauffers from adopting, saying it would be a difficult scenario and maybe too much for them to handle. Myka spoke over several videos about how comfortable she felt as an RN adopting despite ANY issues, and how the doctor’s advice went — and I quote — “in one ear and out the other,” and that “we don’t need to consult any more physicians, he’s our boy… he is not returnable.”

      Stateside professionals warned her. She and her husband had an excess of funds — due to Huxley drawing in audiences — to provide necessary resources like therapy, even nannies. He was their child for years without issue, years where he was featured in sponsored content and branded advertising posts, earning them even more money. They are not comparable to parents who understandably might feel their resources were exhausted. They chose to get pregnant and have another child after adopting one with attachment issues and needs they had been familiar with — for years. They built this situation brick by brick, and then tossed a child over that wall.

  33. Belly says:

    They’re buying followers/subscribers like there’s no tomorrow, trying to make it look like they have support and aren’t actually haemorrhaging money and sponsors.

    They can suck it, I hope they go bankrupt. Then their bank account can match their morals.

  34. Jennifer says:

    I’m a mom of 5, 2 adopted with significant special needs. I have also been a foster parent. Most people are getting this story wrong. ‘Rehoming’ happens all the time. Finding the best fort for a child with significant trauma is not easy and not perfect.

  35. Archie’s Book says:

    Did anyone see the YouTube explanation of this process by NineBlindChildren or whatever? Apparently it’s called a “disruption”. The whole thing sounds like a bunch of white saviors getting a dose of reality. The fact that this is normalized in those circles is even worse.

    I’m also glad that this is exposing how truly problematic it is to be an influencer parent. In the future I foresee the government highly regulating this. Similar to Coogan Law.

  36. Jenn says:

    I recently learned that the lax laws that allowed me to completely legally and blessedly live with the elderly relatives who went on to raise me, are the exact same laws that make the horrifying act of “rehoming” a child legal. All you need is a notarized power of attorney signing the child over to a new guardian! (For the guardians to legally adopt, the original parents just have to sign a note saying they are “abandoning” the child, as my birth mother did for me.) A few years back there was a disturbing multi-part investigative piece on “disrupted adoptions” and “rehoming” published by Reuters. Look for it if you want to be horrified.

    This story makes me so sad. I just wish adoptive parents were better educated. Childhood trauma causes sensory-processing problems and attachment disorders that result in behavioral issues and “meltdowns” anytime the child feels emotionally overwhelmed. (I strongly suspect Huxley’s “developmental disability” is in fact developmental trauma, i.e. reactive attachment disorder, which is very much not what people think of by “developmental delay.”) I had the same issues at his age, and being moved from home to home did not allow me to feel stable, secure, or loved. There are wonderful trauma counselors who work exclusively with children and whom are equipped to help, if parents would just go to them.