Myka Stauffer Said Her Adopted Son From China Was “Not Returnable” Before Viral Rehoming Scandal
Myka Stauffer, who shocked the world when she gave up her four-year-old son, said before the child’s adoption that he was “not returnable” and she “would love” him “no matter what state” he was in.
The story of the YouTuber star and her husband, James Stauffer, resurfaced in the new three-part docuseries called An Update on Our Family, which includes deleted clips from the couple’s old vlogs about the boy’s adoption.
- Myka Stauffer once said her adopted son from China was "not returnable" and she would "love" him "no matter what state" he was in
- The Stauffers gained online fame by sharing their journey of adopting Huxley from China on YouTube
- The couple faced immense backlash in 2020 after announcing they could no longer care for Huxley, who was diagnosed with autism post-adoption
- The new docuseries called 'An Update on Our Family' explores the Stauffers' story
The Ohio-based couple enjoyed internet stardom as they documented their journey of adopting a boy with special needs from China. They named the boy Huxley, and the video of them adopting the then 2½-year-old racked up over 5 million views.
The story of Myka and James Stauffer resurfaced with the release of the new docuseries called An Update on Our Family
Image credits: Myka Stauffer / Instagram
Prior to his adoption, the mother of three spoke about the child and said they were unaware of the extent of his disabilities but claimed she wouldn’t be returning the child.
“I don’t know what his medical diagnosis is gonna look like. How much schooling will he need? Will he need a little bit more hands on [parenting]? Will he be delayed?” she said in 2017.
“But if anything, my child is not returnable,” she added and claimed she and her husband were ready to meet the child’s needs.
The Stauffers, who gained online stardom from their vlogs, are also parents to their three biological children
Image credits: Myka Stauffer / Instagram
“The only need that our little boy has is a nice family that really, truly cares about him,” she said in a vlog.
After gaining online fame by sharing their journey of adopting Huxley, the couple fell from grace in 2020 when they announced to their audience that they could no longer care for the boy, who was diagnosed with autism following the adoption.
The Stauffers sought adoption dissolution two years after welcoming the little one home. Their decision prompted immense backlash online.
Huxley is now part of a new family and has since been renamed.
“My child is not returnable,” Myka claimed prior to the adoption of Huxley, who has since been renamed by his new family
After an announcement about the child being rehomed, the vlogging couple’s lawyers, Thomas Taneff and Taylor Sayers, said they believed this was the best decision for him.
“Since his adoption, they consulted with multiple professionals in the healthcare and educational arenas in order to provide Huxley with the best possible treatment and care,” the lawyers said in a statement to People. “Over time, the team of medical professionals advised our clients it might be best for Huxley to be placed with another family.”
The new Vox Media Studios docuseries, An Update on Our Family, was created by filmmaker Rachel Mason.
The Ohio-based mom apologized for their decision to give the boy up and said she was “naive” during the adoption process
View this post on Instagram
“What drew me to the Stauffer story was the fact that they represented a world that is highly in demand as far as content. Their story being traumatic was interesting, but it also made me think, ‘Wow, I wonder how many other stories there are that we’re just still on the edge of learning about?'” Rachel told The Hollywood Reporter.
“The Stauffers [are] an example that our series challenges on some level: Are they an example of people that are the worst parents or are they doing things to feed an audience demand that has gotten out of control within an industry that’s unregulated? When you are amateurs and your show is your family and you don’t have any producers or anyone giving you any guardrails, there’s so many things that can go wrong,” the filmmaker added.
“The story of what they did with Huxley is pretty much the tip of the iceberg of what we’re starting to learn exists within that sphere, moving forward to the present day.”
Poll Question
Thanks! Check out the results:
Subscribe to Access
Exclusive Polls
By entering your email and clicking Subscribe, you're agreeing to let us send you customized marketing messages about us and our advertising partners. You are also agreeing to our Privacy Policy.
Thank you! You've successfully subscribed to newsletters!
This was big news years ago. I don't see the point in advertising for their youtube channel or whatever it is here, so long after the fact.
I agree that I don't like that some people will go to her YouTube channel and give her "hits/views" due to this story, but I DO think that we should remember - and continue to shame - these two terrible people for what they did. As "influencers", they had PLENTY of money for hiring help for Huxley's care, and they didn't. They tossed him out because they didn't want to deal with a less-than-perfectly-marketable child. Which is hilarious, because they'd have gotten MORE views/kudos/pats on the back from viewers if they were like "We love him despite his condition and we are committed to caring for him!" - even though it would have been insincere on their part, the viewers wouldn't have known, and they'd have eaten it up as a feel-good story.
Load More Replies... They deliberately sought out a tough adoption so they could be saviors and make money from their content. They monetised their child and when he was more trouble than he was worth, or when they realised they could make even more money with less work by giving him up, they cast him aside. Would they have done this to one of their bio children? If you decide to have a child, it's a gamble, but its also a commitment. I'm glad he's in a better home but these are despicable people.
I really don't see this as any different than a poor mom giving up a baby for adoption so she can take care of her other children. The child needed more help than this family could provide without negatively impacting their other kids. They made a tough decision with no good options.
Part of the major controversy was that they milked the situation endlessly and made a lot of money with this adoption, there were additional details that were unsavory but its been just long enough I don't recall them anymore.
Load More Replies...
This was big news years ago. I don't see the point in advertising for their youtube channel or whatever it is here, so long after the fact.
I agree that I don't like that some people will go to her YouTube channel and give her "hits/views" due to this story, but I DO think that we should remember - and continue to shame - these two terrible people for what they did. As "influencers", they had PLENTY of money for hiring help for Huxley's care, and they didn't. They tossed him out because they didn't want to deal with a less-than-perfectly-marketable child. Which is hilarious, because they'd have gotten MORE views/kudos/pats on the back from viewers if they were like "We love him despite his condition and we are committed to caring for him!" - even though it would have been insincere on their part, the viewers wouldn't have known, and they'd have eaten it up as a feel-good story.
Load More Replies... They deliberately sought out a tough adoption so they could be saviors and make money from their content. They monetised their child and when he was more trouble than he was worth, or when they realised they could make even more money with less work by giving him up, they cast him aside. Would they have done this to one of their bio children? If you decide to have a child, it's a gamble, but its also a commitment. I'm glad he's in a better home but these are despicable people.
I really don't see this as any different than a poor mom giving up a baby for adoption so she can take care of her other children. The child needed more help than this family could provide without negatively impacting their other kids. They made a tough decision with no good options.
Part of the major controversy was that they milked the situation endlessly and made a lot of money with this adoption, there were additional details that were unsavory but its been just long enough I don't recall them anymore.
Load More Replies...
17
47