Myka Stauffer Gives Up Adopted Son, Exploitation Claims & Outrage, Tana Mongeau OnlyFans Controversy
video description
Date: 2020-05-29
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 8
The
So when it comes to the family story I have 2 perspectives to offer. 1) I myself have Aspergers & I have lived in two different homes. One of them with my Mum & her partner, my brother and my sister. This household just doesn't work for me. None of the people understand me fully and I have always felt ignored. Then I went and lived with my Dad (Parents got divorced when I was like 10-11 so like 7 years ago) and that household was much better. With less people in the house I was able to have more one on one time with my Dad (and that time is very important to me. For me the best home is one where I feel like people actually have time for me and pay attention to me. 2) My dad has now become a full time foster carer as none of us kids live with him due to him living in another state. The type of kids he fosters are deemed high risk. Their parents are typically some of the worst people on earth to be parents & if these kids aren't able to grow up in a stable home they might go down the same path as their parents. These kids are a full time job, the only times they don't require attention is when they are asleep or at school. But from talking to my Dad & staying with my Dad while there have been these foster kids in the house I know these kids are some of the most high maintenance kids that are possible. One of these kids kept breaking shit around the house, they would throw shit through their bedroom window, they would constantly run away. Due to this kids behaviour my Dad always had the local police on recent contacts. Having to call the police was a weekly occurrence if not every other day. Now this kid wasn't acting out because my Dad is a bad parent or not paying attention to them or whatever, this is just who some of these kids are & sometimes the parents just can't handle it. Basically the kid going to live in another home is ultimately a good thing. The parents couldn't provide what the kid needed & the kid wasn't able to chill out. This doesn't make them a bad parents or the kid a bad person. I'm sure that these parents did everything possible to try and make it work but ended up finding a situation that would benefit both the parents and the child. I think the ultimate sign of love from parents is knowing when to let their child go for their own benefit. If the kid is in a better fitting home then they will 100% be better off, not because these parents are bad parents but because these parents couldn't offer what this kid needed. Plus if they didn't bring this child back from another country they would definitely be in a worse situation.
reply
So when it comes to the family story I have 2 perspectives to offer. 1) I myself have Aspergers & I have lived in two different homes. One of them with my Mum & her partner, my brother and my sister. This household just doesn't work for me. None of the people understand me fully and I have always felt ignored. Then I went and lived with my Dad (Parents got divorced when I was like 10-11 so like 7 years ago) and that household was much better. With less people in the house I was able to have more one on one time with my Dad (and that time is very important to me. For me the best home is one where I feel like people actually have time for me and pay attention to me. 2) My dad has now become a full time foster carer as none of us kids live with him due to him living in another state. The type of kids he fosters are deemed high risk. Their parents are typically some of the worst people on earth to be parents & if these kids aren't able to grow up in a stable home they might go down the same path as their parents. These kids are a full time job, the only times they don't require attention is when they are asleep or at school. But from talking to my Dad & staying with my Dad while there have been these foster kids in the house I know these kids are some of the most high maintenance kids that are possible. One of these kids kept breaking shit around the house, they would throw shit through their bedroom window, they would constantly run away. Due to this kids behaviour my Dad always had the local police on recent contacts. Having to call the police was a weekly occurrence if not every other day. Now this kid wasn't acting out because my Dad is a bad parent or not paying attention to them or whatever, this is just who some of these kids are & sometimes the parents just can't handle it. Basically the kid going to live in another home is ultimately a good thing. The parents couldn't provide what the kid needed & the kid wasn't able to chill out. This doesn't make them a bad parents or the kid a bad person. I'm sure that these parents did everything possible to try and make it work but ended up finding a situation that would benefit both the parents and the child. I think the ultimate sign of love from parents is knowing when to let their child go for their own benefit. If the kid is in a better fitting home then they will 100% be better off, not because these parents are bad parents but because these parents couldn't offer what this kid needed. Plus if they didn't bring this child back from another country they would definitely be in a worse situation.
reply
Guns
In the UK, it is estimated that between 3. 2% - 9% of adopted children are placed back into care. I know of cases where social workers have told parents of both biological children and an adopted child to place the adopted child with another family so that the biological children are no longer physically or mentally endangered by the adopted child. This is a case of SOCIAL WORKERS telling parents that ALL their children will be placed into care unless at least SOME of their children can be protected. See, not all adoptive parents are fit to be parents of adopted children. Many siblings shouldn't be forced into dangerous situations by parents who wish to adopt but aren't capable of caring for the complex needs of an adopted child. Many children put up for adoption have multiple behavioural, psychological, social, and physical health problems which require a very special kind of parent for them. And these children DESERVE trained and specialist parents who can provide them with the best care and the best life. Because adopted children tend to come from situations which will have caused or catalysed health problems for the child, a high percentage of them will sadly deal with health issues for the rest of their lives. In the UK, over 90% of children and babies which are put up for adoption will have health/behavioural/psychological problems, and perhaps this is the same world-wide. REMEMBER, children are placed for adoption ONLY IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. Worldwide it is agreed that children, wherever possible, should be kept with biological family. Therefore, children who are placed for adoption are the extreme cases, and many will at some point in their life have extreme needs. And unfortunately, if parents already have other children, there are unfortunately cases where other children in the family are endangered by the adoptive child. In these cases, social workers step in and may heavily advise the parents to place the adopted child with another family in order to protect the other children in the family. This happens. It happens more than people assume. I know this all sounds harsh, but most of what people know about adoption isn't the reality of it. Parents of adopted children need training, support, and most of all need to understand the realities of lots of adoption cases before they go into it.
reply
In the UK, it is estimated that between 3. 2% - 9% of adopted children are placed back into care. I know of cases where social workers have told parents of both biological children and an adopted child to place the adopted child with another family so that the biological children are no longer physically or mentally endangered by the adopted child. This is a case of SOCIAL WORKERS telling parents that ALL their children will be placed into care unless at least SOME of their children can be protected. See, not all adoptive parents are fit to be parents of adopted children. Many siblings shouldn't be forced into dangerous situations by parents who wish to adopt but aren't capable of caring for the complex needs of an adopted child. Many children put up for adoption have multiple behavioural, psychological, social, and physical health problems which require a very special kind of parent for them. And these children DESERVE trained and specialist parents who can provide them with the best care and the best life. Because adopted children tend to come from situations which will have caused or catalysed health problems for the child, a high percentage of them will sadly deal with health issues for the rest of their lives. In the UK, over 90% of children and babies which are put up for adoption will have health/behavioural/psychological problems, and perhaps this is the same world-wide. REMEMBER, children are placed for adoption ONLY IN EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. Worldwide it is agreed that children, wherever possible, should be kept with biological family. Therefore, children who are placed for adoption are the extreme cases, and many will at some point in their life have extreme needs. And unfortunately, if parents already have other children, there are unfortunately cases where other children in the family are endangered by the adoptive child. In these cases, social workers step in and may heavily advise the parents to place the adopted child with another family in order to protect the other children in the family. This happens. It happens more than people assume. I know this all sounds harsh, but most of what people know about adoption isn't the reality of it. Parents of adopted children need training, support, and most of all need to understand the realities of lots of adoption cases before they go into it.
reply
Loo
I think the fact that they were lied to about his true mental health problems puts this more into perspective. When they adopted him they weren't expecting a high needs child, and while it is heartbreaking, it's going to likely be the best possible thing for the child. Imagine growing up in a home where your mental health isn't going to be properly treated, I say this from some experience though not on this level. I understand why people are upset, but I believe they had pure intentions. If the child is in a safe, healthy and happier environment it was absolutely the right choice. You dont want a child to grow up in a home that isnt able to properly support him and help him succeed in life, by not giving him up to a better sitter is neglectful. You dont want a child growing up feeling like a burden, once again I have some experience in this. This was a tough and heartbreaking decision that they had to make. They are not bad parents, they were looking out for the boy they love. If they didn't care about his well being and mental health they would have kept him in the home which could have created an extremely toxic environment for him. They made the right choice. As for the sponsors, they had no idea they were going to have to give him up, they had little information about his mental state other than brain damage and were not prepared to a child with such high needs. They tried. They didn't just give up on him after a week. They took the sponsorships because they had good intentions wanted the financial support while making a big decision in life. This was a happy and joyous moment for them, they had no clue how things would turn out. Theres more to the story than just what the internet perceives as true. There was no ill will, and it's sad people are spinning it that way. This was a family that was misinformed and mislead and got into a situation they were not prepared for. He will be much better off in a household that can truely care for him to the fullest extent and get him the right help. Point blank
reply
I think the fact that they were lied to about his true mental health problems puts this more into perspective. When they adopted him they weren't expecting a high needs child, and while it is heartbreaking, it's going to likely be the best possible thing for the child. Imagine growing up in a home where your mental health isn't going to be properly treated, I say this from some experience though not on this level. I understand why people are upset, but I believe they had pure intentions. If the child is in a safe, healthy and happier environment it was absolutely the right choice. You dont want a child to grow up in a home that isnt able to properly support him and help him succeed in life, by not giving him up to a better sitter is neglectful. You dont want a child growing up feeling like a burden, once again I have some experience in this. This was a tough and heartbreaking decision that they had to make. They are not bad parents, they were looking out for the boy they love. If they didn't care about his well being and mental health they would have kept him in the home which could have created an extremely toxic environment for him. They made the right choice. As for the sponsors, they had no idea they were going to have to give him up, they had little information about his mental state other than brain damage and were not prepared to a child with such high needs. They tried. They didn't just give up on him after a week. They took the sponsorships because they had good intentions wanted the financial support while making a big decision in life. This was a happy and joyous moment for them, they had no clue how things would turn out. Theres more to the story than just what the internet perceives as true. There was no ill will, and it's sad people are spinning it that way. This was a family that was misinformed and mislead and got into a situation they were not prepared for. He will be much better off in a household that can truely care for him to the fullest extent and get him the right help. Point blank
reply
あゆデブ
With the situation with Hux, I feel it's very similar to my own uncle on my mother's side as well as a child I took care of when I was in my early 20s. Although I feel where people are enraged I understand how the two felt, my grandmother was never always equipped to help my uncle with his every needs and because of that, he was only really with them for half the week, and that's with my grandmother and mother in the medical field, both registered care aids. The child I took care of, as well, definitely needed more help than his parents were able to give him, money or not. It's an education type thing and when people don't have the proper education, it's detrimental to the child. The mother I helped, pointed it out several times as she herself struggled with his reading ability while I was able to improve it. The only reason I was able to take care of that child, was because I helped take care of my uncle, who had very similar behaviours, and even then, the child had emotions and frustrations to sort through first, which is no fault of anyone, not even him (he admitted his own frustration several times in very clear ways. Although I don't like the fact that they completely put the child in someone else's care, I do see why they did it, they more than likely wanted the child to have the best care possible, and they may not have the mental tools or physical ones possible. I do understand the frustration behind the whole thing, but I also saw their tears and it just reminds me of my grandmother. She was extremely reluctant to put her child out of her care for even a few days until she noticed improvements, things he was able to accomplish there that he couldn't at home. I believe they are doing what is best for Hux as a whole and I wish all of them well
reply
With the situation with Hux, I feel it's very similar to my own uncle on my mother's side as well as a child I took care of when I was in my early 20s. Although I feel where people are enraged I understand how the two felt, my grandmother was never always equipped to help my uncle with his every needs and because of that, he was only really with them for half the week, and that's with my grandmother and mother in the medical field, both registered care aids. The child I took care of, as well, definitely needed more help than his parents were able to give him, money or not. It's an education type thing and when people don't have the proper education, it's detrimental to the child. The mother I helped, pointed it out several times as she herself struggled with his reading ability while I was able to improve it. The only reason I was able to take care of that child, was because I helped take care of my uncle, who had very similar behaviours, and even then, the child had emotions and frustrations to sort through first, which is no fault of anyone, not even him (he admitted his own frustration several times in very clear ways. Although I don't like the fact that they completely put the child in someone else's care, I do see why they did it, they more than likely wanted the child to have the best care possible, and they may not have the mental tools or physical ones possible. I do understand the frustration behind the whole thing, but I also saw their tears and it just reminds me of my grandmother. She was extremely reluctant to put her child out of her care for even a few days until she noticed improvements, things he was able to accomplish there that he couldn't at home. I believe they are doing what is best for Hux as a whole and I wish all of them well
reply
Mark
Hux. We have only one side of the story, and that is all we will ever have, so we have to go with it and look at the possibilities. Did they abandon a child because he was too much for them? Maybe. But what if they are sincere, the ultimate act of love is letting someone go so they can be better off than they would be if you held on. Assuming they are being truthful, their hearts are breaking, but they are doing what is best for the young boy. As a father of an autistic son, it does take a lot of understanding and time to deal with the issues that are a part of the condition. And in some extreme cases I can see why placing a child with parents that are better equipped to handle this would be the best thing for the child. Also remember he is adopted, and in adoption the state hold much more control over the situation that with a naturally born son (biologically parenting. The state can put pressure on the couple to almost force them to give up the child. There can be implied threats of child abuse or neglect charges down the line if they done let someone more capable take the child, which would put their other children at risk of being taken away. Defiantly more to this story than we will ever know, but I can't throw shade on them for doing what might actually be the best thing that can do for the child. Having been through more than my share of emotional trauma, my heart breaks for everyone involved with this story.
reply
Hux. We have only one side of the story, and that is all we will ever have, so we have to go with it and look at the possibilities. Did they abandon a child because he was too much for them? Maybe. But what if they are sincere, the ultimate act of love is letting someone go so they can be better off than they would be if you held on. Assuming they are being truthful, their hearts are breaking, but they are doing what is best for the young boy. As a father of an autistic son, it does take a lot of understanding and time to deal with the issues that are a part of the condition. And in some extreme cases I can see why placing a child with parents that are better equipped to handle this would be the best thing for the child. Also remember he is adopted, and in adoption the state hold much more control over the situation that with a naturally born son (biologically parenting. The state can put pressure on the couple to almost force them to give up the child. There can be implied threats of child abuse or neglect charges down the line if they done let someone more capable take the child, which would put their other children at risk of being taken away. Defiantly more to this story than we will ever know, but I can't throw shade on them for doing what might actually be the best thing that can do for the child. Having been through more than my share of emotional trauma, my heart breaks for everyone involved with this story.
reply
Grumpy
As a person with autism growing up with parents who were vastly undereducated about the disability, I completely side with the parents. The experiences I had because of my parents lack of not only experience, but also patience has affected me in so many negative ways that I still have hour-long episodes where I can't tell if I'm actually nearing 30 and living on my own or if I'm just suddenly going to wake up as a 16yo in my old bedroom after my mom screaming at me to wake up. If the parents fear that they won't be able to meet the needs for their child, be it biological or adoptive, they should not be slammed for letting them go to someone they feel will give them a better upbringing. They are thinking more about the child's well-being instead of their own feelings and for that, I personally commend them, because god knows that I would much rather have grown up in another family than the one I did. I know that sounds harsh, but after 10+ years of being screamed at when waking up, screamed at when going to bed, screamed at when doing slightest misstep, having my mother pick the bathroom lock when I locked myself in there to escape, having my hair pulled, having her call me a snitch for telling her about bullies and at one point even getting strangled, I hope you can see where I'm coming from with this. The Stauffers have my full support when it comes to this decision.
reply
As a person with autism growing up with parents who were vastly undereducated about the disability, I completely side with the parents. The experiences I had because of my parents lack of not only experience, but also patience has affected me in so many negative ways that I still have hour-long episodes where I can't tell if I'm actually nearing 30 and living on my own or if I'm just suddenly going to wake up as a 16yo in my old bedroom after my mom screaming at me to wake up. If the parents fear that they won't be able to meet the needs for their child, be it biological or adoptive, they should not be slammed for letting them go to someone they feel will give them a better upbringing. They are thinking more about the child's well-being instead of their own feelings and for that, I personally commend them, because god knows that I would much rather have grown up in another family than the one I did. I know that sounds harsh, but after 10+ years of being screamed at when waking up, screamed at when going to bed, screamed at when doing slightest misstep, having my mother pick the bathroom lock when I locked myself in there to escape, having my hair pulled, having her call me a snitch for telling her about bullies and at one point even getting strangled, I hope you can see where I'm coming from with this. The Stauffers have my full support when it comes to this decision.
reply
Dustin
About the Trump vs Twitter, I don't understand how it's censorship or how making companies more liable for its users free speech is going to help? His post isn't deleted. It's not being hidden. It's not being suppressed. It's 100% available to anyone who follows him and probably still popped up in peoples recommended. It has little tag at the bottom that IF YOU CHOOSE to click, you can get proper information that contradicts his statement. That's not censorship! It's a debate or counter point at best. Frankly it's just someones opinion being held against what is a fact. The second part, the executive action being taken, is laughable logic as well. If Twitter is now going to become more liable for its users content and it's expected to be held at the same level as publishing journalists, then they're going to ACTUALLY start censoring content so that they CANT be held accountable for said things. So in the end this is just another tantrum by our oh so great leader. He wants some kind of bat to hit them with but doesnt realize that he's Tom trying to smack Jerry and instead is only going to knock himself out at the end of this, as well as harm WE THE PEOPLE in the process of it all.
reply
About the Trump vs Twitter, I don't understand how it's censorship or how making companies more liable for its users free speech is going to help? His post isn't deleted. It's not being hidden. It's not being suppressed. It's 100% available to anyone who follows him and probably still popped up in peoples recommended. It has little tag at the bottom that IF YOU CHOOSE to click, you can get proper information that contradicts his statement. That's not censorship! It's a debate or counter point at best. Frankly it's just someones opinion being held against what is a fact. The second part, the executive action being taken, is laughable logic as well. If Twitter is now going to become more liable for its users content and it's expected to be held at the same level as publishing journalists, then they're going to ACTUALLY start censoring content so that they CANT be held accountable for said things. So in the end this is just another tantrum by our oh so great leader. He wants some kind of bat to hit them with but doesnt realize that he's Tom trying to smack Jerry and instead is only going to knock himself out at the end of this, as well as harm WE THE PEOPLE in the process of it all.
reply
Chichi
About the 1st topic: from this cover of the story, not knowing any about the family, Phil its doesn't sound like they did anything wrong. I work in this area (asd) if a residential home or a foster parent with experience with asd was more appropriate then the family did the right thing for the child and the rest of the family. Learning how to manage behaviours that can challenge can be very difficult for families that do not have the experience of the ability. In the uk it's so difficult, we've created agencies to train and work intensively with families to find a work aroundto prevent removal from the home. However even in these circumstances it may still be more appropriate to have the young person in a facility with trained professionals that can fully meet their needs. In this story it may not have been in this young person's best interest to stay in the family environment. If they've followed the NICE guidelines, then I think that what they are doing (based solely on the information you've provided) is actually being very brave parents. If he has mental capacity and they used an advocacy tool to find out how he felt and this was his choice, then we all should respect it.
reply
About the 1st topic: from this cover of the story, not knowing any about the family, Phil its doesn't sound like they did anything wrong. I work in this area (asd) if a residential home or a foster parent with experience with asd was more appropriate then the family did the right thing for the child and the rest of the family. Learning how to manage behaviours that can challenge can be very difficult for families that do not have the experience of the ability. In the uk it's so difficult, we've created agencies to train and work intensively with families to find a work aroundto prevent removal from the home. However even in these circumstances it may still be more appropriate to have the young person in a facility with trained professionals that can fully meet their needs. In this story it may not have been in this young person's best interest to stay in the family environment. If they've followed the NICE guidelines, then I think that what they are doing (based solely on the information you've provided) is actually being very brave parents. If he has mental capacity and they used an advocacy tool to find out how he felt and this was his choice, then we all should respect it.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
12:19
13:47
14:30
12:51