Huxley
Reading this story was very weird for me. I have recently encountered political conversations with people for the first real time as an adult. I think for so long, especially because being able to vote is not allowed until he age of 18, politics didn’t seem important. I have recently delved into the idea that I could be considered a centrist, although if had to choose, I would be more left.
Based off of the title of the story, and doing further research into this family, I found myself already making a conclusion — “This is horrible. I already don’t like them.” However, after reading the story, I see both sides of the problem. I can absolutely understand why they did what they did and without being them, I can’t make the final judgement on whether it was truly right or wrong. Why not both?
My main thought in regards to the adoption by the Stauffer’s is that, although they were given certain information, be it correct or not, about the child, I think giving him back is a mistake. I think a factor of parenthood, like they suggested, is being there for the good and the bad. They themselves stated that their kid is not “returnable” which directly implies that no matter what, they won’t do exactly what they ended up doing. It’s a bit paradoxical they were relieved that he didn’t have brain tumor like they were told, yet they adopt him with ADHD and level three autism but that’s too much to handle? Wouldn’t a brain tumor be so much more traumatic given that the child could die at any moment? They have to ask themselves, had their blood child ended up with the same problems, would they have given them up?
It is a little interesting how they glamorized the idea of this adoption which I think set them up for failure. I find myself guilty of creating an idea, an illusion if you will, and then being disappointed with the results that weren’t at all what I had hoped for. I think that Huxley’s adoption was a lengthy process and that they had PLENTY of time to consider what they were doing. They had plenty of vlogs with Huxley that they can admit he showed unusual behavior and it is in those moments where they could have decided — “I give up.” I think they would still receive criticism, but I think they could have absolutely lessened the blow for themselves.
Assuming the thoughts they’ve shared about their experiences are true, I sympathize with them. I give them credit for being willing to admit, whether the adoption was for the clout or not, that they simply could not care for the child based off circumstances — Huxley needed 30 hours of in-home therapy (the counter-argument — Myka was a stay home mom, so I mean, she was home) and he was apparently acting aggressive towards other kids. I think, assuming it is true, the adoption agency absolutely should have been completely honest about Huxley’s condition. If they didn’t know then they need better practices for assessing a child.
I am sure, at the end of the day I would not have given up on my child considering I have been looking forward to completing the process, I just spent so much time vlogging, getting myself and others riled up, and I racked up almost 40,000 dollars worth of fees. I think they gave themselves enough reason to do it. I do think it ultimately was for the better for Huxley. I wouldn’t want him with a family that can’t provide him with what he needs. I think that would be, and it may be hard to see, the most ethical decision to make. I don’t think anyone ever 100% knows what they can take on until it is too much. And if there are people like that, that do know their fates, not everyone is one of them. The Stauffer’s realized too late their mistake that they couldn’t handle the heat, so they deiced to “leave the kitchen” as they cliché would say, but instead of forcing themselves to be in a position to neglect Huxley for the rest of his life, they put him with someone that could do what they couldn’t.
As far as I am concerned with privacy, and Huxley’s consent, I think that in a perfect world yes, he could give it, however — I think he is young enough to where he really can’t. It is in the idea that anyone under 18, or 17 depending on where you live can’t give consent because they’re “too young.” Neither can Huxley. I don’t think he has the ability to comprehend what it is that they are doing as far as their vlogs go, therefore, it becomes more of how ethical the parents intentions are. I mean they are branded as “family vloggers” so videoing the adoption process is a perfect idea for their brand. If we require Huxley’s consent, then I guess we have to get the consent of the other three children then.
I think the title is a bit amiss. The idea of “Gotcha” just seems so insensitive to the idea of adoption. Sure, they did “get him” but he wasn’t necessarily being hunted which that terminology perpetuates. I think they could have used something a little more meaningful to define their love for his adoption. The “Gotcha day” terminology seems as fun as finding a Pokémon. “Gotcha” just doesn’t seem to carry any gravity or represent what they mean. I think it actually misrepresents and neglects to convey the struggle that it took to earn this adoption, the child’s situation, and the love for adoption. It seemingly puts more focus on the success of the parent being able to accomplish this, rather than the focus being on the real idea — the actual adoption. There is gravity enough in simply saying “I adopted.” So, I think the idea could be translated and still, in fact, mean much more by keeping it just that, without sugar coating the idea.
