Child (painters) Prodigies: legitimately hyped-up art or bait for really gullible/rich art buyers?

art by elephants: real art or bait for rich art buyers?

art by cats, real art or....

But with the painting elephants, cats, etc..., the people buying into the art tend to know that the art is merely a novelty. And that the relative high price of the art work, is merely going straight to charity (medical bills, food, and shelter maintenance for the upkeep of the elephants or to animal shelters, etc...). Of course, some animal keeper could run this animal as artist racket and pocket the large sums of money (I guarantee not as large an income as the child prodigies are raking in) for their own gluttonous and nefarious purposes.

With child prodigies, the question also entails child exploitation. That the parents are using the hype about the child's alleged art in order to make a lot of money or to sell off art which the artist parent could sell because if the art world knew if came from adults would downgrade the hype on the work and upgrade the criticism to a more suitable, "an adult should have done a 'better job' at painting that" scenario.

I have to say I love her paintings...as far as I can tell from photos on the net.

Her paintings are nothing like those of most little kids....even when they get really messy, they can produce nothing like that.

So, I can't answer your question, but I see more than hype.
Is there evidence the parents are exploiting her?

My cats won't paint, sadly!

Would you pay $7000 to $9000 for one of her paintings? As for this latest prodigy, I have just learned about her and haven't explicitly heard of any parenal exploitation. But keep in mind who is likeliest to control the sales of the paintings as well as the incoming money from said sales.