Ellen put alot of money into helping Iggy....then realized he didn't do well with her cats. She found an excellent home for him....what about all the money, time and energy into finding a new home for Iggy? If the family doesn't receive him back, will Mutts & Moms reinburse Ellen....and family's with kids under 14 can't adopt a dog....lots of people purchase a dog for the family when the dog is young, so the children can grow up with them.
2007-10-17 03:05:21 · 28 answers · asked by tbryant45690 2 in Pets ➔ Dogs
YEs it was all handled very poorly but I don't think this is the attention they wanted and it really puts rescue in a bad light.
2007-10-17 03:12:24 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Ellen truly believed she was doing the right thing by adopting the dog in the first place and when she realized that it might not work out she did a very good thing by trying to find the dog a better home. How many people would take the trouble to put the dog's interest first?. I think that when she first adopted the dog it was her intention to give Iggy the best possible home and that is what she did by giving it to the other family. They obviously could give it more and she wouldn't have done that if she could have looked after him better. Why did the agency approve her in the first place? They must have trusted her. Does anyone know if the agency screened her by coming to her house and inspecting where the dog was going to live? They would of known she had cats and if they had done a proper evaluation on Iggy they would have known that he was not suitable for a home with cats and stopped the adoption process right there. If they failed to do that THEY are in the wrong not Ellen.
2007-10-18 17:16:22 · answer #2 · answered by jessiebell 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Just because there was a contract, does not make the contract legal. In this case, it was up to Mutts and Mom to not only have a valid contract, which this isn't as discussed below, but they should have had the clause about returning the dog intialled by Ellen and Portia to make sure they were aware of the clause. Even then, it won't hold up in court. In the State of California, dogs are property. It is illegal to sell a dog which is what Mutts and Moms did under the guise of a donation, then retain ownership. It is also illegal in the State of California for rescue centers to adopt out a dog that has not been spayed or neutered. Right there, they violated the law and by Ellen getting the dog spayed, it shows ownership. The police and animal control made a mistake returning the dog back to Mutts and Moms based on the microchip. Ellen had the papers showing that she paid for the dogs vet bills, she licensed the pet, and most importantly, she had custody of the pet. Besides the fact that Mutts and Mom did not add Ellens's name ot the microchip per the contract she signed.
According to their own admissions, it takes at least 48 hours to process applications. Funny, how with this dog, they got rid of it immediately in an attempt to circumvent the law once again.
If I was Ellen, I would be filing a police complaint for theft and illegal trespass based on false representation. The police would then have to submit the papers to the DA and the DA would have no choice but to take action.
By the way, if you wish to rescue a dog, make sure the rescue is a legitimate rescue. In this case, the fact that the dog was not neutered is a clear sign that it wasn't.
2007-10-18 07:11:17 · answer #3 · answered by Babs 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I have adopted a few animals in the past and never had to sign an agreement to return the dog under any circumstance. This organization is undermining adoption on all levels. Basically you are leasing the animal until you trade it in or give it back to them. Take out the word Adoption and replace it with something more appropriate like.... Rent a Pet. The Mutts and Moms owners are obviously wacko because they screamed and yelled at Ellen for several hours about this. They have absoulutely no diplomacy what so ever and Pet Finders should drop them from their list. Cut your losses before you sink with them.
What is so sad about this is that adopting a child is much easier than adopting a pet now days. I think the whole process is way out of sinc.
The victims here are the family and the pet. Now everyone lost. I hope Iggy and the family find some peace about this eventually.
2007-10-17 06:55:16 · answer #4 · answered by sidney_1970 2 · 3⤊ 2⤋
As a shelter employee, I can sympathize with both sides. Ellen signed a legal document - she should have read it over before signing it (you would think someone in the entertainment biz would know that) so she would know what is required of her. She should have notified the rescue that things weren't working with Iggy. I do think the rescue handled things poorly as far as getting Iggy back, especially with getting the police involved. It does look like he went to a good family, but their policy is no small dogs to families with young kids (this is not "anti-kid," by the way; this is for the protection of the children, as many small dogs are very snappy with kids). I think their age restriction is rather strict (teens should be safe), but they are free to set their own policies.
Of course Mutts & Moms is not going to give Ellen her money back. She didn't buy a pair of shoes that she decided she didn't like. Adoption fees help to defray SOME - nowhere near all - of the costs of caring for the animals in a rescue or shelter. However, if Ellen had returned the dog to them, there is the chance that she could have adopted another dog without a fee (this is what our shelter does, but M & M is probably a small organization and may not be able to afford this - besides, I don't think Ellen is hurting for money).
No, I don't think the agency is doing this for attention. Ellen is the one who went public, not Mutts & Moms. If Ellen hadn't said anything, noone would be the wiser.
And lots of people make all kinds of stupid decisions. That doesn't mean that animal shelters are going to adopt animals to just anyone. Policies are created to protect the animals as well as the people who want to adopt them.
2007-10-17 03:30:51 · answer #5 · answered by melissa k 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I can understand the agency taking the dog away from the family as it is in the contract they signed, and in pretty much all rescue agency contracts. It's common sense really, otherwise acceptable families could adopt for unacceptable families. The only way the family could get Iggy back is to fill out an adoption form for him. I don't think the agency is doing anything wrong. I don't agree with the anti-kids rule of the rescue, but if that's their policy than that's their policy. They would have done the same thing for any other person, famous or not. How much money Ellen spent on dog training is irrelevant, she signed a contract and didn’t obey it. Any responsible rescue would have done the same thing.
2007-10-17 03:18:30 · answer #6 · answered by Angela 2 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I don't think this is a PR tactic for Ellen's show. But I do think it is disasterous PR for adoption everywhere.
Its an extremely bad move on the part of the Adoption Center. Now dogs there, and maybe even Iggy are doomed! Ellen did everything in good faith. The same can't be said for the adoption center. They don't care whether or not the dog has a good home, obviously, so their policy is a ruse.
No mention was made of money being exchanged between the adoption agency and Ellen. Ellen only mentioned the $3K that she invested in the dog to train it to get along with her cats. Apparently that was not enough to make peace in her home. She did what any good dog owner would do, find the dog a new home where it would be happier. Ellen was just that too, the dogs owner. The Adoption Agency no longer owned the dog and had no ownership rights! The Adoption agency should not have written in the confiscation clause because they are no longer the pet's owner once posession of the pet has taken place.
The dogs that are now at Mutts and Mothers are not likely to ever be adopted now that their unscrupulous, and likely illegal, policy has been exposed.
Who will ever want to adopt from their shelter if it is known that they will apprehend pets on a ruse that they are inspecting the home for an adoption? The animals that are there will wait forever for a loving home now. Obviously, they certainly are not in a compassionate home now.
Who would ever adopt a pet knowing that somewhere in the fine print it says that the dog is not their property at all? ( In most states dogs are considered to be personal property just like other forms of livestock. So any statement like that would be invalid anyway.) Their confiscation policy will not hold up in a court.
If I were to adopt an animal I would require it to include all rights associated with ownership. Who would knowingly do otherwise? I'd never want someone feeling as if they have the right to take away my pet. Especially when they would be going back to worse conditions. That is why we adopt pets, by the way. To take them away from awful shelters and give them loving homes.
Obviously nearly any home is better than the loveless, unscrupulous one that the poor adoptees are now in.
Some self-righteous animal adoptions agencies have a superiority complex and will scrutinize potenial homes more than those agencies that inspect and interview parents of adoptive human children.
At least children get to stay with their parents unless there is abuse or neglect that is proven.
2007-10-17 06:05:57 · answer #7 · answered by Juspopinin 1 · 3⤊ 4⤋
Well, the agency is reporting getting death threats, so it seems Ellen compounded her original mistake by going so public with this so fast. The agency had rules, people would point fingers if they bent them for a celebrity, and this is going to cast a pallor over rescue centers in general. Dogs and cats in shelters across the country are in desperate need of good homes, and some people may look at this whole affair and back off because of it.
My last dog was a shelter dog, a big lab-Shephard mix because my kids were young at the time. He's gone now, and we're waiting a few more months before we return to the shelter for a mature dog. Older dogs need homes even more desperately than puppies, and I hope once Ellen calms down, and before any lawsuits kick in, that she can take the upper road and lay out the whole process before the public, so that the entire nation -- and the nations unadopted pets -- can benefit from this mess.
I wish Ellen had seemed as upset about the welfare of the dog as she had about the children having "their" dog taken away from them.
2007-10-17 03:31:49 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
M&M website was taken down by Petfinder for whatever reason but I think so not to scare people away. That lady was wrong and if Iggy was not nuetered then this is strange because all of the pet rescues I've dealt with in the past always always make sure this happens before adoption. I agree M&M and not Ellen gave the pet rescue a bad name all Ellen did was inform/educate the public the reality of pet adoption. I also beleive Ellen spent that kind of money for that short period of time because I'm sure she got the best and most expensive dog whisperer.
2007-10-18 14:21:17 · answer #9 · answered by adognot 1 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Okay--the agency got their 15 minutes. Now, do the right thing, take an app from the family of the two girls, interview them and let Iggy go to a good home.
If the agency wants to continue doing business, the best thing is not to say they made an error but to indicate the a new adoption process was performed and the girls now have the dog. Otherwise, they better decide to start closing shop. With Ellen and her influence, I am sure donations would roll in if she said to donate to the cause.
I never heard of a 14 year old age requirement for adopting a pet. Was this created at this time because of the age of the girls just so they can't have Iggy?
Mutts & Moms and Ellen should all admit that mistakes were made. (And, in reality, Ellen did admit a mistake on her part). The girls and Iggy are the ones paying the price.
I hope this is all resolved in a very short time.
2007-10-17 03:28:15 · answer #10 · answered by IRENE THE BOOKIE 3 · 2⤊ 5⤋
Mutts and moms is being skill hungry. If the objective of their employer is have large homes for dogs: really than remove the dogs from the 2d living house they ought to have provided that relatives the prospect to undertake the dogs. i'm particular the relatives or Ellen would not concepts paying an adoption value a 2d time. this is a situation the position someone became more suitable in contact about being top than doing what's perfect for the dogs.
2016-10-21 07:35:27 · answer #11 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋