Did anyone see Good Morning America today and Ellen DeGeneres?

Question

Ellen adopted a pet dog from a shelter. After a while the dog was too much to handle so she gave it to her hairdressers two young daughters. They love this dog very much. The shelter found out about it and took the dog away. Ellen is pleading to have the dog returned but apparently she signed a waiver saying that if the dog couldn't stay at her house it had to be returned to the shelter so she violated the agreement she had signed. These girls are heartbroken and Ellen is trying to get the dog returned to the girls and feels horrible that the shelter took it away. The shelter is standing behind their decision to take the dog back because who gave Ellen the right to determine if the home was fit for the dog? These girls love this dog but the shelter is still refusing to let the girls have it back. Do you think Ellen was in the wrong by giving the dog to the girls or do you think the shelter is wrong for taking the dog back even though she violated the agreement?

Answer 1

I think the shelter has the right to take the dog back, but at the same time, I think they should take the time to evaluate the home of the two girls and see if it is indeed a good home for the dog. And if it is, the doggy should be returned to them.
I don't think the shelter is trying to be mean here, I think they are trying to watch out for the welfare of the dog. But at the same time, I think they should make the effort to check out the home of the girls first before they ripped the dog out of another home. Dogs aren't pieces of furniture to be thrown house to house. They really should have tried to make it work for everyone. I feel so bad for the poor dog.

Answer 2

This is kinda hard to say who is right and who is wrong in this situation. Ellen signed an agreement that said the dog would live at her house and if for any reason she needed to rehome the dog, she was to return it to the shelter so they could do so. The shelter is looking out for the dogs best interest. Ellen should have read that agreement before she signed it. However, often times animal shelters are so busy that they are always in a rush. Maybe they were just rushing her signature. They could have just handed her a stack of papers and said "Sign here, here, and here". They should have given her enough time to read what she was signing or at least brief her on what she was signing. We don't know the entire situation, but what we do know is that Ellen is a good person from what we know of her from television and we know that she cares a lot about animals. She would never have done anything to endanger the animal and everyone knows that. However, the shelter wasn't wrong in taking the dog back. It's their policy and they need to hold to it no matter who it involves. No special treatment. But maybe they could let this other family try to adopt the dog. Let them fill out the paperwork and have a home evaluation. Chances are if a pet lover like Ellen thinks it's a good home for the dog, it probably is.

Answer 3

This is a bad situation made worse.

Ms. DeG was wrong for not reading, understanding and following the terms of the agreement signed with the shelter before she re-homed the dog.

Sadly, that resulted in the reclaiming of the puppy from the new home. AND, since the children are under the age that the shelter allows to adopt small dogs, they're very much in the right to keep the puppy.

It's not pretty. It's not good. BUT it's also the law. The law is impartial to everyone - rich and famous included.

Look. Rules are rules. And rules are to be followed even by the rich and famous.

Very much to her credit, Ms. DeG admits to her mistake - and owns up to the responsibility of the entire mess. Why? Because she didn't follow the rules and return Iggy to the shelter. Also to her credit - she told the shelter about rehoming Iggy with the new family. Remember this. Ms. DeG was NOT trying to be ugly or abusive or mean or anything bad. BUT she did make a mistake by not following the rules.

Therefore She is quite WRONG. Good intentions not withstanding.

Now then Rules being rules, the shelter has an age requirement for adopting small dogs to families with children. That's because little children will often torment dogs - by simply being children. The problem is, that a tormented dog will snap and bite - which is not a good thing.

This is not to say that ALL little children torment dogs but a great many do. This brings a serious liability problem for the shelter who can be sued for adopting a mean dog to a family of small children - despite the fact that the children tormented it. Not to mention curtains for the poor tormented doggie who is branded a biter for life.

So, the shelter has a policy that reserves the right to withold adoption of a small dog to a family with small children. AND there can be no exceptions. Sadly, and I would bet money that the shelter managers feel the family's sadness; but they simply cannot make exceptions for this or that family. It's too great a liability risk - not only from the parents of tormenting children and snappy dogs - but also from parents who bring up the bias issue. What a hornet's nest that would be.

Therefore the shelter is VERY MUCH IN THE RIGHT to take and keep Iggy. Despite the fact that the family is a nice family and the small children behave nicely around the puppy.

Again, I would bet $$ that the shelter managers feel terrible about all of this - but they simply cannot bend the rules. It's too much of a risk and invites too many lawsuits.

This teaches us that we need to read and understand - and then follow - contracts we sign. Otherwise, do not sign them.

Answer 4

In perspective of the adoption agency: They have a clause in their contract that states the pets will not be placed in a home with childeren under the age of 14. The hairdresses daughters being 11 and 12, allegedly makes it an "unfit" home for the puppy. They believe the contract was broken, and therefore the dog is still their property. I, personally, think thats a pile of horse poo. I understand they have a contract and what not, but Degeneres and De Rossi have been in posession of the dog for several months... that is their dog. I think wiht Degeneres' history with animal rights organizations and other charities she is associated with, i honestly doubt she would place the dog in a home that would bad or "unfit" I think that legally, both sides have good arguements. But on a human interests aspect of it... the adoption center is putting themselves in a terrible bind. This much negative publicity can kill an organization, no matter how good their intentions are. They say they will not be "bullied by people who throw their power around like Ellen Degeneres". I dont see this as throwing power around at all, if ellen was mary johnson who lived on the corner of elm st.... i'd still feel the exact same way that i do.

Answer 5

I do think Ellen is in the wrong...she didn't read a binding contract. It is sad that the dog was taken from the kids who love it, and I agree that maybe the rescue should check into the family, but maybe they won't right now because of all the hype.

I agree, celeb or not, if you sign a contract then you need to abide by it.

Since I work with a rescue group, I know how it is. There are reasons the contracts have those stipulations. The group I volunteer with had this happen and we have no idea where the dog ended up or if he was taken care of. It really is for the good of the dog, we understand it ticks people off, but we are not here to please everyone, we are here to help the dogs.

Answer 6

Sorry but I'm getting sick and tired of the fuss. C'mon, we all have to follow the rules. Every place that I've ever adopted a dog had rules like that so it's not like they're singling her out.

Those rules are created for the safety and well-being of the animals! Who is looking out for the pup's welfare? Ellen? I don't think so! I already heard the hairdresser already had a grown dog so it's not like the pup was going to where he'd be the center of attention and what if that other dog gets jealous and chews up the pup?

But "Oooh, I'm Ellen DeGeneres and the rules shouldn't apply to me, boo-hoo!" so the story is splashed all over the Net, on the radio and TV. Gimme' a break!

If she didn't want the pup because he was too 'rambunctious' and energetic, then she obviously doesn't know much about pups. That's their trademark!

Oh, don't get me started....

Answer 7

I saw a clip of her crying on another news show and seeing her out of control like that was bad.

I feel she needs a break from her show especially when she has to go on and preform feeling that badly. Why couldn't they have cancelled I don't think it would have been worse than what happened.

The dog issue is strange too. She gave it to a good family not realizing she was breaking the contract (probably thinking it is mine now I have paid for it). Okay so she admitted it and asked rather oddly in public for the agency to return the dog. Bad move on her part but she seems emotionally unwell, so she needs a break and maybe this will make her and others realize it.

The story I have read is simply ridiculous regarding this agency and it's "no adopting rule" if children in the house are under 14. If my child's 12 year old friend didn't walk half the dogs on the block after school they would sit there waiting for their adult owners to walk them who knows when they can get home from work, so give me a break.

The agency has to open it eyes to it's own problems regarding it's rules about children, about how they remove the animals from homes and about how BAD they are doing instead of good.

More people need to speak up otherwise bullies will dictate inappropriately, but that is just my take on it.

Ellen should not be ashamed to take a break, she has earned it.

Answer 8

I think the shelter does have the right to take the dog back because Ellen should have read the contract carefully and then she would have known that she could not give it to anyone else. But, the Mutts and Moms group shouldn't have just come in and took the dog. They should have evaluated the new home and seen if it was an unfit home before they took it away from them or if it was not an unfit home then they should have let them keep Iggy. I feel so sorry for Iggy, he has now been thrown around from home to home and does not have any stability.

Answer 9

The ultimate problem was the girls are under 14...and no one is allowed to adopt the dog if under 14....

Needless to say the "mother" would be adopting the dog for the girls...

But a contract is a contract.....Ellen needs to work with the group and see if they can extend the adoption of a dog already loved by those girls to them.....

or to their mother...who is above the 14 yr limit of age to adopt dogs..

Some are just trying to get their 15 mins of fame....

Answer 10

I have some question about the ""non profit" status of this group. They also have a contract as a non profit to run the organization for the public good. According to the IRS non profits DO NOT have owners. How is this woman claiming non profit status? Saying she does not have $25,000 in contributions so she doesn't have to file a 990. How could you run a shelter in CA on less than $25,000. If she felt Ellen violated the contract she had a right to reclaim the dog through the court, NOT by taking police officer with her. Thats intimidation.