Ellen DeGeneres' & her dog Iggy was it wrong what the shelter did taking it away from the family she gave it 2

Question

Ellen DeGeneres' gave her dog Iggy to her hair dresser and it was taken back to the shelter due to not following their rules.Do U think it was wrong of the shelter?
Or did the right thing happen?

Here is a what happened:
Iggy, the dog adopted by Ellen DeGeneres from the Los Angeles-based rescue group Mutts & Moms, who was recently removed from Ms. DeGeneres’ hairdresser’s home after the rescue group learned of the re-homing that was conducted without its knowledge or prior approval as specified in its adoption contract.
more information here:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/ASPCA/Ellen_DeGeneres/prweb562213.htm

Answer 1

Yes, it was wrong for the rescue agency to take Iggy away from the hair dresser and her family. Now the owner of Mutts and Moms has greatly damaged the image of animal rescue organizations. As a result, instead of one dog being in a "non-qualified" home as the owner of M&M's would say (I believe that the family was fit to own the dog, they already owned a dog which shows they are capable), hundreds or possibly thousands of other animals needing homes will not get one. Because of M&M's owner's selfish and controlling attitude, animal rescue organizations are going to be hurt financially and some animals may even end up back in humane societies where they may end up being euthanized. She should have thought of the repercussions before doing what she did. If this lady loves animals so much, she needs to return Iggy to the family and help bring back a positive image to animal rescue agencies.

Answer 2

Mutts and Moms Rescue did give the hairdressers family the chance to adopt Iggy the right way. The attorney for Mutts and Moms was on Fox news and he has emails saying the hairdressers family wouldn't fill out the adoption application, and didn't want to return home for the home visit to be done. They were given the chance to do it the right way by Mutts and Moms, but because they had the power of Ellen DeGeneres behind them, they didn't do what was necessary to adopt Iggy, legally from M&M. If someone yanked you around like that, and wouldn't follow procedure when given the chance to do so, I'm sure you would have done exactly what Mutts and Moms did, and take the dog back.

Answer 3

There's a difference between a legal right and a moral right. Legally Mutts and Moms had a right to take back the dog. Morally, they acted reprehensibly.

M&M failed to neuter the dog, so they violated all rescue adoption policies going. That's one policy I find unconscionable for anyone to ignore. And I believe it's in their contract, which means THEY violated the contract LONG BEFORE Ellen did.

Morally, M&M failed to act responsibly, as do most rescue groups who put this phrase in the contract. Sadly, most of us do NOT read contracts as thoroughly as we should, and I am sure Ellen's main fault was in not reading the fine print that SHOULD HAVE BEEN STATED VERBALLY because of it's HIGH importance!

The poor hairdresser and her children, I do NOT believe were given any opportunity to apply for the dog as one responder claimed. After all, the hairdresser's children are under age 14! And we all know how hard line M&M is about their rules, or at least the adopter following the rules. M&M doesn't have to follow their own rules, obviously.

If M&M was truly a moral and caring organization, they would have in place provisions for occasional exceptions. They would have interviewed the hairdresser and offered her the opportunity to apply for an exception and apply for adoption of the dog. The dog was given by Ellen because the dog bonded heavily to the girls, and so M&M in it's pompous attitude has now traumatized poor Iggy by taking him away from the playmates he so loved. That's animal abuse in MY book! The hair dresser and her girls were taking good care of the dog!

The agency's comment that they "won't be bullied by the Ellen DeGeneres of the world" tells me that the two women who run M&M are CONTROL FREAKS and the ONLY reason they rushed to remove the dog and adopt it out to someone else was to PUNISH Ellen, who made an innocent mistake due to foolishly not reading the contract. I would not adopt a dog from these two bit**** and I would NOT buy ANYTHING from their other business either.

When a child is adopted, there's a point at which the adoption becomes final. My husband was adopted. Once the adoption is final, the people who put the child out for adoption have NO RIGHT to come take the child away unless it's proven that the child is being abused, or was adopted without permission of the birth parents. Dogs should have a probationary period, after which, the dog belongs FREE AND CLEAR to the adoptive parent UNLESS it's proven that the dog has been abused. Ellen didn't abuse the dog. She spent $3000. to have the dog neutered and have training which failed to work to try to make the dog more comfortable with her cats.

Has M&M reimbursed Ellen for the cost of neutering which THEY FAILED TO DO??? I doubt it. The training was Ellen's expense due to her dogs. She obviously used the wrong trainer and didn't know how long it takes for cats to accept new animals in the family.

I believe the people who have made threats are as bad as the two women who run M&M!!! M&M deserves to have both their businesses fail because they are morally ;ackinig and not worth doing business with. If they were good moral people, they would have expedited the hairdresser and her girls applying for and adopting the dog.

Answer 4

Yes thanks too, for posting this question, I am not sick of this story yet.

What has happened is an awakening for those that had no idea what happens when you adopt from certain agencies. A caution to get your pets from respectable places.

Posts are correct in saying that Ellen made the mistake of not following the contract. That was something she will NEVER do again or forget I bet. However, Ellen is just a person too, she is not just a celebraty if anything I don't believe her public display of crying was contrived she should have not done the show feeling as she did.

Should the agency have more sense they would have been kinder and less angry at Ellen (as it has been described in news reports). Would they have yelled at Bob Barker in the same way hu?
Maybe there is some lesbian phobia going on.

Ellen should not have gone on her show and did what she did. Yeah, she needs a break from her show, why do a show when you are so upset anyway if you are a celebraty do you have to work too?

Both sides involved in this were extreme the agencies kid rules or any rules should work for the good not for the bad as was in this case.

Pitting people with kids against coupleless kids for adoption is also controversial, afterall how may people have kids and dogs.

Why are these agencies allowed to run like this?

Adoption of pets should be revamped making it more similar to child adoptions. A purchase price should NOT be allowed. These agencies are not community social service workers.

What qualifications have these people running these agencies earned before being allowed to set up shop to preform adoptions?

Rant over, thanks for listening.

Answer 5

First of all every one is saying some really good points. Ellen did sign a contract and broke it. I feel for all those in the middle, they r the ones who've been hurt the most. I feel that the rescue group should have tried to work something out with the new family. If this were a kid that Ellen did this with she would go to jail and no-one would be questioning the rescues motives. So why should it be different with animals. It's unfortunate that this has happend at all but since it did we should all try to learn some thing form it. I know I will.
This was a great question I can't wait to see the rest of the replies for your answers. Good job getting us all motivated.!!

Answer 6

I work at an animal shelter. We have a contact very similar to the one used by Mutts and Moms. It is clearly stated in the contract that if for ANY reason, you can not keep an animal, it MUST be returned to the shelter. No acceptions. Ellen didn't read the contract, and gave away her dog. Which is breach of contract. The shelter had every right to take the dog back. Ellen was dead wrong in what she did. The shelter does what is best for the dog. The reason that the animal has to be returned, is so that it doesn't end up in the hand of an irresponsible owner. This happened at my work once. A woman adopted a German Shorthair Pointer, and decided she didn't want it. She gave it to a man who she THOUGHT would provide it a good home. We didn't find this out until a neighbor of the man called us, and said he had the dog chained out in his backyard ALL day long in the heat. With no food, no water, and no shelter. The dog was extrememly emaciated when he finally came back to our shelter. They are trying to prevent situations like that.

What should have happened, was Ellen should have taken the dog back, and the family should have gone with her. They should have tried to properly adopt the dog. And the shelter was 100% right not to give the dog back, Just because Ellen is "famous". Because if she got away with this, everyone else would have to beable to get away with it. And it just doesn't work that way. And anybody who thinks the shelter is wrong, doesn't know what they are talking about, because they have never worked at one. You don't see the things we see. If you did, maybe then you'd understand why we have such strict polices and we follow the rules down to a T.

Answer 7

I feel really bad for the hairdresser and family. It's too bad that she didn't have a good lawyer to advocate for her or just encourage her to stand her ground and say :NO". She had no legal reason to release that dog without a court order requiring her to do it. She was bullied out of that dog. Her rights were violated. The "rescue" lady needs to be in jail.

As far as Ellen D, she didn't break any laws. In most states those contracts are invalid. Dogs are property. Once cash is transfered the property belongs to the buyer to do with as she sees fit. If I were in her shoes, I would have the bully in court. I would have filed criminal charges immediately at the state's atty office for theft of property. Even if I didn't have her charged criminally, I would sue her to the ends of the earth. Ellen D has the cash to do that, and should to set an example that bullying innocent people is not acceptable.

Answer 8

Ellen didnt read the adoption contract, Most rescue group do require if for any reason the pet doesnt fit into your household that they be returned back to the rescue group. So YES the group was right in taking back the dog.. HOWEVER.. under the cirmcumstances they should have allowed her hairdressers family to fill out an application for the same dog, and they should have given them priority in the adoption process for this same dog providing they passed the rescues requirements for adoption.

Answer 9

One important piece of info I heard on CNN...the agency allowed Ellen to take Iggy without him being fixed which is also against their contract. So it sounds like they choose which rules to enforce. Then the agency's comment that they "won't be bullied by the Ellen DeGeneres of the world" sounds odd and also found it shady that they adopted him out again right away. JMO

Answer 10

Ellen adopted the dog. It then became Her dog. she found she could no longer keep it, so she gave it into the care of another good, loving family. Should be the end of the story. that is how i see it.

yes, i know she signed a contract.

but it seems crazy to me to have all this angst and drama over this dog. there are lots of dogs that need homes. Ellen adopted one. anyone else who wants a dog can adopt another one. the rescue group is going wayyy too far in pushing their Agreement or their Contract or Whatever it is.

let's all move on.

Ellen should have been allowed to give that dog to her friends and they should have been allowed to keep it. the rest is as far from basic good sense and good reason as you can get.

all the money and effort being channeled into the battle over this dog (my god! there are lawyers involved!) could be put to far better use, i am sure, in rescuing homeless dogs...or how about homeless people??