Contracts are supposed to be made to protect parties involved, but when contracts are broken, other people can be the ones to pay the price.
This week, Ellen DeGeneres replaced her usual humorous and witty opening monologue on her show with a plea to Mutts and Moms rescue to return a dog she adopted and then gave to another family. Per the adoption agreement between DeGeneres and Mutts and Moms, if the adoption did not work out, DeGeneres was to return the dog to the rescue, not give it away.
This is not an unusual clause in an adoption contract. This clause exists to reiterate to adopting families the commitment a pet needs from the family and also ensure that the animal has a better life than the one that landed him in the rescue.
Coastal Pet Rescue has a return and transfer of ownership clause in its contract that also requires families to return the pets to them if the adoption does not work. The organization has had a small number of returns, but always keeps the doors open for their rescued pets.
We try to follow up on our adoptions periodically. We use the follow ups to help us with enhancing our program as well as sharing adoption stories with others to encourage adoption. Only once can I recall being told a pet had been given away. We didn't ask to take the pet back, but to have the family's contact information to update the microchip. It was admitted to us then that the pet had been having massive behavior problems and the vet had recommended euthanasia, which they followed. There was really nothing more we could do; suing wouldn't bring the dog back, and it would only cause the family more pain. So we let it be.
In addition to a return policy, Coastal Pet Rescue's adoption contract has a reclaim policy that allows the organization to reclaim any dog if any part of the agreement is not upheld. In the last three years, we have only reclaimed two pets via the contract and are in the process of reclaiming a third.
Last Wednesday night, I received a phone call at 9:30 from another rescuer. She had been called by a neighbor that had found a stray dog. As luck would have it, he still had my ID tag on him. The rescuer knew me personally and called me directly. After calling one of my adoption coordinators at home to look up the adopter's information in our database, we determined the dog to be Rusty, a five-year-old golden cocker spaniel. I called the rescuer back and told her that I would pick Rusty up the next morning. She told me he was badly matted, but I really just had no idea.
My heart completely sank when I arrived at 8 am to pick up Rusty. I could smell him before I even saw him. He was matted head to toe, and I couldn't even move the collar he had on, which was the same one he had when we adopted him out back in February. I was crushed. I got Rusty in the car and composed myself, calling our vet to see if they could see me immediately. It was going to be an hour before they could work me in, so I headed home to get my digital camera and copies of the adoption contract, intending to go file neglect charges with animal control after we left the vet's office.
I walked into the vet with Rusty, as we had done when he was with us before. But this time, I just had so many tears, it was hard to talk. I got the usual, "Aw, is he a new rescue?" and heard the gasps when I explained that no, he had been adopted from us back in February and this was what they did to him.
We spent the next two hours trying to clean him up. The vet checked him over, and determined he had yeast infections in both ears and an eye infection. But there was a smell we couldn't determine. We thought it was just the feces that had gotten caught in his fur, but then I found what I thought was a small wound on his left ear. The vet got the shaver out and started to shave... and then we uncovered the mystery smell: a colony of maggots had taken up residence. I cried some more.
Photos can never tell you what it was like being in that room, Rusty on the table and muzzled, being handled by two techs and a vet trying to do the best they could for him. I was just incredibly sick, not from the smell or the sights, but knowing that someone who knew he was a rescue, knew he had not always had an easy life, manipulated us into thinking they would give him the same love and care we had been doing.
I had an animal control officer meet us at the vet's office. They took my documentation and took more photos. I was lucky it was an officer I had worked with when I worked at animal control, and he promised me that we would have a day in the court for her to be charged with neglect.
I got Rusty in the car and called our groomer, pleading to see if they could work him in that day. They were in shock as well when we arrived, and promised to do the best they could. Over three hours later, he was shaved down and ready to go home. They saved all the fur for me to use in my evidence... it weighs a couple pounds. Rusty felt like a new dog, being able to walk without all the weight and restriction from his fur that had matted together, being able to shake his head, and showing his happiness with his tail wags.
Rusty is now safe in another foster home where he is receiving five medications two to three times daily. He is getting along great with other dogs and eating up all the attention his foster home can give.
Adoption contracts usually provide provisions to ensure proper care of the pet, such as requiring the spaying or neutering if not already done, maintaining yearly innoculations, administering monthly heartworm preventative, and providing humane care at all times to include adequate exercise, food, water and shelter. It is sad that this seems to us to be such common sense, but is so hard to follow by others. But having this in our contract gives us one more reason we can demand legal ownership of Rusty from his adopter.
I see the Ellen DeGeneres situation as a learning experience for our organization. There is never an always right or always wrong answer to these types of situations. You have to evaluate them, learn from them, and adjust your procedures accordingly. And maybe people thinking about adoption will spend a little more time making sure it is a responsibility they can handle and that the pet is just the right match for their home, which is the reason we do applications and pre-adoption in-home interviews.
My heart goes out to all the parties involved in the Ellen situation. It's hard to explain to people why rescues are so protective of their pets. But it is hard not to be jaded when you see first hand the suffering these pets endure and overcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I agree on the need to protect rescue animals. I think the Ellen situation is just a tad different. No one would ever criticize her as uncaring, neglectful, and abusive. She is well known to support animal causes and owns several animals--she often features them on her show. Here is my point: If the ultimate goal of a rescue group is to find a good loving home for a pet, and if Ellen "broke the contract" by not giving the dog back, what terrible act is Ellen guilty of? I understand totally the need for the contract. I think in this case, both Ellen and the adoption agency are equally at fault. Ellen should have read and understood the contract. But the agency could have minimized the bad publicity she is getting, and the heartache to the dog's temporary family, but simply visiting the family and checking them out. If she had good reason to doubt the family's ability to care for Iggy, the dog in question, she could take the dog back. Instead, she comes off looking like Elvira Gulch in "The Wizard Of Oz." The only thing missing is a bicycle and a little wicker box to hold the dog. By callously sticking to her principle, and refusing to negotiate, she does a terrible disservice to the dog and to the family...and to potential adopters who may think twice. Ellen's heartfelt plea on the air is additional evidence that she was only trying to do the right thing. It would have been nice to see the agency owner try to meet her half way.
And I agree. In reading the various stories, I was surprised that the agency does not adopt small dogs to homes with children under 14. I think that is a bit excessive. Our policy, which is not written, is more against homes with toddlers as they can easily injure a pet without meaning to.
Again, I think this is a situation in which you cannot make a blanket case and say "we will always do this." As Ellen pointed out in another interview, not all the processes were followed with her: she was not required to file an adoption application or be subjected to an in-home inspection. These are both requirements for our adoption process as well as we feel it helps us to make sure the pet is the right match for the family. If it isn't, we try our best to find a match that is our counsel them on where they can.
I worry that this is going to cause a great backlash to the rescue community. We all have great intentions, but sometimes, we have to be aware of the human elements and not just the pets.
we have to be aware of the human elements and not just the pets. Exactly!!
Post a Comment