In which case, she should have tried to negotiate for new terms instead of unilaterally violating the contract. She did not, though.
A jury would use the “reasonable person” definition if this were to go to trial. And I’d bet that although Ellen should have gone to the agency first and tried to re-negotiate, a jury would find in her favor in this situation.
It is not nearly as foolish as dismissing Ellen’s assessment based on a meaningless age.
What do you mean “checking out” the homes? Most don’t make a visit to the home. They have you fill out forms. They do interviews. They meet the family members. Does that mean you can’t move? That your family situation can’t change? Sorry…there’s a difference between taking reasonable precautions and going control freak on the adoptive families. You might know 100 agencies that do SOME follow-up in person, but they don’t follow up forever, nor do all good agencies consider the dog “theirs” once it’s placed an animal. P.A.W.S., where my sister volunteers, has no home visit policy that I’m aware of. I’ll see her later today to verify that. http://www.pawschicago.org/adoption/dogs/dogadopt.htm
Another one, Helping Paws http://www.helpingpaws.net/ where we placed my SIL’s cats when she died, has rules, too. No home visit, though. And none of which are as ridiculous as Mutts and Moms. I fully agree with the neutering/spaying rule, though I imagine it’s pretty tough to enforce.
http://chicagocaninerescue.com/adopt.html Chicago Canine Rescue. They do a home check, but they mention nothing about forcing a family to return the dog if it doesn’t work out. They interview…they discuss possible family or home changes…they allow people to think about the responsibilities inherent with pet ownership and how that fits into their lifestyle. Mutts and Moms treats everyone like a six year old. It’s insulting.
I know enough to spot an unreasonable agency when I see one. You seem to be reading things into my statements that aren’t there. I never said they should have no restrictions.
You just don’t get it. I said she could have handled it differently, but that no harm was done to the animal to move it into her friend’s home. Rather than sticking by the arbitrary rule, the agency could have done one of their precious home checks and seen for themselves that the dog was being well cared for. And what’s this about “someone else’s” dog? Was she fostering or adopting? If she adopted, it’s *her * dog and the silly contract probably wouldn’t hold up in court. Don’t tell me they’re going to follow her around and snoop around her house for eternity. I’m against the whole Nanny State mindset. Ellen broke the contract and did no harm by doing so. It’s not about the contract; it’s about the dog. When someone can prove the dog was harmed by her actions, then Moms and Mutts will have a reason to enforce their contract. Until then, it looks less like a caring agency and more like Control Freaks Gone Wild.
Please stop talking to me like you’re an expert on the subject or that this whole tiff is actually about the welfare of the animal. She BROKE the contract because it was obvious to her that the agency was going to deny the dog a happy life with her friend if she played by the rules. The agency is on a power trip here and has lost sight of its mission. The world is not black and white. I can put anything I want in a contract, but that doesn’t make it sensible, enforceable, or fair.
You keep skipping over the part where I said “some” contracts…sigh…
And she decided to do what she felt was best for the dog. It’s all a matter of opinion. Like I said, the agency may have the CONTRACT but that doesn’t make them experts on what was best for that dog.
That doesn’t make them any more noble than most other agencies out there. Most of them want the dog to be placed in a home where it’s wanted. So did Ellen. I believe she should have kept the issue off the air, too. That has nothing to do with her concern for the dog’s welfare. She made a statement about their pointless and rigid rule that refuses to look at the situation as it is and would rather look under the bed for monsters that aren’t there.
I’m appalled that you would put the contract before the welfare of the dog, quite frankly.
Wasn’t it Ellen’s partner who actually adopted the dog and filled out paperwork? If that’s the case, I can see Ellen not being aware of the fine details of the contract when the decision was made to rehome the dog and not every rescue hands over a copy of the adoption contract if such is not specifically requested. This does not excuse taking a personal matter to the airwaves, though.
All of my critters are from rescues, so I’m generally inclined to give the rescue the benefit of the doubt, but there are bits here that rub me the wrong way. I think the lady running the place was being needlessly inflexible, any rescue that lets an unaltered cat or dog leave their care gets a raised eyebrow from me, and I absolutely do not agree with the “no animals to homes with children under 14” policy.
I think both parties are making animal rescues as a whole look unreasonable and need a kick in the head.
Oooooooh, but we have a coooooooontraaaact. The integrity of the contract trumps the integrity of the care of the animal. Have you no integrity?
I have no idea, I am not a lawyer, however I would like to point out that there was a certain amount of hyperbole in my post, I have no realistic expectation that such a small case would end up before the SCOUS.
One thing I haven’t seen mentioned here is the weird idea that its a “Brussels Griffon” puppy that was rescued? RESCUED? SERIOUSLY? If it truly is a purebred Brussels AND a puppy,its not exactly a hard kind of dog to “adopt” out. So, assuming that is true,I wouldn’t cry too hard on the “what’s better for the dog- the contract or the home?” as it seems obvious to me that the dog is going to be going to a home that wants it- regardless if they are a crybaby celebrity or not.
If Ellen had made every effort to work with the rescue, before she placed the dog, I think this may have had a different ending. However, it seems she made this decision without consulting the rescue at all and used her celebrity influence to try to bully them into giving the dog back. There is probably alot of ego going on now on both sides, but considering the dog probably highly adoptable, I’m not surprised the rescue would have issues with what they see is an inappropriate home. Regardless if we agree or not, that was the arrangement they made with Ellen when they let her have the dog. As a very occasional breeder (last litter 7 years ago) of border collies, my pups are sold with a right of first refusal. If a suitable working/active home was found for one of my pups, I’d probably agree. But if they wanted to place the pup with a housebound invalid- I’d probably want to exercise my right to buy the dog back. I put alot of time, effort and money into dogs I breed, and also dogs I’ve rescued in the past- by losing connection with the original buyer/adopter, I lose any chance to be a cushion for that dog if life’s circumstances change. In my opinion, these kinds of contracts are what keep dogs out of the shelter, and do not create a burden on the already overwhelmed society.
“Now I wanna…”
Ok, I despise Bill O’Reilly, but did you see what the rescue organization said?
N.B.: Fink is Keith Fink, Mutts & Moms Attorney
I’m appalled that you think one can unilaterally void the contract simply because that person claims to know what’s best. You yourself said, “Everything’s negotiable.” Then why not try to negotiate first before ignoring the contract?
I sincerely doubt that happened. Does that even pass the smell test to you? Why would Ellen’s hairdresser refuse to be interviewed or sign paperwork if it would result in the end of this situation? She would do it, if for no other reason than to avoid getting her boss’s name dragged through the mud.
If all of that happened before Ellen mentioned it on her show, why wouldn’t the hairdresser and her family have gone for it? It would have given them exactly what they wanted.
Nope, I don’t believe that for a second.
Again, NO. In fact, that’s exactly what happened with our cat, Emma. Her original owners adopted her through a rescue group. Over the next 5 years they acquired 2 more cats, a dog, and had a baby.
The dog stayed outside all day, and when it was let in, it would chase the cats around the house until they were cornered in one room, where they would then be shut in so that the dog could have the run of the house and the owners wouldn’t have to be annoyed.
With the new baby, they moved the litter box to the back of a closet. Every time Emma went in there to use it, on her way out, she’d be attacked by the other cats. Eventually she put 2 and 2 together and stopped going in the closet to do her business, finding other places around the house where she wouldn’t be tormented by the other cats.
Needless to say, this didn’t sit well with the owners. And rather than figure out what to do to fix the problem they created in their own home, when they decided they didn’t want to keep her anymore, they did as they were contractually obligated, and returned her to the rescue group for re-placement, shaking uncontrollably and utterly traumatized.
So yes, even 5 years later, they (and Ellen) are still bound by the terms of the contract.
Then that’s a crock of shit and these rescue contracts should all be voided in my opinion.
Why should these contracts be treated differently than any other contract?
Because, like it or not, pets are property. I think it’s wrong to tell me what I can and cannot do with my property outside of cruelty laws.
Then don’t adopt an animal from a rescue group that has such a stipulation in its contract. There are plenty of other ways to acquire an animal, you know.
When I decided to get a dog I probably won’t then. But that doesn’t change the fact that I think it’s wrong for rescues to act like they’re leasing these animals to the people that adopt them.
If you don’t want people telling you what to do with your property, don’t enter into legally binding agreements with them dictating what you will do with your property. This applies equally to dogs, cars, or houses. This is not an infringement on property rights, because Ellen willingly signed away a portion of those rights when she took possession of the dog. If she wanted to maintain those rights, she shouldn’t have signed the contract.
Let’s say that you buy a house that’s registered as a historic landmark. When you buy the house, you sign an agreement not to tear it down and turn it into a parking lot. Do you think that agreement should not be legally binding? Do you think there should be any repurcussions to yourself if you hop into a bulldozer and plow into the side of the building you just agreed not to demolish? If not, what’s the purpose of contract law in the first place? What sort of contracts should be enforcable?