Ellen's Emotional Plea

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:32pm

Man, this just broke my heart!

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:36pm

I assume you're talking about the dog adoption mix-up. I hope the organization makes an effort to check out the family to whom Ellen gave the dog, then returns the dog to them (assuming they are suitable). Sounds like Ellen realizes she was wrong, but was trying to do the right thing. I can see the point of the adoption organization, who doesn't want dogs placed in a home that hasn't been checked out.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:38pm

Yes, darn it...

Why didn't the link show up?



http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/ver/223/popup/index.php?cl=4551695

Or Try This

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:46pm

I feel bad for her, but any sort of animal resuce/adoption group is very strict. And she should also be smart enough not to sign anything without reading it.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:48pm

omg that's so sad.
i hope the organization will cut them a break and return the dog to the children.
i too understand about them not wanted to have the dog with a family they haven't checked out, but why couldn't they check out the new family and let them keep it? why take it away before even seeing if they're a good family?
i can only imagine how those kids must feel... i know that when i was that age (hell, even if it happened now) i would be heartbroken over losing a dog or any pet i had justed bonded with.

to me, that must feel worse than having an animal die... if they die, you know they're gone, but if this happens, you know that dog is out there somewhere and you miss him and he misses you.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:49pm

That's so sad. Adoption organizations absolutely have the responsibility to ensure that their animals end up in suitable homes, but hand-in-hand with that goes their responsibility to do what is best for those animals. Having worked for several years with a rescue and adoption shelter, I have to say that this seems more like an over-extension of the shelter's power than it was an effort to do what was right for that animal. They should not have simply marched into that house and taken the puppy away just for the sake of keeping everything within the rule book. They should have gone to check out the home, and if it was indeed suitable (which I'd like to believe, from Ellen's plea, that it was), allowed the puppy to stay there. Those kinds of rules are established for general protective purposes -- not so that shelter officials can abuse authority for the sake of control-seeking power trips. I understand that Ellen didn't follow their protocol, but it'sa case of enforcing rules just for the sake of it rather than looking at the larger purpose. At the end of the day, if this is about finding these animals good, caring, loving homes, then the adoption organization's responsibility was to look into the new home -- not simply whisk the dog away from a loving family.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 02:49 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:55pm

And people should read the documents they sign.

[ClumsyDude15]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:57pm

Wow.

Thats horrible.

I feel horrible for her.
I hope they give in and give the kids back the puppy.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:58pm

geeze phyllis, who **** in your oatmeal this morning?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 2:59pm

She absolutely should have read it, but I don't think that means the animal adoption people did the right thing, either. They're supposed to be doing what's best for the animals. From experience, a lot of people in that field become so attached to the animals that it turns into a possessive thing. They'd rather the animals be there than with a loving family just so they can be sufficiently in charge, when they're supposed to be about doing what's best for the animals. And I'm sorry, no matter how kind the shelter staff may be, or how much they come to legitimately loe those animals, that environment is not better than a real home. Their power to take animals back or remove them from homes in the first place should be reserved for situations in which it's necessary -- they have it for good reason -- and not exercised to prove a point. Otherwise, these organizations aren't really making good on their mission statements.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 02:59 PM

[DayDreamer]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:05pm

How very sad.

There are rules, and there are rules. This is the sort of thing that happens when organizations adhere, inflexibly, to their rules.

I hope they take a look at this family and let them have the dog back.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:13pm

What I don't understand is at what point is the dog "hers"? She spends all this time and money training it, but she still has to go get permission from some organization that hasn't seen the dog in months. What happens if it had been a year? Two years? Would she still have to run back and doublecheck all her decisions with them? That's stricter than most CHILD adoption agencies. "Is it okay if I get a divorce and share custody?" "Nope, sorry! We're taking your kid back to China!"

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:19pm

not that i would ever give her away, but if the humane society found out that patches was no longer in my possessions, i dont think they would care.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:24pm

No one peed in my cornflakes, abba. It is sad, but I was just stating that seriously, she should read what she signed. I thought most people knew that it was pretty stringent business when you rescue a dog.

And the analogy of about a child would only hold up if the adoptive parent just gave their child to someone else, not if the parents divorced.

And again, she signed paperwork. It may be unfair and it may seem extreme, but she violated an agreement to which she had signed her name.




Updated On: 10/16/07 at 03:24 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:28pm

Point taken, but does Ellen's violation of the agreement mean the shelter should be punishing the dog (for whom they, in theory, want the best) and then family who was going to take care of him?

Edited for typo.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 03:28 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:31pm

I don't know. Probably not, but generally there have to be home visits and whatnot involving an animal rescue. They don't just hand over the dog to you because you want it.

It's not that I don't feel bad for her, but I don't think she has much of a leg to stand on here. Seriously, what famous person signs things without reading them? I'm not even famous and I'd never put my signature on something without knowing what exactly I was signing.

[madbrian]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:31pm

Some dogs that are up for adoption are specifically NOT available to households with kids, often because they've come from homes where they've been abused by kids, or they're skittish around kids. Do we know whether or not this was the case with this dog?

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:33pm

Should they have made an exception just because Ellen is famous? That doesn't seem fair, either.

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:35pm

it seems to me like they're being harder on her because she's famous. like "oh we'll show everyone what we can do by making ellen and her friend's children suffer"

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:37pm

I am totally in agreement with Kringas.
Whether you are Ellen or Joe Blow down the street, you have to pay attention to rules....and in this case the rules are for the protection of the animal, and that takes precedence over human feelings.

This family is probably fine, but there are rules.

Had I been them, I would have gotten in my car and followed the truck/car to the shelter to put in for adopion.....I am hoping they did this.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:37pm

it seems to me like they're being harder on her because she's famous. like "oh we'll show everyone what we can do by making ellen and her friend's children suffer"


Uh, yeah. I'm sure that's exactly what went through their heads. It's not like they went on tv and cried about it. Now I'm reading people are calling for a boycott of this agency, which just seems really counterproductive.

Maybe they are making an example of her. It just seems to me that Ellen is trying to use her fame to make them bend their rules.

And thanks, Elph.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 03:37 PM

[doodlenyc]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:42pm

I hate to say this, well, no I dont...but that kid seemed kind of like an ahole to me.

[Mamie]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:45pm

You all present valid points, but none of them answer the basic question of what was RIGHT for the animal. It sounds like they automatically took the option of removing the dog from the home without even thinking about what was best for him. Did anyone stop and check out the home first? Did anyone bother to see what kind of living arrangements he had in that home? Even the animal cops on the Animal Channel will do that before removing a dog from a home. If they do that kind of checking BEFORE placing the animal, why is it too much to ask that they do it again before removing him? I'm sure that Ellen would have been happy to pay for the additional check. This just can't be in the dog's best interest and that should be the deciding factor.

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:46pm

And the analogy of about a child would only hold up if the adoptive parent just gave their child to someone else, not if the parents divorced.

My cousin was adopted. My parents are in my aunt and uncle's wills to get custody of him should anything happen to them. So if God forbid, my aunt and uncle died and we took my 8-year-old cousin into our home, the adoption agency could then take him back?

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:47pm

Well yeah, it's pretty standard for shelter staff to follow up and make visits for the first year or so that you've had an adopted animal. It's definitely within their typical practice to do so, and with good reason. And that all SHOULD be explicitly stated during the adoption process -- it usually is, and any good owner is going to be fine with it.

madbrain, you're right, but that's exactly WHY the shelter should have looked into this new family. I don't think they should have just left well enough alone, but if this COULD have been a good home for this dog, it is their job and responsibility to gather the evidence and decide. What if it was a great home for the dog? If they just took it with no questions asked, they'd never know. It doesn't seem like there was a reason for them taking the dog back other than that Ellen was supposed to have brought him back to the shelter.

(And no, I'm not arguing that an exception should be made here because Ellen is famous, but from a general standpoint of whether this adoption organization is REALLY engaged in seeking the animal's best interests rather than just exercising its power. What I think they should have done would, for me, be applicable to any such case, celebrity or not.)

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 03:47 PM