Ellen's Emotional Plea

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.

---

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.

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

Wow.

Thats horrible.

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

---

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

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!"

---

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

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.

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

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.

---

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

---

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?

---