Ellen's Emotional Plea- Page 2

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:49pm

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?


Did the adoption paperwork they signed say they couldn't do that? Did they read the paperwork before they signed it?
Updated On: 10/16/07 at 03:49 PM

[Elphaba]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:52pm

Mamie,

it may very well be different people who inspect a home and who take animals back. And those things take time.
We don't know how this particular agency works, but it isn't overnight.
They are not going to change the rules, and speed things up just because it's Ellen.
There is a specific way they do things, and unless they change that (which this may help in doing that)they will follow the policy.
Again, this is for the benefit of the animal.

skittles you are not comparing apples and apples. To be as incongrous as your post...IF your Aunt and Uncle signed something stated that they could never give your cosin to anyone but would rather return him, then yes.

But human adoption is completely different, as you well know.
Humans do not come from 'human shelters".

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:55pm

i dont know how things are in other states, but out of the 10 rescue animals my family has adopted from actual shelters, we've never had to have a follow up visit with any of the shelters we got them from.
i've heard of shelters doing that, but we've never even gotten a phone call saying "how is patches doing?" or "are shawn and kyle working out for you?"

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:56pm

Shelters don't do things the same way rescue orgnaizations do.

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 3:59pm

I'm on the same page as Kringas and Elphaba. This is not the end of it. We don't know if the agency said there is absolutely no chance that this family will get the dog. However, if you are truly concerned about the best interest of the dog then the agency would, at the very least, take the dog and go through their normal screening process.

The fact that they bonded with the animal is sad and it adds an emotional aspect to the story, but ultimately it's irrelevant. Ellen was exactly right in her plea. She made a mistake. It's her fault and sometimes when people make mistakes there are consequences involved that can sometimes impact innocent bystanders. It's unfortunate and sad, but it's all the way of the world.

There is no way the agency could have handled this that would have been a win for everyone. The best interest for the dog was being considered - imo.

All that being said, there is no doubt in my mind that the family will get the dog back, probably due to the pressure that will be placed on them due to Ellen's plea because that is the type of culture we live in. Fortunately, it seems that in this case that is probably the best outcome.

What if it had been Britney Spears adopting a dog and giving it to one of her friends? I'm guessing that people wouldn't be so quick to talk about the "best interests of the puppy" even though there is no way for any of us to know whether Ellen's friends are any more responsible and right for the puppy then Brit Brit's would be.

The rules are there for a reason.
Updated On: 10/16/07 at 03:59 PM

[orangeskittles]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:01pm

Did the adoption paperwork they signed say they couldn't do that?

That was my point. Why does this stipulation exist on an animal adoption contract in the first place? Everywhere else, when the adoption is finalized, it's yours. A rule like this makes it a lease, not an adoption.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:01 PM

[AbbaRabbit]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:02pm

is the humane society a shelter or a rescue organization?

mindy, patches, oreo, richard, lily and izabelle are all from the humane society or from the huname society's petco van (the humane society has a van that goes around to the different petcos with animals)

the other 4 were from the labradore rescue agency (i dont know if they are still around... this was almost 15 years ago), the shelter room at the kensington bird hospital, and from a privet bird rescue.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:06pm

What if it had been Britney Spears adopting a dog and giving it to one of her friends? I'm guessing that people wouldn't be so quick to talk about the "best interests of the puppy" even though there is no way for any of us to know whether Ellen's friends are any more responsible and right for the puppy then Brit Brit's would be.

But it's the same issue. They should be investigating the homes before removing the dogs from them, rather than just taking the animal sight-unseen. If they bothered to check into the circumstances before just taking the dog just because that's in their power, they could see if Britney's hypothetical friend was a crackhead who didn't feed the dog. -- and likewise, if Ellen's hairdresser and her family were providing a perfect home for this dog. They should have been making an informed decision rather than simply acting.

The bottom line remains that if this were ANYONE, the adoption people should have evaluated the home. It's very possible that they removed this dog from a good home -- is that really what they should be doing? No. It's completely counterproductive. Hopefully they will allow the family to be evaluated properly and a chance to get the dog back.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:06pm

Skittles, the point is that if she agreed to all this when she signed it, she agreed to it. If she had read the paperwork and had an issue with it then she should have taken it up with them before the adoption was complete. Animal rescue organizations are a real pain in the ass, that's just the way it is. I don't know why they are the way they are - probably to prevent people from adopting dogs to race, or make fight, or to use as work dogs, etc. It still doesn't have anything to do with human adoption. She didn't read what she signed and now everyone wants the rules bent for her because she's famous.

ETA - With any resuce orgnazition, they do home visits before you are allowed to take the pet.

And Abba, I finally had to give up with your last post. My eyes got tired of turning the words you typed into actual words.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:06 PM

[LaurenB]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:10pm

Rescue organizations are very strict, and rigid. I can understand, since it's heartbreaking to deal with abused or abandoned animals, and you do want to make sure they are placed in good homes.

The question that comes to mind is whether Ellen was informed of the rules when she adopted the dog. Whether or not she read the fine print, it seems only common sense that she be verbally aprised of the conditions of adoption before the dog was handed over to her. Did she not expect follow-up calls or visits? Or, were the workers star struck and never expressed the conditions? Or was Ellen not paying attention?

However, that being said, they should exercise some judgment and flexibility. Why remove a dog from a possibly great environment? They could have collected the vet records from Ellen, they can inspect the new family, do surprise visits, and make sure the dog was placed in a good home. At the same time, they should include a clause in their agreements with the ability to assess a monetary fine in addition to and/or in lieu of confiscating the animal.

It seems to me they could have (1) ensured that the new home was appropriate; (2) educated Ellen as to the rules of adoption; and (3) assessed a fine to help cover their costs. And all parties would be happy.

I've had a little experience with rescues. They are rigid, and at times come across as nazi's. I don't live in their shoes, so I'm not going to over criticize.

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:11pm

Why does this stipulation exist on an animal adoption contract in the first place?

They do it with good intention. This is just a case of mis-use. Those stipulations exist because the powers that be worry that if the adoption doesn't work out, the owner would just dump the pet out on the street, or put it in an unsuitable home just to get it off his or her hands. And that is absolutely a valid concern, but that doesn't mean everyone who can't keep an adopted pet will do that. I don't think that the knowledge that some people WILL do good things for pets they can't keep means the stipulations should be dropped completely, or that people should be exempt from them. But in this case, I think it's potentially counterintuitive to have adhered invariably to a related stipulation. What's done is done and rather than stick to the rules just for the sake of sticking to the rules, I think they should be evaluating the situation from a very different standpoint.

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:13pm

She didn't read what she signed and now everyone wants the rules bent for her because she's famous.

I'm not sure that is entirely fair. She didn't read what she signed which is stupid, but I'm not sure everyone wants the rules bent because she's famous. At least not the people in this thread. I'm pretty sure both Abba and Emcee are thinking in the interests of the puppy here. It's news because she's famous, but I think people passionate about animals would feel the same way if this was Joe Blow down the street.

The bigger issue is will the family get opportunities for a 2nd chance that other people didn't get simply because Ellen is famous and unfortunately, I think the answer is yes. The only way I see them standing firm in the face of this pressure is if they'd dealt with litigation in the past about similar issues and precedent has already been set. Otherwise, I'm guessing that the pressure from the media and all the animal rights activists will be so strong that the adoption agency will cave and get that dog back in that home even if they have some policies prohibiting putting a dog back into a home with the contract was clearly violated.

[robbiej]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:16pm

'She didn't read what she signed and now everyone wants the rules bent for her because she's famous.'

Well...actually, we KNOW about it because she's famous. But, were it just Suzy Q. Nobody and it was the exact same situation, I'd feel the same as emcee does. I think at some point you say, 'These are the rules...but as applied in this situation, does strict adherence cause more harm than good?'

In many aspects of the law, there is great room for nuance and interpretation. Otherwise we wouldn't have lawyers.

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:16pm

The question that comes to mind is whether Ellen was informed of the rules when she adopted the dog. Whether or not she read the fine print, it seems only common sense that she be verbally aprised of the conditions of adoption before the dog was handed over to her. Did she not expect follow-up calls or visits? Or, were the workers star struck and never expressed the conditions? Or was Ellen not paying attention?

It's irrelevant. Whether Ellen was informed, whether the workers were star struck or whether they were watching reruns of Flipper it was Ellen's responsibility to read the contract she was signing and question anything that she didn't understand or wasn't comfortable with.

It's unfortunate for the kids, the dog and ultimately the agency that this happened, but to even discuss any possibility other than 100% of the blame for this should fall on Ellen is taking attention away from the real issue.

Even Ellen made reference to that. It's her all her fault. I'm looking forward to the Republicans to spin this in the "THIS is why gays can't marry! They can't even read the marriage license" direction. Ann Coulter - are you reading this?

I've had a little experience with rescues. They are rigid, and at times come across as nazi's. I don't live in their shoes, so I'm not going to over criticize.

Did you really say that they come across as Nazi's and then follow that up with "I'm not going to over criticize"? Impressive.

I'm guessing you were at Pawschwitz Pound and not at a rescue if they were actually murdering the animals by the thousands.


Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:16 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:21pm

But, really, what is this agency supposed to do? If they bend the rules here and then some non-famous person pulls a stunt like this they'll cry that there are double-standards for the famous.

I dunno. We have a dog in our home that came from a rescue, so I know how this works.

[cooperross]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:28pm

most of thes rescue groups are run by a bunch of batsh*t crazies.

Go to your local shelter or humane society..they do not make you jump through hoops like 3 or more home visits, check veterinary references and require at least 5 personal references before they consider you "suitable."

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:29pm

Many do.

[LaurenB]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:29pm

Patronus - I'm more impressed that you can turn this thread into a political this-is-why-gays-can't-marry, anti-Republican rant.

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:30pm

And what's so bad about that? Should they just hand the dogs off to people simply because they want them?

Most Rescues, are just that - dogs that have been rescued. If they're saving the dog from a SH*Tty life don't they have a responsibility to try and make sure they don't send it off to a life that's equally SH*Tty?
Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:30 PM

[luvtheEmcee]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:31pm

It's not bad. Adoption processes SHOULD be extensive. Wanting a pet alone doesn't make you a qualified owner. If someone thinks questions about previous pets, what happened to them, vet references, etc. is an annoyance, then they can suck it up and not get a pet.

Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:31 PM

[Phyllis Rogers Stone]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:32pm

Or get one from a pet store or from people giving them away outside of Wal-Mart.

[Patronus]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:33pm

It was obviously a joke designed to lighten up the mood. Though perhaps ill advised or poorly timed, it was still clearly a joke.

You used Nazi in that way that really gets under my skin, so I commented on it. Next?


Updated On: 10/16/07 at 04:33 PM

[LaurenB]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:35pm

Sorry. Ill choice of words.

[cooperross]

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:39pm

"If someone thinks questions about previous pets, what happened to them, vet references, etc. is an annoyance, then they can suck it up and not get a pet."

Tell that to all of the animals I have adopted over the years from shelters and from the street.

My last 2 rescued cats lived to be 16 and 17, respectively. And my only cat now is 10, and my dog will be 11 next month.

And guess what? adopted all of them either from the city animal shelter or from finding them after they had been abandoned. All without the help or interference of the wacked-out animal hoarders that call themselves "rescue groups."

Posted: 10/16/07 at 4:43pm

my sister is the coordinator for a dog rescue & adoption group (www.frenchbulldogrescue.org) & they are VERY STRICT about ALL the rules....& there are a lot of them.

Ellen's clip made me cry but she broke the rules.

there is a reason for those rules & even tho i am sure Ellen had nothing but the best intentions towards both the family & the dog, those rules need to be maintained.