This is a placeholder text
Group text
by mamabevi5 on 18 September 2010 - 04:09
I adopted a girl (GSD) from a local rescue here that was just getting started. When I went to look at the dog, I just wanted to meet her. I totally did not expect or even think about bringing her home that day because I had not filled out an application, provided vet references and had them checked, or had the home check done yet. A friend went with me to meet the dog, so I have a witness to how this all went down.
We met the dog, she was nice...sweet girl actually. I was told she walked nicely on leash. I thought, of course she does on a Prong collar! I was told after spending some time with the rescue people(it was a couple with kids) that they were willing to 'forego' the application, because the woman had failed to email it to me to fill out. That should have been my cue to walk away. BUT I felt bad for the dog-she was 16 months old and I could see her hip bones protruding, and count her ribs from a distance. She did not look well fed by any means. So, I ended up bringing her home with me at the end of the hour.
I have to say that I have NO respect for the people that passed her off to me like that. At that time, all the info they had on me was my first name, possibly my last name from caller ID, and my cell phone number.
I spent months working with my girl to get her over all her troubles. She was not house trained at all-she had been an outside dog all her life(but was supposed to be house trained...like How? *shakes head*) She was not crate trained. She was constipated. She was really a wild child. She was not socialized at all, and was a nipper for a very long time-in fact that is the one thing that she still does on occasion, so I have to watch her like a hawk. She was suspicious of strangers. She was dominate over my male. Just real pushy in a lot of ways.
Nadia has been with me now for over a year. She is still slightly neurotic but she is SUCH a delightful girl. She has changed so much in the past year. The other night a friend came over & brought her room mate, a guy....Nadia was snuggling on his lap within a few minutes of their arrival! She loves to play, to work(we train and socialize at a small gathering weekly) Nadia is like a different dog and she has made me so proud of all that she has overcome!
I know that rescues that are well established would have never let me walk away with her the way this one did. I have great respect for rescues and all that they do for all the homeless animals out there. I wish that the place I got Nadia from had been better, but I am also grateful that she is here with me, safe, sound, happy, healthy, spoiled, loved and making progress.
We met the dog, she was nice...sweet girl actually. I was told she walked nicely on leash. I thought, of course she does on a Prong collar! I was told after spending some time with the rescue people(it was a couple with kids) that they were willing to 'forego' the application, because the woman had failed to email it to me to fill out. That should have been my cue to walk away. BUT I felt bad for the dog-she was 16 months old and I could see her hip bones protruding, and count her ribs from a distance. She did not look well fed by any means. So, I ended up bringing her home with me at the end of the hour.
I have to say that I have NO respect for the people that passed her off to me like that. At that time, all the info they had on me was my first name, possibly my last name from caller ID, and my cell phone number.
I spent months working with my girl to get her over all her troubles. She was not house trained at all-she had been an outside dog all her life(but was supposed to be house trained...like How? *shakes head*) She was not crate trained. She was constipated. She was really a wild child. She was not socialized at all, and was a nipper for a very long time-in fact that is the one thing that she still does on occasion, so I have to watch her like a hawk. She was suspicious of strangers. She was dominate over my male. Just real pushy in a lot of ways.
Nadia has been with me now for over a year. She is still slightly neurotic but she is SUCH a delightful girl. She has changed so much in the past year. The other night a friend came over & brought her room mate, a guy....Nadia was snuggling on his lap within a few minutes of their arrival! She loves to play, to work(we train and socialize at a small gathering weekly) Nadia is like a different dog and she has made me so proud of all that she has overcome!
I know that rescues that are well established would have never let me walk away with her the way this one did. I have great respect for rescues and all that they do for all the homeless animals out there. I wish that the place I got Nadia from had been better, but I am also grateful that she is here with me, safe, sound, happy, healthy, spoiled, loved and making progress.
by HBFanatic on 18 September 2010 - 04:09
hmmm....I already posted that there is not one breeder or one single group that I have to have an animal from. "Fortunately" there are so many animals in rescue that there will always be another one and for that same reason, I don't have to deal with folks that I don't feel like. Same thing in reverse of course. Very simple.
I will have to check with my attorney on the property thing though. Because our attempt is to let the contracts point out to the potential adopter what I did and tell you about the dog (med status, health status, training level etc) and what you will be responsible for. This includes pointing out to them that they are now in charge of training and dog ownership.
This is to be endorsed paragraph by paragraph. To make sure no one can say "oppsss...I did not see that!!
. As such, should the dog bite someone and I knowingly adopted a dog out with issues, it can and should come back to me if I did not disclose said issues. That would be neglect on my part. And it would be the adopter that would have to take me to court. Not the person that got bit.
I have a place on the contract where I would write this down and make the adopter initial it should there be issues and I should choose to adopt out such a dog.
However, if dog has a clear history and due to bad training, socialization (if applicable) or simply pure negligence on the adopters part , injures someone, he is the one in charge of the animal at this point and therefore acknowledges in the contract that he is aware of the responsibility of the dog.
I will have to check with my attorney on the property thing though. Because our attempt is to let the contracts point out to the potential adopter what I did and tell you about the dog (med status, health status, training level etc) and what you will be responsible for. This includes pointing out to them that they are now in charge of training and dog ownership.
This is to be endorsed paragraph by paragraph. To make sure no one can say "oppsss...I did not see that!!
. As such, should the dog bite someone and I knowingly adopted a dog out with issues, it can and should come back to me if I did not disclose said issues. That would be neglect on my part. And it would be the adopter that would have to take me to court. Not the person that got bit.
I have a place on the contract where I would write this down and make the adopter initial it should there be issues and I should choose to adopt out such a dog.
However, if dog has a clear history and due to bad training, socialization (if applicable) or simply pure negligence on the adopters part , injures someone, he is the one in charge of the animal at this point and therefore acknowledges in the contract that he is aware of the responsibility of the dog.
by Doberdoodle on 18 September 2010 - 04:09
My agreement says something like No warranties, verbal or otherwise, have been given on the dogs temperament, and as a dog is an animal subject to many variables, I am not liable for any damage the dog may cause, etc Good to have a lawyer look things over to get forms ready.
by mobjack on 18 September 2010 - 05:09
momosgarage, your comments are getting WAY off the mark. We do this because we care about the dogs not for any other reason.
Every dog assessment, home check, welfare check, adoption event, pull, transport, you name it, the volunteers pay for it out of their own pockets. There are no reimbursements for time or even gas money.
80% of dogs my rescue takes in are heartworm positive. That's $600 in vet bills right there. Add shots, worming and health exam at $100 discount rate for DHLPP, rabies & bordatella for 90% of dogs. Spay/neuter for 75% of dogs at $200 average discounted rate. Now add food, Heartguard, Frontline for every dog and any other vet prescribed meds even at discounted rates. Our adoption fees are $250.00 period. Where do rescues make money?
www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/bulletins_read/424633.html
Here you go. One very well bred DDR lines dog picked up as a stray. Now in rescue ONLY because someone was kind enough to let me know she was there and my rescue and I fought for her. I paid her pull fee. I paid her board fees, I drove 600 miles to get her, I paid her vet bills, I'm housing her, training her and feeding her EVO not Old Roy. NOT her breeder, NOT her owner, NOT one single donor. ME. And if her real owner or breeder can be identified and they want her back, I will happily pay for another trip to the vet for a health certificate, provide a crate and pay to ship her back if I need to. So, yeah, I'm making a ton of money here too aren't I?
Every dog I go assess and turn down I walk away knowing I just signed that dog's death warrant. His last appeal was denied. Before you pass judgement on us, try walking in our shoes sometime.
Every dog assessment, home check, welfare check, adoption event, pull, transport, you name it, the volunteers pay for it out of their own pockets. There are no reimbursements for time or even gas money.
80% of dogs my rescue takes in are heartworm positive. That's $600 in vet bills right there. Add shots, worming and health exam at $100 discount rate for DHLPP, rabies & bordatella for 90% of dogs. Spay/neuter for 75% of dogs at $200 average discounted rate. Now add food, Heartguard, Frontline for every dog and any other vet prescribed meds even at discounted rates. Our adoption fees are $250.00 period. Where do rescues make money?
www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/bulletins_read/424633.html
Here you go. One very well bred DDR lines dog picked up as a stray. Now in rescue ONLY because someone was kind enough to let me know she was there and my rescue and I fought for her. I paid her pull fee. I paid her board fees, I drove 600 miles to get her, I paid her vet bills, I'm housing her, training her and feeding her EVO not Old Roy. NOT her breeder, NOT her owner, NOT one single donor. ME. And if her real owner or breeder can be identified and they want her back, I will happily pay for another trip to the vet for a health certificate, provide a crate and pay to ship her back if I need to. So, yeah, I'm making a ton of money here too aren't I?
Every dog I go assess and turn down I walk away knowing I just signed that dog's death warrant. His last appeal was denied. Before you pass judgement on us, try walking in our shoes sometime.
by HBFanatic on 18 September 2010 - 05:09
mobjack...I could not have said it any better myself!!!
by Prager on 19 September 2010 - 17:09
momosgarage
"What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach.........."
Just kidding :)
No, believe me if you would know me you would know that I am the last one who believes that bad "laws" should be followed blindly. However we are not talking about "laws" but we are talking about contracts.
One of the differences between the law and contract is that you are entering into contract voluntarily!!!
And if you do not obey by such contract which you have signed (gave word that you will) voluntarily then there are and should be consequences.
And thus I will repeat:
Read the contract before you sign it and (then) keep your word.
Who cares if it is enforceable. Where is the honor of keeping your word. Maybe I am too old fashioned....?
If you do not like the contract do not sign it in the first place! In free society if people would obey by that rule problem of restrictive contract would be self limiting, since if no people would accept such contract such rescue would not exist very long and such contract would have to be softened in order for such rescue to be able to addopt out their animals. However by signing such restrictive contract ( voluntarily I mind you) with the idea that you will not obey by it, you are not only just lying, but actually then promoting such reastrictive contact.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com
by momosgarage on 20 September 2010 - 22:09
Still waiting for the lawyers response on his findings (family friend). But it seems there are some merits to my original question. Some of the adoption contracts may violate individual state laws and would not be held up in court if pursued with proper legal representation. Not conclusive by any means, but certainly others are starting to ask the same question and in time maybe we will have a precedent (maybe already have it in some states). I'll let everyone ponder this one, as I will not be posting the results I find publically on the forum:
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/owner.htm
Adoption organization attempts to retain elements of ownership of dogs adopted-out
Some adoption or rescue organizations have developed contracts that purport to give them perpetual rights to control dogs that are adopted-out. Some of these contracts purport to give the members of the organization the right to enter the new dog owner's home without prior notice or permission, dictate how and where the dog can be kept, and other things.
These contracts have not been tested in court. They can result in liability being shifted back to the organization, if such agreements are valid in the first place. Here is the story of one such interaction between this kind of rescue group and a family that adopted one of the group's pit bulls:
Dear Mr. Phillips:
My family has been struggling with a Pit Bull rescue group that we adopted a dog from about two years ago. About six month after adopting the dog my wife became pregnant and we decided that this dog was not a good fit for our family because of its behavior around young children. We notified the rescue of this decision but said that we would "foster" the dog until they could find a new home.
Given the stigma on pit bulls we assumed that this would take some time, but after over 1 year and the fact that we now have a crawling infant we had had enough and told the rescue that they needed to come get the dog.
They then informed us that the adoption contract we signed gave them an additional 4 months before they needed to take the dog. After the 4 month they would take the dog but we would owe a $500 "damages" fee.
The contract also states that we have no rights to take any other actions to find another home for this dog on our own. We can't give the dog away, we can't sell the dog, we can't euthanize the dog. According to them my only options are to keep the dog, or give it back to them after paying the $500 penalty.
Here is a copy of their e-mail message to me:
"Once a foster home is found or the four month period expires, I will make arrangements with you to receive the dog. At that time, bring her to us and a check for $500 will be required since you are breaching the Life Long Commitment Clause. By signing the contract you acknowledged that adopting a dog is a commitment for the life of the dog, and since you are choosing not to honor that commitment, payment of damages is required. If you choose to contest the payment of damages, the rescue will have no choice but to pursue legal channels in order to recover the cost of re-homing the dog. In the past, the courts have awarded the rescue damages, court costs, and attorney's fee which would far exceed the $500 you were originally asked to pay, so please consider that when making the decision not to pay."
So, my questions are:
Do I own this dog or do they? Am I liable for this dog or are they? If I own the dog can they sue me for giving it away to someone else? If they own the dog can they force me to pay them to return it?
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/owner.htm
Adoption organization attempts to retain elements of ownership of dogs adopted-out
Some adoption or rescue organizations have developed contracts that purport to give them perpetual rights to control dogs that are adopted-out. Some of these contracts purport to give the members of the organization the right to enter the new dog owner's home without prior notice or permission, dictate how and where the dog can be kept, and other things.
These contracts have not been tested in court. They can result in liability being shifted back to the organization, if such agreements are valid in the first place. Here is the story of one such interaction between this kind of rescue group and a family that adopted one of the group's pit bulls:
Dear Mr. Phillips:
My family has been struggling with a Pit Bull rescue group that we adopted a dog from about two years ago. About six month after adopting the dog my wife became pregnant and we decided that this dog was not a good fit for our family because of its behavior around young children. We notified the rescue of this decision but said that we would "foster" the dog until they could find a new home.
Given the stigma on pit bulls we assumed that this would take some time, but after over 1 year and the fact that we now have a crawling infant we had had enough and told the rescue that they needed to come get the dog.
They then informed us that the adoption contract we signed gave them an additional 4 months before they needed to take the dog. After the 4 month they would take the dog but we would owe a $500 "damages" fee.
The contract also states that we have no rights to take any other actions to find another home for this dog on our own. We can't give the dog away, we can't sell the dog, we can't euthanize the dog. According to them my only options are to keep the dog, or give it back to them after paying the $500 penalty.
Here is a copy of their e-mail message to me:
"Once a foster home is found or the four month period expires, I will make arrangements with you to receive the dog. At that time, bring her to us and a check for $500 will be required since you are breaching the Life Long Commitment Clause. By signing the contract you acknowledged that adopting a dog is a commitment for the life of the dog, and since you are choosing not to honor that commitment, payment of damages is required. If you choose to contest the payment of damages, the rescue will have no choice but to pursue legal channels in order to recover the cost of re-homing the dog. In the past, the courts have awarded the rescue damages, court costs, and attorney's fee which would far exceed the $500 you were originally asked to pay, so please consider that when making the decision not to pay."
So, my questions are:
Do I own this dog or do they? Am I liable for this dog or are they? If I own the dog can they sue me for giving it away to someone else? If they own the dog can they force me to pay them to return it?
by momosgarage on 20 September 2010 - 22:09
Additonal statement by dog bite attorney Ken Phillips:
Ellen DeGeneres, Iggy and a Crucial Issue in Dog Bite Law
Comedienne Ellen DeGeneres and her partner, Portia de Rossi, "adopted" Iggy, a Brussels Griffon mix, on Sept. 20, 2007. When the dog did not fit into their household, they did what dog owners almost always do: they gave Iggy to someone with kids who seemed fit to provide the dog with a good home.
In doing so, however, they infuriated Maria Batkis, the person who "adopted out" the dog. Maria runs an "adoption agency" for dogs and, when she "adopts out" a pooch, she makes people sign a contract that restricts what can be done with the dog in the future. On the basis of the concept of "adoption," and the wording of that contract, Maria reclaimed the dog and gave it to someone else, to the great disappointment of Ellen and Portia and the kids who briefly had Iggy.
I do not believe that "adoption agencies" should have the legal right to take back a dog, at least under these circumstances. Only an owner can transfer her property; the basis for Maria's actions is that she had this right of ownership. But if an adopted dog bit or injured or killed a person, Maria would certainly disavow ownership or legal liability, which is based upon ownership. I bet, in fact, that Maria does not even have insurance for such potential liability.
A person who gives up permanent custody of their dog should not be considered to have any rights of ownership. The reason is that we demand accountability from dog owners. To put the blame on the correct end of the leash, one has to know who is holding it. The person with custody and control of the dog is its owner and the one to be held accountable, not someone -- or some nonprofit adoption agency -- who had temporary custody at some point in the past.
If the law were to allow people like Maria to have an ownership interest in every dog she adopted, it would muddy the waters. If Maria operated as an uninsured nonprofit corporation and the dog seriously injured a person, the victim might not recover medical costs and other compensation, because ownership and legal liability would be uncertain or even lacking.
Ownership is a crucial issue in dog bite law. Adoption agencies and those who argue that we all should be not owners but rather "guardians" of dogs fail to appreciate the erosion of responsibility and liability that will result from these cute-sounding concepts.
I wish Ellen and Portia would address this important issue because it has far-reaching consequences. Ellen has had the courage to take on much more difficult ones in the past. It is one of the reasons why a great segment of the public cares so much about her and respects her. However, we must not hold it against Ellen if she chooses not to do so, because it is the responsibility of our legislatures to resolve these issues.
Posted on 25 Oct 2007 by Kenneth Phillips
Ellen DeGeneres, Iggy and a Crucial Issue in Dog Bite Law
Comedienne Ellen DeGeneres and her partner, Portia de Rossi, "adopted" Iggy, a Brussels Griffon mix, on Sept. 20, 2007. When the dog did not fit into their household, they did what dog owners almost always do: they gave Iggy to someone with kids who seemed fit to provide the dog with a good home.
In doing so, however, they infuriated Maria Batkis, the person who "adopted out" the dog. Maria runs an "adoption agency" for dogs and, when she "adopts out" a pooch, she makes people sign a contract that restricts what can be done with the dog in the future. On the basis of the concept of "adoption," and the wording of that contract, Maria reclaimed the dog and gave it to someone else, to the great disappointment of Ellen and Portia and the kids who briefly had Iggy.
I do not believe that "adoption agencies" should have the legal right to take back a dog, at least under these circumstances. Only an owner can transfer her property; the basis for Maria's actions is that she had this right of ownership. But if an adopted dog bit or injured or killed a person, Maria would certainly disavow ownership or legal liability, which is based upon ownership. I bet, in fact, that Maria does not even have insurance for such potential liability.
A person who gives up permanent custody of their dog should not be considered to have any rights of ownership. The reason is that we demand accountability from dog owners. To put the blame on the correct end of the leash, one has to know who is holding it. The person with custody and control of the dog is its owner and the one to be held accountable, not someone -- or some nonprofit adoption agency -- who had temporary custody at some point in the past.
If the law were to allow people like Maria to have an ownership interest in every dog she adopted, it would muddy the waters. If Maria operated as an uninsured nonprofit corporation and the dog seriously injured a person, the victim might not recover medical costs and other compensation, because ownership and legal liability would be uncertain or even lacking.
Ownership is a crucial issue in dog bite law. Adoption agencies and those who argue that we all should be not owners but rather "guardians" of dogs fail to appreciate the erosion of responsibility and liability that will result from these cute-sounding concepts.
I wish Ellen and Portia would address this important issue because it has far-reaching consequences. Ellen has had the courage to take on much more difficult ones in the past. It is one of the reasons why a great segment of the public cares so much about her and respects her. However, we must not hold it against Ellen if she chooses not to do so, because it is the responsibility of our legislatures to resolve these issues.
Posted on 25 Oct 2007 by Kenneth Phillips
by geordiegaviino on 20 September 2010 - 22:09
Ellen DeGeneres was a shocking one and i'll never understand it....
It's like they just wanted to prove a point. They should of went to the home, checked it out and transferred the contract to the new owners.
by Prager on 22 September 2010 - 14:09
Is there a "hardship" clause in the contract?
Are you telling me that if someone extenuating circumstances like when the owner of the dog get sick and is dying for example then they can return the dog only after they pay $500??!
Prager Hans.
Are you telling me that if someone extenuating circumstances like when the owner of the dog get sick and is dying for example then they can return the dog only after they pay $500??!
Prager Hans.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top