Finders Keepers

The whole Ellen vs. Mutts & Moms story is making headlines as this issue of FETCH goes to press. Regardless your opinion about this particular episode, let’s talk for a minute about the big picture. And that picture is about who “owns” an animal, and whether animals are property or family members.
First, one of the items recently in the news is the California law that will allow family pets to be included in restraining orders for domestic violence cases. Now for many of us, that’s a no-brainer. But the reason we need a law, you see, is because traditionally pets are considered part of the property settlement in a divorce case. One could look at it that way, I suppose; pets are often purchased. But to regard them as simply property means that their best interests are not relevant; the judge will give more weight to other factors when the pet cat is an asset to be assigned.
But here’s the rub. If I adopt a pet and sign some agreement that makes me that animal’s guardian and limits my rights to “possess” the animal, then I may be vulnerable to the animal’s being taken back, as Iggy was in the Ellen case. Depending on what I sign, the group that granted me the custodial “guardianship” of the pet can, at its whim, revoke that guardianship and reclaim possession of the pet.
So who “owns” a companion animal? If a rescue group has harbored it, then adopts it out, how long do they retain any kind of oversight? Forever? What is reasonable for any outside group to decide about your relationship to your companion, as long as you are not abusive or breaking any laws?
Having two rescue dogs myself, I like knowing that if it ever becomes necessary I can return them to the shelter or rescue group from which I adopted them. But that’s an option I would only consider if I had no other viable options for placing them with people I know and trust. (Heck, I have friends who would line up to take Bennie!) But I am not comfortable thinking that some shred of “ownership” or legal obligation would keep me from making my own choice. Once I have assumed full responsbility for the animal, shouldn’t I make the determination what’s in her best interest?
What do you think? Let us know.

Comments

[David F. Prenatt, Jr.]

I haven't researched it yet, but -- absent some sort of obvious and manifest abuse or neglect -- I am not aware of any other instance where a private animal rescue has reclaimed an animal by force, and there's nothing in any of the adoption contracts I've seen that would give them the right to do so. Even in instances where abuse or neglect are an issue, law enforcement and/or animal control authorities would have to become involved. Otherwise, an animal rescue would be forced to go to court to get an order forcing the return of an animal.

Of particular concern are quality of life issues, such as when an adopted animal gets sick or injured. It's hard for me to imagine any adoption agreement that could possibly anticipate all of the factors to be considered when deciding whether and when an animal should be euthanized, much less one that would be enforceable. As such, animal rescues should focus on the screening process, and after a probationary period has been completed, the rescue's "right to reclaim" should be extinguished in favor of an adoptive owners "option to return."