Ellen’s Dog Will Not Be Reunited With Family
We are hearing that the people who took Iggy the dog from his new home with Ellen DeGeneres’ hairstylist are not planning to return the dog to the family:
The dog was removed from the hairstylist’s home Sunday. The owners of Mutts and Moms claimed that DeGeneres violated the adoption agreement by not informing them that she was giving the dog away.
Mutts and Moms owners Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun were in possession of the dog and will not be giving it back, attorney Keith A. Fink told The Associated Press.
“She (Marina) is not going to give them the dog,” said Fink, who is not legally representing the owners but is authorized to speak on their behalf.
“She doesn’t think this is the type of family that should have the dog. She is adamant that she is not going to be bullied around by the Ellen DeGenereses of the world … They are using their power, position and wealth to try to get what it is they want.” [...]
DeGeneres had said her hairdresser’s daughters, ages 11 and 12, had bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.
Fink said Moms and Mutts has a rule that families with children under 14 are not allowed to adopt small dogs.
“It’s for the protection of the dog,” he said.
However, according to TMZ, that rule wasn’t always followed. They are also saying that there was no real application process or home inspection to go through:
Now we’ve learned Ellen never submitted an application to adopt the dog, nor did she undergo a home inspection that seems so important after the fact. There were no holier-than-thou terms to this process.
For the record, we’re told the agency has greenlighted other dog adoptions with young children in the house — the “kids” in question here are 12 and 13.
Also, we’ve learned the microchip in the dog’s neck that allowed the agency to get the dog back (courtesy of the police) was bogus. The deal was that Ellen’s info was supposed to be added to the chip.
Ellen, a noted animal advocate, decided to give the dog to her hairstylist’s family after discovering that Iggy did not get along with her cats, even after obedience classes. The dog lived with the new family for two weeks before Ellen received a call from the agency checking up on the dog. When Ellen told them what had happened, the owner allegedly went ballistic and threatened legal action and media coverage:
“I mean, she started threatening…she said if I don’t get the dog back by 2:00, Iâ€m calling the media on you, I’m calling my attorneys, I’m calling the police, and I was like, ‘I didn’t do anything wrong, you’re gonna call the media and tell people that I’m, what, I placed the dog in a loving home?’â€
A point not to be lost: The owners, who are griping about the media attention and saying they don’t want to back down and complaining that Ellen is using her media power to get what she wants, were the first ones to fire off a threat of going to the media.
Ellen made a heartfelt, tearful plea yesterday on her nationally syndicated television show, asking the owners to please return the dog to the family. She repeatedly apologized and said it was all her fault, and not to punish the other family or Iggy.
I said yesterday that she was wrong for not reading the adoption document thoroughly. It is coming out now that her partner, Portia de Rossi, is the one who actually signed the agreement, although Ellen’s name was on it. Yes, they should have read it more thoroughly and contacted the agency before giving the dog away. But since the dog is in such a good home, why not just transfer the application from Ellen to this family? If the dog must be kept while an inspection takes place, then fine, return the dog after it is over. What’s the problem?
It sounds to me like the owners are just angry that their stringent rules were not followed to the letter. It appears that someone is either on a power trip or being a bit obsessive about rules and regulations. “Zero tolerance policy” is applicable in some areas of life, but in a case like this, where a solution was already found that worked to everyone’s advantage, it’s a bit much. Cases like this need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.
All this could have been avoided had the agency just been humane and merciful, instead of sticking obsessively to their rules. They could have quietly arranged an adoption with the new family, which I am sure Ellen would have gladly paid for. All they’ve managed to do is reap a load of bad press and anger many Ellen fans and animal lovers. Who will want to adopt a dog from this agency after this? This is a little pet who found a nice forever home with a loving family. Now they are just being stubborn and hard-hearted, to make some point they feel needs to be made.
I understand that there has to be rules in place, because they don’t want people giving the dogs to whoever they wish, people that might not take care of them or dump them somewhere or abuse them. But in this day and age when we read of people like Michael Vick, do we really need to rip apart loving pet homes?  Perhaps, they are just upset because by giving Iggy to another family, Mutts and Moms didn’t get a fee for the sale of the dog…but had they been decent about it, I’m sure Ellen would have made a donation to their agency.
This part is also disturbing:
As a result of the ensuing publicity, Fink said Batkis and Chekroun had received voice- and e-mail threats of death and arson, and their Paws Boutique store in Pasadena was besieged by media Tuesday, disrupting business. The women handle the volunteer, nonprofit Mutts and Moms rescue agency out of the store.
“It’s very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls,” Bush said. “Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family.”
There are ways of getting one’s point across without resorting to violence or threats. I think Ellen would be the LAST person in the world who would want threats being made in her name. Don’t stoop to that level. Be better than that. You can go about this in the right way.
And you know what, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun? You’re looking at it totally wrong. It doesn’t have anything to do with backing down. That’s just a power trip, and it’s a very egotistical attitude to have. It does, however, have everything to do with simply doing the right thing. Have a heart. Isn’t the point to unite dogs with loving families? Well, this dog has one.
Please….just reunite this family. It’s the right thing.
Pink Stripe WordPress Theme Designed by Joni Mueller &
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]
Pingback by Ellen’s Dog Will Not Be Reunited With Family | Dog Training Advice — October 17, 2007 @ 12:42 am
Are you people for real my god Canadians definately have nothing in common when adopting a pet., I am still surprised when a agency that has rescued these pets.., do a follow up that is unbeleivable., I guess they take their jobs seriously.,,
Come on now its not like its a human being., with Childrens Aid Society.
Don’t you american people have anything else better to do.,considering all the activity thats going on in your country… get real I still cannot beleive how far and time consuming this is.,
Maybe somebody else was interested in this dog., who knows., but honestly this cannot be true… so sad..
Comment by susiepresutti — October 17, 2007 @ 4:13 am
Well, it has nothing to do with being and American, oh and please capitalize Americans if you are going to bother to capitalize Canadians.
Anyway, it has to do with power trips and bad attitudes, not country of origins.
Comment by D — October 17, 2007 @ 7:42 am
Stupidity knows no national border.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 9:14 am
Sounds like the agency is really trying to show that they’re not the kind of people who can be intimidated by power… too bad they found the wrong target. That poor kid. and what’s going to happen to the puppy now?
Comment by Amrita — October 17, 2007 @ 10:06 am
What are the store and Moms and Mutts going to do with the dog when the go bancrupt
Comment by A — October 17, 2007 @ 10:06 am
unbeleiveable - the interest here is the DOG if you have a family to care for the dog then giver the dog to them. The purpose id to find HOMES for the DOG / Put your asshole attitude aside and give the dog a home
Comment by rich — October 17, 2007 @ 10:10 am
Good grief! Give the dog to the family that loves him! Why return Iggy to a cold caged shelter when he could be in loving arms? This whole thing has been blown out of proportion and my heart goes out to everyone involved because now everyone and Iggy are suffering. It’s not about celebrity. Give the dog to this family! It’s not the dog’s fault.
Comment by Gina — October 17, 2007 @ 10:19 am
If this rescue organization had any heart, they would give the dog back to the family. How hard would it have been to switch paper work? I am sure Ellen would have paid to keep the dog in that family. Now Moms & Mutts have to pay for the bad publicity. They say they don’t adopt out to children 14 and under…come on we are talkin 11 and 12…not 2. This dog deserves to be loved and Ellen did the right thing. She saved Moms and Mutts time by finding Iggy a home. They should be gratefull instead of selfish and stubborn.
Comment by sb — October 17, 2007 @ 10:35 am
I am furious at the arrogance, heartlessness, and lack of common sense of Moms and Mutts. Animal shelters are established (supposedly) to rescue and help find homes for pets. How was removing Izzy helping him? My mother always said to pick your battles. Moms & Mutts, is this REALLY a battle you want to pick and what are you actually gaining from this? Perhaps it’s time for some soul-searching to determine if this is the type of work you should be doing. Please return Izzy.
Comment by Susan — October 17, 2007 @ 11:59 am
IGGY…sorry, pup, got your name wrong.
Comment by Susan — October 17, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
I cannot believe they took a dog away from a loving family to stick back into a cage. Why can’t this family go and adopt the dog? I’m sure Ellen would even pay for it. It is ridiculous that they have a policy that kids under 14 cannot have small dogs. Where did this policy come from? I have a small dog and I got her when my kids were 3 and 6 and we never had a problem. They need to give the dog back to the family and apologize to Ellen and all dog lovers and admit that they were wrong to take that dog away.
Comment by Judy — October 17, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Ellen broke a contract and then used national TV to stage a PR event to make life unlivable for the people she broke the contract against. And I see a lot of people don’t even consider that aspect of what Ellen did. Not only did she violate a contract - regardless if you agree or disagree with the contract in question - she then took her power and position and used it to target the very people she violated a contract with.
The Mom’s and Mutts didn’t do anything against their contract, they fulfilled it by carrying it out. They didn’t do anything illegal (as far as been reported) and they didn’t do anything wrong (they are protecting their interest in the dog, as per the contract). They did act foolishly in the situation, but that isn’t a crime or wrong.
Should any harm come to them, I hope a lawyer sues Ellen for her willful and flagrant attempt to use her TV position to incite people to harm those two.
Comment by whatever — October 17, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
I work in the public sector and I recently received my master’s in public administration. This is a classic case of beurocratic gatekeeping. Rather than putting out fires and being a reflective practitioner, the agency decided to enflame a completely calm and happy situation.
Beaurocratic Gatekeeping: Requiring certain rules and paperwork simply for the sake of the rules, and forgetting the purpose behind them.
The owner enflamed the situation by making threats, rather than listening and saying ok it wasn’t in the agreement that you give the dog to a family. However, since the dog is with a loving family, he can stay there for now, but we need to make the transfer official by inspecting the home and having an application on file.
That’s called being an affective practitioner and manager. Obviously this agency has lost site of why they have their rules and they have serious egos that need to be taken down a notch.
Comment by Suzie — October 17, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
pardon my typo in my prior comment. Bureaucratic, not beurocratic or beaurocratic.
Comment by Suzie — October 17, 2007 @ 1:05 pm
Sue Ellen?… Now that’s laughable.
I have never posted to any blogs but the person that thinks Ellen should be sued is way out of line.
Ellen did nothing wrong by going public in my opinion… she did not attack the rescue group.If my memory serves me correctly she said very PLAIN and CLEAR that she (Ellen) went about it in the wrong way… how is that putting the rescue group people at risk? She didn’t blame them she just begged them to return the dog. Ellen said she accepts the blame for not reading the contract.
Some people just like to jump on any bandwagon and threaten others lives. I doubt it has anything at all to do with the issue!!!
I believe we make our beds in this world and if some CHOOSE to threaten others or actually do harm to others how does that become someone elses fault.
Those that threaten others should be dealt with by the police not lawsuits.
This is just my take and my understanding of the story. Feel free to make a big deal out of my comments if that makes you happy.
I have my personal opinions on “rescue groups” but thats another story.
Comment by Angel — October 17, 2007 @ 1:48 pm
If the owners of Moms and Mutts are smart, they will employ some crisis management techniques to save their reputation. Although a contract was signed, they could have behaved according to the individual situation. Eleven and twelve year old little girls can be very responsible and loving to their pets. It is sad that they choice to be authoritarian in this situation instead of looking to their mission of finding good homes for helpless pets. When a business loses it’s reputation it is hard to regain it. They should mediate with the family and give the dog back to them should they find them an acceptable fit.
Comment by tomatoebasil — October 17, 2007 @ 2:37 pm
The video of ellen is the most ridiculous thing i have witnessed in a long time. But to keep on topic concerning dogs i have found a site that might cheer the crazy lesbian up.
http://www.topblogcontent.com/2007/10/17/worldwidefidocom-the-cuttest-website-in-the-world/
Comment by swanny — October 17, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
A comment to the owners of Moms and Mutts…. the bible says…we make a living by what we earn, more importantly, we make a life by what we do. Do the right thing, return the dog to the family. Stop the anger and go on doing good deeds.
Comment by Liz — October 17, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
If moms and mutts really cared they would have checked out the new family, made sure everything was good and did the paperwork and leave it alone. Why would they want to return iggy to a cage in a shelter and not be loved. This is crazy there are so many more dogs that are in need of help that now they are dealing with this insane iggy case when all they had to do were the above steps. IF you think about it all this time with iggy when he was with a family some dog in this world was not getting help it needed. Look at it that way moms and mutts, help other dogs like you are doing becasue i do think it is a good cause, but leave other dogs in good homes. America is pleading with you to return iggy to the family. PLEASE!!!!
Comment by Courtney — October 17, 2007 @ 6:45 pm
I am in rescue and I take a dog from a shelter or an abused situation and temporarily rehome and rehabilitate it in my house, it then becomes a part of my family and I am very concerned where the dog will be placed after all the hard work. For those of you that have foster kids, you will understand, you would not just let your foster kid that you have go to a home you know nothing about. That is how rescue feels about adopting a dog that is very close to our hearts. We are co-owners with the dog for the rest of its life!! I do not want to pull the same dog from a shelter AGAIN if we adopt to an APPROVED home and it ends up somewhere else. So I challenge everyone out there to take a homeless dog into your home and spend the time to rehabilitate it, adopt to a home you are comfortable with and then not have any idea what the family is like that it went to. PLEASE TRY IT, you will feel different.
Comment by Vikki — October 17, 2007 @ 7:32 pm
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE return Iggy to the loving family. Those poor girls are heartbroken not to say how Ellen feels. She was just trying to give the cute dog a good home and the age things is crap. People with small children adopt dogs all the time and they have no problems. As far as im concerned moms and mutts doesnt care about animals, if they did they would adot Iggy to the family that Ellen gave Iggy to. Be real moms and mutts!!! Whats in store for Iggy, a cage, death, what??????
Comment by Heather — October 17, 2007 @ 8:35 pm
#21: I can understand that you would not want to give an animal that you’ve invested your time and emotions in to just anyone. That is just common sense, to want to adopt that animal to a family who will not only take care of it, but for whom the animal is a good fit.
But why is this woman the sole judge and arbitrary decision-maker in whether or not this family is suitable or not, without even meeting them or knowing what they are like? She didn’t even give them a chance to submit an application. She got mad because all her rules were not followed To. The. Letter. and freaked out about it. She COULD have given the family an opportunity, but CHOSE not to.
And her comments that there is now no way that the family will get this dog back after all that has happened…well, that’s just ludicrous. It’s drama-queen stuff, it’s control freak issues. It has nothing to do with common sense or decency.
I understand why rules are in place. But she didn’t even give them a chance.
Comment by k — October 17, 2007 @ 9:15 pm
This is pure bullshit and makes me sick .Give the dog back to the kids. selfish bitches
Comment by michelle — October 17, 2007 @ 10:26 pm
I can’t believe what your organization had done to this family. Won’t adopt dogs out to families with kids 14 years of age and younger - what kind of organization are you?
I would say, one that honestly doesn’t give a damn whether a dog lives or dies!
Do you honestly think Ellen would have given Iggy to just any Tom Dick or Harry - how lame you truly are!
You obviously must be making some good money at your shelter with this policy. Grabbing dogs back from people who didn’t follow a contract, why? Simply to adopt out and get more $$$$.
Sorry but you are not an organization I would ever want to do any work with!
I volunteer at a NO KILL animal shelter and see so much cruelty by humans to the animals…and what you have done is just unacceptable!
Is it because it is Ellen that you are trying to use her as an example - SHAME ON YOU!
I don’t think you personally give 2 damns about this dog….but do about the amount of $$$ you can make by adopting him out again
Sick from Canada
Comment by Lynda (Canada) — October 17, 2007 @ 11:40 pm
Ahem, Americans, it is a DOG. Stop crying.
More than 150,000 Iraqi children were killed during and soon after the invasion. AND continue to be killed every day be it by your Army or its mercenaries Blackwater. I don’t get you people.
This is ludicrous but obviously very entertaining.
Comment by Dog gone crazy — October 18, 2007 @ 8:26 am
I do love the classics.
Comment by retro — November 1, 2007 @ 9:49 am