Search Tex Parte Blog

  • Google

    WWW
    www.texaslawyer.typepad.com

From Law.com

  •   An Affiliate of the
      Law.com Network

    From the Law.com Newswire

    Sign up to receive Legal Blog Watch by email
    View a Sample

« Former judge appointed conservator to 300+ case files associated with disbarred lawyer | Main | Newsmakers: Greenberg Traurig announces new hire »

November 20, 2012

Comments

Victoria Brooks

I'm guessing the puppy didn't have a microchip? Because then, they should verify with the owner? Not that they would seeing as they were lying about everything else. The Caldwells might want to reach out to Tracy's Dogs in San Antonio. She runs a rescue yahoo group. There are some strange stories and things that happen in rescue, but unfortunately, it's part of the process, and everyone learns from it. How a shelter would back up the lies is beyond me, particularly with an elaborate story. I would ask, aren't they afraid to get sued but... such is the point of the story.

Marie Johnson

This is a sad commentary on an individual who was "fostering" a dog for a rescue group, and she should be prosecuted for her actions, it appears. However, the shelter is not to blame--it has a policy that they do not euthanize healthy, adoptable animals and this dog was not that, when brought in. It did need a foster, but all rescues and shelters know there is a dearth of fosters for animals at any given time and a shelter shouldn't be mandated to keep an animal until a foster is found, either. Defendants have supported the shelter, but that doesn't mean anything about the shelter, beyond that. As stated earlier, if CAP or any shelter or rescue, had known the truth of the story, of COURSE the rescue would have been contacted and that would have been the end of that. And FYI, CAP and other similar shelters should not be mislabeled "kill" shelters (grave misnomer). Rather, they are actually adoption centers,who were created by caring people to get dogs off the street and reduce suffering AND do adoptions. Therefore, by that definition, one cannot and should not be "forced" by any law created by a strange No Kill movement (misnomer) to take in all animals and keep indefinitely, regardless of cost or adoptability. The mislabeled "No Kill" shelters are the LIMITED adoption places. They refuse to take in the huge numbers shelters take in and tell them to go "elsewhere" . . . That reality tells the tale. They refuse to take in, what shelters more often do. CAP could have similarly refused to take in the animal, but it appears the "foster" wanted animal to be taken in, regardless of it's fate. A possible fate for an ill dog without a foster, was stated in the paper she filled out. The whole No Kill movement is not a movement to ease the suffering and reduce the reality of pet overpopulation--a FACT--they deny even exists. Let's stick to the reality of what occurred and not make EVERY single animal issue a way to go after shelters, as NK movement does. Read about who No Kill is "affiliated" with--in no stretch--and you'll see what others are seeing--smoke and mirrors and a lot of hot air, in bed with breeders and supported by the animal use industry.

No Kill Houston

This story is disgusting on so many levels. So many people have Juno's blood on their hands and are responsible for his death.

It should also be noted that this so-called "shelter" is not an Open Admission shelter, meaning that they can say no to intakes when they are full. They did NOT have to take Juno and they should not have taken him when they knew very well that they were going to kill him. There are so many other alternatives that they could have offered, but they didn't. They just killed Juno the next day and didn't even give him a chance at a adoption, foster care or rescue. This is totally disgusting behavior and is NOT sheltering.

This is the perfect example of why shelter laws must be changed in Texas so that the laws PROTECT animals from kill shelters and nutjob dog killers like this. Anyone could turn in an animal and lie about owning it resulting in an owned pet being killed the same day. It happens all the time. It should not be legal to kill owner surrendered animals immediately. Owner turn-ins should at least get the same amount of time as strays... for reasons such as this.

Laws like Texas CAPA would at least give these animals the same amount of time in "shelters" so that their true owners would have a shot at finding them before they are killed.

Find out more about Texas CAPA on No Kill Houston's website. http://www.nokillhouston.org/legislation/texas-capa/

Katy Henderson

Why didn't she just return the dog to the Caldwell's??? I would love to hear some explanation for that from Ms. Walther. I mean, why would you have the dog killed when there was another very viable option?? That's just sick.

deb braunstein

Although the defendants are 'affiliated with CAPS", their actions were NOT sanctioned by CAPS. If the shelter employees had known Juno had a sponsor, they would have called her to come get him. Although still a kill shelter, CAPS has still got the highest adoption rates of any Houston area shelter. Juno was a Pitt Bull mix - the hardest breed/type dog to find a home for. CAPS assesses all animals turned in to give each the best chance at adoption. They haven't "profited' from the general public's ignorance - on the contrary, like every other non-government non-profit shelter & rescue group, they are constantly in fund raising mode, and always asking for more volunteers, so that payroll can be kept to a minimum & more of the money spent on the animals. Please do NOT assume that the CAP Shelter is at fault - they were upfront about the euthanization. We all know space is limited, and while Juno should have been adoptable, there may have been just too many dogs there for him to get a chance at being adopted. That is why he was placed in a foster home. I certainly agree with the Caldwells that their suit against the 4 defendants is justified. They trusted Juno would be properly cared for. I can't think of any excuse for what the defendants did. I understand fosters get overwhelmed - we end up keeping the animals that don't get adopted, and we are all strugglung to have time & money enough for proper foster care. But turning in an animal to a kill shelter when the original rescuer is ready to take him back - cruel, stupid & senseless.

Zizi

I am horrified, appalled, disgusted (though never shocked by the baseness and lack of compassion displayed by certain humans) that these individuals chose to betray an innocent animal and to create a web of lies to cover their tracks. CAPS is an organization that has profited from the ignorance and lack of caring demonstrated by so many morally bankrupt individuals. It does not speak well for them and especially since they lost no time in killing this sweet dog, never even trying to find him a home. Is this the kind of orgnaizations that citizens want to support with their hard earned dollars?

Lydia Caldwell

Absolutely. Jeff and I wanted to get him back on July 11, 2012 and Amy Walther KNEW THIS. Why she instead chose to surrender him at CAP on July 8, 2012, signing off on paperwork explicitly stating they now would have the right to put him down, is still a mystery. And, why the other Defendants chose to create an elaborate lie is also a mystery. NONE of this had to happen. Juno SHOULD be alive today. Period.

suzette puig

The sad truth must be told for all to know.
Shelby Kibodeaux and Bruce Padilla and the other liars involved represented themselves as caretakers for Juno. They are affliated with CAPS. The terrible, inexcusable fact is, they betrayed a perfectly adoptable dog that had a sponsor.
Lydia and her husband never would have agreed to euthanizing Juno.(They rescued him). They would have taken him back...to safety. These people must own up to their lies. Juno's life was taken..no justification.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Facebook