Tyler Hayden
This story was originally published by the Santa Barbara Independent and is reproduced here in partnership with Edhat.
By Tyler Hayden of The Independent
Two women are suing the County of Santa Barbara for the return of their 4-year-old Yorkshire terrier after the dog went missing one night last summer, was picked up by Animal Services the next day, and within a week adopted out to new owners who have refused to give her back.
On August 2, 2020, at around 11:40 p.m., according to court documents, Johanna Sanchez and Diana Mosquera were sitting in the fenced backyard of their Montecito home when Chloe, who was not wearing a collar at the time and had not been microchipped, ran toward a noise at the edge of the property. There was a commotion, and Sanchez and Mosquera heard Chloe yowl, after which they couldn’t find her in their yard or their neighbors’. They thought perhaps a coyote or mountain lion had taken her. They called the Fire Department and 9-1-1, which both declined to offer any assistance, the lawsuit claims.
Over the following days, Sanchez and Mosquera searched the neighborhood high and low, knocking on doors, hanging flyers, and posting on social media. They did not, however, contact the county’s Animal Services. If they had, they would have discovered Chloe was scooped up the morning after she went missing near the Hilton Resort and placed in a county shelter, where she was treated for a badly broken leg.
By the time Sanchez and Mosquera discovered Chloe’s whereabouts on August 9, a week after she disappeared, four business days had passed and, per county protocols, she’d been put up for adoption and claimed by new owners. Animal Services asked the new owners if they’d be willing to return Chloe to Sanchez and Mosquera, who’d raised the American Canine Association–accredited terrier as a puppy, but they declined.
In their lawsuit, the pair alleges the county’s adopting out of Chloe amounts to an illegal taking of private property. No notices were given and no hearings were held, they said, which are both required when the government impounds and potentially euthanizes a dangerous dog.
Why, they ask, are those obligations not extended to reuniting animals with their rightful owners in exceptional circumstances such as these? Can’t there be a little bit of leeway? Sanchez and Mosquera also accuse the county of the “intentional infliction of emotional distress.”
In its rebuttals, the county argues Animal Services and its employees were simply following local regulations as they relate to stray dogs with no collar or tags. Without any way to identify Chloe’s owners when she was found, County Counsel said, staff did the lawful thing by treating her injuries and holding her for the prescribed number of days before putting her up for adoption.
As for the accusation of emotional distress, the bar to prove such an allegation is exceptionally high, the county noted. According to current case law, Sanchez and Mosquera would need to prove Animal Services acted in such an extreme manner as to “exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.”
The case is currently in a procedural stage, and is being heard by Judge Colleen Sterne. The next hearing is scheduled for August 30.
We’ve owned at least 10 dogs over the years, every single one of them a “rescue” dog. ———— Why anyone would have a beloved companion animal (parrot, dog, cat, rabbit, tortoise, etc) and NOT have it microchipped is confounding. Chipping is a precaution of the first order.——– Hopefully you never know the heartache of losing a pet. But, if and when your pet goes missing, you *always* check the local shelters. ALWAYS. You go there in person, as many times as it takes. Sure, you put up posters, you leave flyers on neighbors’ doorsteps. You advertise on Craigslist and on Facebook and NextDoor and so on. But you DO NOT omit alerting County Animal Control and The Humane Society (even though HS is owner turn in only). You do everything you can to find your pet.——-When a dog is rescued/adopted, it doesn’t take long to feel a strong bond with the dog. Also: I state this as a long-time dog owner and someone who for many years had a 4.5 lb dog: You NEVER allow a tiny dog to go wandering around outside at night or even in the daytime. I don’t care how high your fence is or how close by you are. You’re just asking for trouble. A tiny dog can be snatched up in the blink of an eye. ————-That little Yorkie belongs where she is now—with people who loved her enough to rescue her and who, I am willing to bet, dressed her up in a collar w/ an i.d. tag and got her chipped first thing.
I agree that the new owners should return the dog, however, they are now the new legal owners and have no obligation to return the pooch. No collar and No microchip = irresponsible dog owners who probably are more embarrassed than anything that they neglected to do the basic minimum to ensure the safe return of the new owner’s dog….which used to belong to them. My guess is that the dog is much happier with the new owners than the one’s who did not protect it to begin with. Kind of like a finder’s keeper’s situation, and a win/win for the dog and new owners.
Just a horrible HORRIBLE analogy baby cakes (win-win)! If they can prove the dog was theirs and they made a real effort to find it… then keeping the dog is morally reprehensible (and by extension your position as well).
Seriously… because it wasn’t microchipped it’s “finders keepers”??!