As a shelter worker (public, not private) I do see the validity of the contract. HOWEVER, in this case she didn't just dump the dog. I think that the rescue should have looked at the bigger picture, and the family involved.

Ellen made a mistake but she was not trying to harm
the dog or fool the shelter. I think all the shelter
needed to do was look into the family and then leave the
dog there. It's a sad story all around.

eleen was wrong and she said she was wrong. she did not blame the shelter and even said she understood it was her who did not look at the contract. i do think teh dog should be given back to the family. howeveri think they should have to go through the application (maybe expidited) so that it is shown that the are fit --- so if this happens to a non famous person they cant tell the organzation well you let ellen get away with it...

Meh, I think she was still doing better then most! At leats she found it a safe new home! And she spent A LOT of money on that poochie too!

I think Ellen was wrong. The shelter is just out to make sure their pets go to the right homw. BUT they should have interviewed the new owners and then gone from there.

I think that Ellen was wrong as she has acknowledged, but the dog was put in a good home and the new family should be able to keep it. Maybe signing a new contract and paying a new fee. But just removing the dog is cruel. We all know how attached we get to our pets, particularly children.

I also kind of take issue with the 'rescue'. In a lot of places, people who are well meaning create thier own rescue without thinking things through. I know that many resuces are well meaning but don't always have the time, resources, or frankly the space to house these animals. I saw some photos of the place the main woman lived on TV and I'm not so sure she's a 100% suitable home for many animals.

I agree with the first poster, although Ellen didn't abide by the contract, the well being of the dog should have come first and leaving him with the family that had already bonded to him -once all the paperwork was signed- should/would have closed this without issue. Unfortunately, in this case it seems like because Ellen tried to throw her celebrity around, she, the family and the dog got bit in the ass. It's too bad.

Ellen was wrong. The shelter has rules against placing pets in families with children under 14. They were right to remove the dog, but the family should be entitled to apply to get the dog back.

She violated her contract. Period, end of the story.
BUT, I don't see what is the big deal, and why they family couldn't keep the dog. An 11 year old kid is perfectly responsible and can very well take care of a dog, as well as a 12 year old.

Ellen was wrong and should have communicated her inability to keep the dog with Mutts & Moms BEFORE she gave it away. Not reading a contract is no excuse for violating it.

i don't really know, but i feel like mutts and moms made such a hubub to be in the spotlight.

Ellen was completely in the wrong, but the shelter should have allowed the family to go through the proper channels to go ahead and adopt the dog after Ellen gave it up.

The agency had a policy against children of a certain age. I'm sure there is a reason. Having been below 14 in my life, I can't say I disagree. But all that stuff aside, I think it was wrong of Ellen to have talked about it so publicly. I love Ellen, but I thought that was a real bully move.

How wrong is just a little wrong? Wrong is not like playing horseshoes. You are or you are not.

Ellen was wrong, but the shelter totally overreacted. Ellen has never struck me as a powerful bully. They are acting like she's Leona Helmsley. It was kind of cruel to take a dog away from two little girls who loved it. Really cruel, in my opinion.

Sometimes shelters get a little high and mighty. While i agree that they should screen families to make sure a pet gets a great home, sometimes they take it too far. I was denied a dog recently because i have a small yard with no grass. The dog was only about 15 lbs and i have a large and dog friendly home. Rules are rules i guess. They wouldnt even come to my house to check it out. My brother was denied a dog becuase he had a 6ft fence and they required 8ft even though the dog was NOT a jumper and would be tagged and microchipped. He was never found a "suitable" home with a high enough fence. Its sad and sickening that "recuses" sometimes harm pets more then help.

Ellen is in the wrong for not abiding with the contract, but like others I agree that the family who has been taking care of the dog should have the chance of applying for it instead of the organization giving the dog away so immediately afterward (I read that it's what they did, they put Iggy in another home).

In my experience from having volunteered in animal shelter (both private and public), sometimes they do make exception if they see that the family actually can take care of the pooch well.

Because after all, isn't every animal shelter's purpose is to find a stable, loving and permanent house for their animals? Why can't they put this family on observation and see how everything's going for a few months or a year so that they'll be assured that Iggy is in a loving, stable and permanent home Plus the little girl is 12, only 2 years younger than the age requirement.

Most responsible rescue group contracts state if you can't keep the dog for whatever reason, the pet rescue gets the dog back. It does protect the pet in these cases. Iggy could have been fostered for a few days while the new family filled out an application and were home checked. My instincts tell me someone next on the list or a friend of the rescue group wanted Iggy badly for him to be placed within hours. The sad thing is Iggy was probably very happy , extremely loved and content with those kids and his bond with them should have been highly considered .

ellen was definitely in the wrong, but the rescue, in my opinion, totally overreacted. ellen was able to find a loving and secure family for the dog, but the rescue went in and took the dog anyway. they should have just conducted an investigation to make sure the family was suitable first, rather than having the police (paid for with public dollars) go in and take the animal without bothering to see what the situation was like in the first place. there are so many dogs (and cats and other animals) who are put down every year because they can't find a loving home. iggy had a loving home. even if it wasn't where the rescue originally intended for him to be, he should have been allowed to stay there.

what a waste of resources on the rescues behalf. and i don't think it was wrong of ellen to go to the press. hopefully everyone involved is learning from this experience.

The more I think about it I have to wonder why Ellen made this such a public debate. She made the mistake by first not contacting the organization first and working with them and second placing it with a family of kids under 14. So I think in the future she should read the contracts she signs and not appeal to the public to rectify her mistake.

That being said, I know these rescue organizations can get overzealous with the rules; they are most likely run by people who like animals better than they like people. It seems ridiculous that a family with kids under 14 cannot adopt. I am assuming they have had some bad experiences with families and adopted the policy.

Again I get back to why Ellen made this a part of her show?

Yes she was wrong to break the contract. But honestly its not like she just dumped the dog in an alley somewhere. She found it a good home. I'm sure Ellen's hairdresser makes pretty good money to take care of a dog. And weren't the kids like 11 or 12. Certainly old enough to responsibly care for a pet. Moving animals around this much can be traumatic. If they really care about how well adjusted and healthy the dog is couldn't they just go to the hairdresser's house and check that its a suitable environment. Then draw up a new contract, collect an adoption fee from the new family and have done with it.

If this agency really cares about animals perhaps they should focus on finding homes for animals that are abused or in desperate need of security and a loving family instead of taking animals away from that.

I think the lady from Mutts & Moms decided to take it upon herself to teach Ellen a lesson. She said herself that celebrities think they can get away with anything; this is obviously a vendetta against Ellen. I saw the lady crying and saying that she has had to take her website down, and can no longer get more dogs. I feel sorry for her, but she brought this on herself. The proper thing to do was to interview the family and leave Iggy there if it was a fitting home, which it was. They came over under false pretenses and stole back "their" dog. The bottom line is this: Yes, Ellen didn't go the right route in finding Iggy a new home, but the destination was the same.

Truthfully, Ellen was wrong in the situation. She signed a contract, and you must abide by it. I actually am happy the Mutts and Moms people are sticking by their world...you can't give Ellen (and I do LOVE her) a free pass because of her celebrity...rules are rules. However, the bigger issue of the situation is that poor Iggy has been shuffled between at least 3/4 homes now, and he probably already suffers from abandonment issues. I just think for the sake and sanity of the dog, a living creature with feelings, that he should be allowed to go back to the hairdressers family, because again, although their are rules, we are NOT dealing with a stuff animal, this is a creature with feelings and emotions!!!!

Ellen was wrong in this situation to use her celebrity status to bring attention to this- she has made the rescue look bad and recieve death threats! COME ON- these rescues aren't here to make money or hurt anyone...they are mostly on a volunteer basis and because of this could use volunteers and potential adopters b/c they now think shelters are evil!

Ellen should make it knows she was wrong and for these threats to stop. I don't see why the family couldn't keep the dog in the end, but rules are rules...it happens. Rescues have strict policies on who they adopt to, so they don't end up with the dog BACK in the shelter!

Yeah, maybe she should have read a little more closely, but taking a dog away from little kids is just plain mean.

Ellen was not trying to "beat the system" that's ridiculous. Now, if it were a child, I would understand, but it's a DOG. A dog whose only concerns in the world are being with people who care for him and play with him. A good home was provided. End of story. That's all that needs to be done.

Also, publicizing this incident and putting it in people's heads that if they don't follow some ridiculous rule set by the agency( I mean, come on, 14?) that the doggy gestapo is going to come in and take the dog away from your children is not going to encourage the average person to adopt from a rescue agency rather than just buy one from a pet store. It's ridiculous. It's stupid, and I feel so bad for those little girls.

I think that the shelter should have considered the severity of the breech of contract. They should have audited the suitability of the home that Ellen gave the dog to and made the decision whether the home was a good match.

I also think that Ellen was inappropriate in making such a spectacle of the situation, thereby ruining the reputation of a decent organization and even garnering threats and public humiliation for those involved. That was an abuse of her standing in the public eye.

This subject upsets me so much. I feel really horrible for Ellen or anyone, who is having or had this experience. I really hope the hairdresser's family gets to keep the dog. Also, to me, from reading the remark above in the blog, it seems like Ellen is being treated unfairly because, she is a celebrity and makes a lot of money. I would be devastated if this happened to me.

I don't think Ellen is trying to bully people or break the rules because she is a celebrity. She did what a lot of people would have done in her situation. She had an animal that she couldn't care for but found an opportunity to give it to a loving family. I'll be honest I would have done the exact same thing. It was a well intentioned move by a person who may have inadvertantly made a wrong move while trying to do the right thing.

The fact that she has a TV show where she can publicly discuss this does not make her a bully or mean that she believes she is exempt from the rules. All it means is that this is something she really cares about. Maybe the woman actually has REAL FEELINGS and is sad to see her friend and her children so sad.

So completely ridiculous... what's the deal with the no kids under 14 rule anyways? I've had dogs since the day I was born. The rule really makes no sense anyways, and seems a bit discriminatory to me. Shouldn't the individual families be evaluated for their eligibility to own a dog, rather than some blanket statement like the age of their kids?

I don't know if either of them were right or wrong. Regardless of that, what's best for the dog should have been priority number 1, and this poor little dog is being passed from person to person and that doesn't make for a very stable life. It makes dogs untrusting. I understand that Ellen made a mistake, but when the agency realized that, did they call her and ask about it? I doubt it. Then, THEY SHOULD have gone to the house where iggy was and done an inspection. If everything checked out, Iggy should NOT have been removed! What a bunch of cold, heartless people. So yeah, I guess I do think the shelter people were WRONG, but that doesn't mean I think Ellen was right.

"She (Batkis) doesn't think this is the type of family that should have the dog," said attorney Keith A. Fink. "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."

Whaaaat? I don't think Ellen is like that at all.. but, whatever, they know her better than I do.

Ellen missed a that part of the contract however the dog should stay w/ the hairdresser's family. It was wrong to take that dog away considering it had a loving home.

I think Ellen should've given the whole thing more thought before she took the dog in the first place. That said, she did find him a suitable and good home so I think the shelter could have, and should have, seen the wider picture. It's a shame they felt the need to cause such a fuss and make people think negatively about the idea of rehoming or adopting a pet.

Too many celebs (ahem, Paris, Britney) are enforcing and making fashionable this idea that the only pets worth having are expensive, exclusive, store bought pets that they can put in bikinis and carry around in their handbags. Here's a celeb who made an honest mistake in trying to do something worthwhile and I just hope it doesn't make people think that it's way too much hassle to adopt. So many animals need good homes!

The mutts & Moms place sounds like a nut. She made it a bigger deal than it needed to be.

This is a sticky situation. Overall I just think that the dog should be in a happy and loved home, whoever she may belong to.

Potential owners rightfully jump through a lot of hoops with shelters in owning a pet, and the policies are so tricky. In the case of Ellen's dog, she was doing a nice thing for her hairdresser's family, but at the end of the day, I just care about the dog's well being.

It may sound like a sucky policy, but the children may have to take the time to learn to accept that if Iggy can't be with them, at least she will be loved elsewhere. However, if the shelter was subtracted from the picture, it would be nice that Iggy's family would be the ones that Ellen wanted, because she was the prior owner. Why else would the shelter trusted her with a dog if they didn't think she was capable of being a good owner?

Clearly Ellen had Iggy's best interests at heart, and it seems like a natural thing that any other loving owner would do.

Ellen violated the contract and admitted it, she didn't try to blame the animal shelter and I don't feel like she was trying to bully Mutts and Moms. My mother had a very negative and heartbreaking experience with a rescue organization, so I am a bit biased against them in the first place I guess...but I think if they really were looking at the dog's best interest, they would have done a thorough investigation of the new family and made the decision from there. The only reason they knew about the change was that Ellen told them! She wasn't trying to get over!

It has been my experience that the people who are devoted to rescuing animals are all on the extreme side. I have a friend who was harassed by the head of the shelter she adopted from because the woman just could not make the emotional break with the dog! This particular woman let adoptees sleep with her and forge attahments that were hard for her to break! The dogs adjusted fine, but the human was the problem. Although these people do a tremendous service to all of the abandoned animals they take in, I think perhaps a few of them take things too far. Once the animal is adopted out and the home has been checked out along with the potential owners, I think the adoption places need to back off! My friends had to sign a paper since they are elderly that they will make it clear in their will provisions that this dog goes back to the agency upon their deaths! That does not take into consideration other family members and their attachments to this dog! I feel a good home is the best thing for these loving family members and they should not revert back to a shelter that is probably already overcrowded! Ellen should have read the fine print and these agencies should not be able to get away with these kinds of stipulations!!! A good home is a good home no matter how you look at it!!! That dog should have been allowed to remain with it's new family!!!

she violated the contract
but
the agency should be willing to check out the fam
make sure they're up to par
and let them keep the pooch

I hate to sound all high and mighty on you guys, but all of you saying she didn't read her contract failed to actually learn about the situation.

She never signed a contract before they had the dog. The agency rushed her through to get her the dog, probably so they could say that Ellen Degeneres was a client of theirs.

Not only that but they had the dog for two weeks, Ellen spent a ridiculous amount of money ($3k+) trying to train the pet to get along with her two cats, and it didn't. So what does she do? She gives it to the next best people. Even the guy th