DeGeneres Mutts & Moms site ‘overwhelmed’
p2pnet news | TV:- “When Ellen DeGeneres sobbed on national television Tuesday about a private rescue group taking back a puppy she had adopted and then passed on to the family of her hairstylist, she rocked the animal planet,” says the Los Angeles Times, going on:
“Websites bristled with indignation that Iggy, a fluffy haired Brussels Griffon terrier mix, was plucked from the home of hairstylist Cheryl Marks and her husband as their 11- and 12-year-old daughters cried.”
Not only but also, Mutts and Moms is the pet rescue group in the Ellen DeGeneres pet adoption farce, but its site on Petfinder.org is offline.
“Mutts and Mom has chosen to temporarily inactivate their website on Petfinder.com because their email inbox and voice mail are overwhelmed,” says a post.
The non-profit organization rescues dogs from Los Angeles City and County shelters and, explains Associated Press, it, “originally gave DeGeneres the dog, later took it back, saying the talk show host had violated the adoption agreement by not informing them that she was giving the dog away.”
That set off a barage of angry emails and threats, “directed at the agency after DeGeneres shared the blow by blow with viewers on her show this week,” says the story.
But people who are upset over the seizure of TV talk show host DeGeneres’ adopted dog are, “missing a crucial point,” the Canadian Press has Humane Society of Canada officials saying.
“Animal adoption agreements, which include the screening of prospective owners, are designed to ensure that people and their new pets are compatible enough to enjoy long, happy lives together,” and, “When such rules were not in place many pet adoptions ended in failure, with Fido or Kitty enduring needless neglect or suffering,” CP quotes Michael O’Sullivan, the society’s executive director, as saying.
Marina Batkis, co-owner of the dog rescue organization, said she had to close her business and stay home Wednesday.
“My life is being threatened,” she said, according to AP.
Also See:
Los Angeles Times – Fur flies over DeGeneres’ trouble with rescue group, October 18, 2007
Associated Press – Ellen DeGeneres to Stop Dog Pleas, October 18, 2007
Canadian Press – Humane Society of Canada says seizure clauses in pet adoption agreements necessary, October 17, 2007
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
Net access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for the download, and here for details. Click here or here to learn how to by-pass censorship in your area.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:35 am
This is shamefull! It’s not like the dog wasn’t in a loving home….. you have to make some exceptions to benefit both the animal and the rules. Those poor kids that have to go through this over some wack jobs dead set intent to be “RIGHT” instead of doing what is right.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:39 am
there is no excuse for people sending death threat in this case, but marina batkis should get off her control freaking high horse and use her better judgement about removing a dog froma stable happy home when homeless dogs are a rampant problem in this country. If your organization is there to recue homeless animals, why are you wasting everyones time removing a dog from a loving home?! Any one with half a brain can see that that family and those girls (despite their under 14 age) are a great place for that dog. To hire a fink lawyer (I think his sleaze bag brother was my bro in law’s divorce lawyer…same last name!), seize the dog, and threaten to take ellen to court, rather than simply checking out the family and confirming that they are a good stable match and leaving iggy where he is clearly happy is completely idiotic and blatantly control-freaky. What ba psycho move, what a waste of time and energy, what a terrible way to further confuse the bonding ability of a young dog. Clearly an organization who has the leisure of removing dogs from good homes isn’t a rescue organization at all, if you have the time and ability to do that, then the dogs you represent aren’t really in need at all! People would be doing the dogs of this country a much greater service to go out to a local kill shelter like the ASPCA of Humane Society and select a dog from their soon to be euthanized ranks…Help a dog who is really in need and adopt out of our euthanizing shelter system, not from a bunch of pamapered people and dogs who clearly have too many homes to choose from!!!!
October 18th, 2007 at 8:12 am
Ellen doesn’t seem to understand that rescue orgs screen people for *a reason* and if someone doesn’t pass the screening, they simply can send someone who does to adopt the pet. That’s why the rescue is upset that she violated the agreement – if she can do it, why can’t everybody? Also Ellen as little understanding of human children. Little “Ruby” will just have to settle for another dog. Yes, the child will survive even if she does not get Iggy back! And the dog will survive too, and might even thrive in the 3rd household he was given to. Ellen should not feel guilty about depriving a spoiled child of the message “Hey – things don’t always work out the way we want.” Oh, and if Ellen or her hairdresser want to get a dog with no strings attached, there’s a place called the ANIMAL SHELTER. They might not get a pure-bred puppy, but there are lots of wonderful older mixed breeds who desperately need homes.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:37 am
the tv host did brake her agreement but taking the dog back is a stage to far.
if the new owners where found to be unsuitable then taking the dog back is the right thing to do but only when they are found unsuitable not before.
sounds like a case of guilty untill you fight to prove your innocence.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:50 am
Reader’s Write: You, simply stated, are wrong. Perhaps it’s because you are sadly misinformed. The nut job from Mutts and Moms won’t shut up about ‘policy not being followed’…oh, to have those words come back and bite you in the butt! It seems this slimeball didn’t care enough about Iggy to do a house check with Ellen, didn’t change the tracking chip and had also placed a dog in another home with two children the same age as the ones Iggy went to, thereby breaking HER OWN RULES. She has no business running a rescue…her concern is for herself, not those poor animals. Anyone who puts their need to be right before the welfare of the animals she professes to love is sickening and needs to have their business taken away and run by people who do actually care about animals.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:06 am
1. What If Ellen had contacted the “Dog Whisperer” to socialize the dog for cat acceotance?
2. If “1.” failed, what if Ellen had contacted the agency and explained that she would like to give the dog to her hair-dressers family, therby allowing the agency to evaluate the request?
3. If “2.” not followed, what if the hairdresser and her spouse had applied to the agency to adopt the dog.
The agency followed its contract — Ellen did not. Ellen did no wrong it pleading for an exception on her show.
Those who threatened were wrong.
An Ohio Observer 2007-10-18-T1106-0400
October 18th, 2007 at 9:07 am
So much for typing in the dark and not proof-reading.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:32 am
This is ridiculous. It’s a dog. People don’t care this much about children, for crying out loud.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:45 am
In response to huh saying it’s just a dog- thoughtless heartless people like you believeing that it is “just” a dog are the reason that there are so many rescue groups and shelters overrun with dogs and cats that need a good loving home.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:58 am
I agree that people do not care this much about children. If the foster care system worked as well as this crazy lady from Mutts & Moms the world would be a better place. I normally don’t agree with celebrities flexing their fame and money to get what they want, but I feel like Ellen does so much good for people she is not doing this to just get her way. If you notice, she constantly puts people on her show who are trying to acheive something and tries to help them. In this case, she made a mistake that affected other people so now she is just trying to fix it. This is getting blown way out of proportion.
October 18th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Oops, sorry, I was not implying that I feel like Iggy is “just a dog”. I think it is sad that he is being bounced around now
October 18th, 2007 at 10:36 am
This unfortunate situation involves mistakes all around. Ellen may have meant well, but she violated the terms of the adoption agreement, and further inflamed the situation (with no benefit) by publicizing the story on national television. Mutts and Moms, while clearly within its rights to take the dog back, failed to adequately explain its procedures to Ellen (the prohibition on giving the dog away is something that should not exist solely in fine print), thus bringing into question the adequacy of its adoption procedures. The agency also lost sight of the reason for its policies in the first place, which is to ensure successful adoptions and look after the well-being of the animals. The more reasoned approach would have been for Mutts and Moms to offer to conduct an adoption review to see if the new home was appropriate, and to ask that the new owner enter into an adoption agreement (I’m sure Ellen would have been more than happy to pay the fees associated with the new review and the new agreement). If the new prospective owner was deemed inappropriate under the agency’s guidelines, they would then be justified in taking Iggy back. As for all the threats, well, they are simply not called for and help no one. What has happened to everyone’s common sense?
October 18th, 2007 at 11:27 am
Someone has too much time on their hand….including all of us…we should head on down to the local SPCA and do some real work with animals that need it.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:52 am
Why did Mutts and Moms take Iggy back? The only reason offered was that Iggy’s new family had two girls under the age of 14 in the household. That may be a valid concern sometimes, but it didn’t seem to be a real issue in this particular case, and an objective observer would almost certainly conclude that Mutts and Moms did not have the dog’s best interests at heart.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
as an advocate for shelter dogs, this woman went over the line, she did not have the best intentions for the dog if she did she would have finished her home inspection. she did not even try to get to know these people, she truly has control issues and borderline personality disorders. i understand the clause in the contract but her inabililty to display compassion for these people she should lose her business. and does not belong working with the public let alone with animals.
October 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
The actions of an inconsiderate and over-reaching control freak is what this boils down to.
Yes, Ellen broke the contract, and yes there are good reasons for the terms in that contract, but in this case what interest (aside from ego) was served by being so heavy handed? Not that of the family in question, and certainly not that of the adoption agency, who must have their hands full finding suitable homes. What would it have cost them to act like decent human beings and have a look at the family as a potential home?
Nothing. Instead, their heavy-handed, repo-man tactics have resulted in a storm of bad publicity and probably set back the effectiveness of their operation, and oh yeah, broken the heart of a little girl. Nice work.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
I find that I absolutely must speak out on behalf of Marina Baktis from Mutts and Moms in Pasadena given the shaft she is presently getting from the press as a result of Ellen Degeneres’ “Faux Paw”.
I am disgusted by the hate mail and posts I am reading everywhere that are attacking this woman, Marina Baktis of Mutts & Moms.org, for doing the right and responsible thing.
Marina Baktis is not cruel nor heartless, but instead one of the most responsible dog adoption agency owners I have ever dealt with. And, I have dealt with many- including shelters, humane societies and other dog adoption agencies.
At Mutts and Moms.org they care so much about the placement of the dogs, and are so concerned about people who may simply ‘give the dog away to god knows who’ if they can’t deal with it, that they make it very clear in their contract that the dog MUST be returned to them so they can be assured of placing it in the “right” great home. Ms. Baktis is extra stringent in finding the best homes for dogs because she loves them so very much.
Do you know how many people treat adopted dogs like crap??
Or fail to consider things in the environment that may be wrong for the dog like other pets or ruthless kids or the neighborhood or the hours kept by the owners, etc.?
Do you know how many people just give them away to others who say they can care for the dog, but really can’t?
Why do you think we have so many dogs in shelters!?
Portia de Rossi clearly signed the contract -and no doubt had lengthy discussions with Marina, who, I know, from personal experience, makes it very clear that Mutts and Moms takes it upon themselves to be responsible for the dog’s happiness if the adopter cannot keep the dog for whatever reason. And that’s no easy feat. Marina puts the dog’s needs FIRST over crying kids and weepy talk show hosts.
Marina Baktis didn’t interview this ‘hairdresser’ or go see the home or the other dog that lives there to make sure Iggy would be safe and happy…therefore she cannot -in good conscience leave the dog there. Don’t people understand that?
Sure, I love Ellen like the rest of America, but she’s not trained to recognize the best home for a dog! She couldn’t even keep Iggy herself! That says something right there.
Why didn’t she (or Portia) just tell Marina that she may have found an appropriate family for the dog and let Mutts and Moms interview the family themselves?
I personally adopted my fabulous dog from Marina Baktis last May and I was so impressed by her deep concern and need to know all details before releasing the dog to me. She continued to e-mail me and stay in touch after the adoption to make sure Indie was (and is) happy.
Unfortunately, a few tears from Ellen and pics of sad kids’ faces have turned the public against one of the kindest, most giving and responsible dog lovers in this country. After all, Marina devotes her life to finding homes for dogs. And good homes at that!
October 18th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Mutts and Moms owners, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun, declared they will not be “bullied” by somone just because the are a celebrity. Funny, they had NO PROBLEM bullying two little girls and removing their pet. They are two self-rightous control freaks who would be better suited in another line of work…something that suits their personalities…something along the lines of prison guards, maybe. I have no pity on them, or their organization. You reap what you sow.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
This is sadly the case with all well-meaning “adoption” agencies. In an effort to find a “suitable” home for anyone (animal OR human) up for adoption, they often jump to conclusions without looking into the matter further. And then they wonder why people are so hesitant to adopt!?! The RIGHT thing to do in this case would simply have been to chastise Degeneres, but then look at the family she gave the dog to. To say that a family is “unsuitable” simply because it has two children below drinking age is downright ridiculous!!! The kids were obviously heartbroken when the dog was taken, so they were attached to the animal. And the STUPID “rescuers” did not even CARE about the two children they were emotionally scarring for LIFE. And there are actually people out there who think Mutts and Moms did the RIGHT thing? I weep for this country!!!!!!!!!
October 19th, 2007 at 4:51 am
I feel the pet needs to be returned to the family. She did the right thing giving it to a family that could take care of it. I to have cats and dogs that do not get along and its stressful. Iggy was probably in doggy heaven having to young girls to play with. Please return Iggy to the family.
October 19th, 2007 at 5:47 am
It’s really a shame the the rescue group didn’t take the opportunity to return the dog & get a lot of GOOD publicity about the need for more loving families to adopt rescue animals. They have forgotten in their anger about the many still homeless animals. They now pretty much have mud on their face. Instead of GOOD publicity they have gotten a lot of BAD publicity. What have they gained??? A whole bunch of steps backward!!! Now peopole won’t want to adopt from a rescue group because of this. Mutts & Moms…you should be ashamed at the damage that you have done to the rescue effort!!!!!!!
October 19th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
1. Iâm sure if Ellen gave away the dog to a ânot-so-goodâ owner â that would be splattered all over the news. I know she made an excellent choice.
2. Youâre not dealing with poor people here â the dog would have an excellent home.
3. Itâs not as if she gave the dog away to someone who doesnât have the smarts to take care of a dog.
4. The lady who adopted the dog should rightfully give the dog back to the Hair Dresser and the children.
5. Iâm glad that the company is getting poor press â they deserve it.
6. Policy or not â I wonder how many animals would have to go back to that place because Iâm sure there are thousands of people whoâve done the same dang thing.
7. Why did the hair-dresser even turn over the dog anyway â I wouldnât have opened my door at all!
October 19th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Sure Mutts and Moms would not get my financial help, ever, love animals too and should be exeptions to the rules, the dog was in a loving home, does not take brains to find out that. this woman is a control freek probably envy Ellen succes, is obvious.
October 19th, 2007 at 6:28 pm
OK Ellen blew it. So. Worst case, check out the people she gave the dog to and determine if they would qualify. Anything else is bad dealings on Mutt’s & Puke’s part.
October 20th, 2007 at 8:42 am
This is clearly an example of shameful anal policy. Mutts & Moms crossed a line and hopefully have put themselves out of business, while unfortunately causing a huge setback for legitimately caring rescue organizations. Agreed, Ellen did not follow policy or did not read the contract. It stinks, it happens. This entire debacle could have been avoided by a simple inspection of the new home and assessment of the new adoptees. The 14 year old child rule is pathetic and ridiculous. These little girls were obviously appropriate and loving family members to this dog. That they are refusing even the most expensive and pedigreed dogs (and the no expense spared delivery to their door) is assurance enough that they formed attachment and bonds with Iggy. The new adoption family should give the dog back to the little girls and Mutts & Moms deserve every bit of bad press, personal attack, and trouble that they brought on themselves. Shameful is right!
October 20th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
If would be neat if the new owners of Iggy go on Ellen’s show and return it to the hairdresser’s family.
It would very cool if the Mutts and Moms folks apoligized and said they acted irrationally.
This brings custady battles to a new level.
Ellen can go to the pound and find a puppy that will grow up with the cats and they can all be one happy and gay family.
(That’s a joke – ok)
October 20th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
All my dogs have come from the SPCA. Like all shelters, when you adopt, you sign an agreement that if for ANY reason you are unable to keep the dog, you MUST return it to the shelter. It is plain and simple. I like Ellen, her show is great and she is a very funny woman, but I’m sure she signed that agreement just like everyone else, and shouldn’t use her TV show to cry because she had to follow the rules like everyone else.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:05 am
Marina Batkis, I think it is a good idea to stay home for a few days and think about your decision and the impact it may have on your buisness. Obviously the community, and nation as a whole is outraged for a reason. Clearly the dog was in a stable home and environment, and a simple check of the home would have shown yo and your company that. The bacl lash you are getting has nothing to do with Ellen, it is about comon sense. I personally would not buy as dog from you in the future and would support others if the chose not to deal with a company who choses not t negotiate for the benefit of the dog. Now you have brought in yet another family to become entangled in this web. Good grief, aren’t there bigger fish to fry. I personally hope Ellen stands up to the heat. She did the right thing to find a good home for the dog, and unless you can prove the family is unfit, expect to have backlash. This won’t go away.
October 21st, 2007 at 11:11 am
I also wanted to make it clear that I think anyone who made any threats to this woman Marina, her family or her buisness are more guilty than Marina herself. If you want to send a message to her for her actions do so by not using her buisness, but personal attacks or threats are unacceptable!!
Perhaps ou were trying to do the right thing, but you may have went about it the wrong way. JIll
I hope everyone can work it out and it is not just a ploy for a huge lawsuit. Jill
October 21st, 2007 at 3:50 pm
When I looked for a new pet at an adoption agency, and also reading about Mom’s and Mutt’s procedures, you fill out the application with a “certain” named animal in mind (then the process starts) taking about one month to process. I’m wondering how Mom’s and Mutts found a home in (one) day after taking Iggy from the young girls. Something is wrong with this picture.
October 24th, 2007 at 9:36 am
i’ve just found out that m&m’s license to operate was suspended in December of 06 because they refuse to make a list of who works for the organization.(sounds fishy to me, sounds like she’s hiding something) that makes ellens contract with them null and void!!!! what that woman did to that family really is criminal she literally stole the dog!!!! she didn’t have a license to operate, the dog didn’t belong to her it was ellens dog and she had all the right give it to a good home!!!! its obvious to me that baktis woman is only in the pet buisness to make a profit and exploit good rescue orginizations. Ms. baktis had on gucci eye glasses, drove a luxery mini-van and has a designer purse, yet she went on and on about how poor she is, yeah maybe now that her scam has come to light
October 24th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Batkis is so poor she paid over 600k for her home in Alta Dena. She runs a 501 c (3) type corp without a license, which means when she tells you the adoption fee is tax deductable like it says in her “contract” it is a bold faced lie. There may be some good rescues out there, but there are plenty of nutballs too. Some of these folk that run rescues, and the fosters that work for them are no more than animal hoarders, animal abusers or profiteers. We were the 5th home (she was 5 months old when we got her and kept her) that one of our two kitties was placed in before we got her because a now deservedly bankrupt high profile rescue did such a bang up job of evaluating/placing/bouncing her around. The first adopter/buyer moved to Belgium right after the adoption and didn’t want to pay for quarantine, then a foster, a second adopter/buyer (claimed sudden allergy to cats), and finally an absolutely psychotic, abusive foster’s home before she came to us. The rescue had to threaten the psycho foster with a lawsuit when she wanted to give it to her neighbor who was planning on selling it (she’s a gorgeous, playful, sweet tempered balinese/ragdoll mix which cat fanciers will tell you = big $$$$ even though she’s not a purebred) after we’d been chosen as the adopters rather than honor her agreement with the rescue. The foster, whom the rescue refused to work with anymore after the incident kept calling me to see if I wanted to give back the cat.
Animals remember more than we give them credit for remembering. The bounced around now 4year old “rescue” kitty is very submissive and timid around other animals since the fosters’ two combative cats beat her up all the time. It took her most of a year to adjust to this being her home and figure out that she wouldn’t be kicked to the curb again and that our other cat wasn’t trying to hurt her when he licked her face. Our 15 year old kitty adopted from the county shelter at 8 weeks has never had any of the obvious abandonment issues the four year old has. Cats form colonies and dogs form packs. If Batkis is such an “expert” she should know that pack animals like dogs require stability in their companions, be they other dogs or people. She can’t justify stealing the dog from a pack that has accepted him and that he has accepted when it’s a good home even though there are minors under “gasp” the age of 14. Iggy should never have been placed with Portia and Ellen, but since Mutts and Moms didn’t do the job they claim to be experts at, he was. Ellen spends thousands to try and train a dog that should never have been placed in her and Portia’s home and does the right thing when training fails and finds a better home for Iggy than the dog placing geniuses at Mutts and Moms could and the incompetant control freak bullies a cop and an animal control officer into become accessories to a dog theft which is either petty theft or grand larceny (if the judge finds that the dog is worth more than $400.)
Many of these rescue adoptions/sales contracts have provisions in them that a judge would laugh at and violate the consumer’s rights. As much as we love our animals, as far as the state is concerned, they are property. There are no laws governing “adoptions” because technically you buy an animal no matter what you call it or sign whatever crazy illegal agreement the people that rescued the cutest of the cute animals in the kill shelter make you sign before you make it part of your family. If it’s come to this, a wacko stealing a dog she sold back, then the courts and government need to step in and regulate the rescue business. Rescue’s need to let go once they’ve done their job (which Mutts and Moms neglected to do according to their own guidelines when they adopted Iggy to DeRossi) and move onto the next animal needing a home and let the new owners care for or if needed find a better fit for the animal they purchase. It’s fine if the rescue offers to take the animal back if it doesn’t work out, but to repossess another’s property that’s been bought and paid for is theft.
June 9th, 2008 at 2:12 am
Batkis is a weird person who seems to have some kind of mental illness. She is hysterical and overcontrolling by turns. Her emails on this subject are rude and unreasonable. I’d never adopt from her agency.
However, I also think adoption agencies in general need to trust the people they adopt their dogs to. If they cannot, then they can keep all the rescue dogs for themselves. I will get a dog from a person who is willing to relinquish the ownership of a dog. I hope rescue organizations listen, but I guess people will have to stop adopting from them in order to change this situation. I found a rescue dog last week, and was shocked that the owner, a very conscientious older man who had owned the dog several years, was worried that I had contacted the agency. Apparently, if the dog was ever lost, he’d lose ownership of it. No one wants to lose a dog. But the world isn’t a perfect place, sometimes families change, dogs get lost, ect. If rescue organizations can’t trust conscientious owners, then we’ll have to stop adopting from them!
June 9th, 2008 at 2:16 am
I was thinking, would it be too much to ask for a mental illness check from the PEOPLE in adoption agencies? Pet owners are entitled to know they are dealing with a bunch of crazy wackos!
January 24th, 2009 at 6:27 pm
How Dare You Cant put Them In Cages Set Them Free Write Back Soon From Aimee Mason