Unless you've been hiding under a rock, the latest media hoopla is over the residential future of a precious Brussels Griffon terrier mix named "Iggy" that was recently adopted by comedian and talk show host, Ellen DeGeneres. Unbeknown to DeGeneres, the small print of the adoption contract stated that if she was unable to keep the pet, it was to be returned to the "Mutts and Moms" organization, located in Pasadena, CA.Like many of us, when it comes to the fine print, we don't always read every single word, every dotted "i" or every crossed "t." That's a fun task we typically leave to our legal representatives. Ellen was no different and has heartbreakingly admitted her error in not following the rules. When Mutts and Moms contacted her to see how Iggy was doing, she didn't lie - she openly stated that she had found a wonderful home for the little guy.
Then, as they say, is when the 'fur started to fly!!!' Who knew that it was now necessary to be accompanied by an attorney to read over the contract when adopting a pet???
Ms. DeGeneres's heart has always been in the right place where animals are concerned. Her benevolent acts on behalf of our four legged friends is well documented. To her credit, rather than subject her feline residents to further cohabitation problems with her newly adopted canine, she acted in all of the animals' best interest. She sought out a new, loving home for little Iggy and found that home via her hairdresser and her two daughters (ages 11 and 12). Both girls immediately bonded with little Iggy, and he with them.
Marina Batkis, the owner of Mutts and Moms, stated to ABC News:
"If Ellen wants to start her own rescue group then she can decide where the dogs go. "Who is she to say who is a good home and whose not? And who is she to say where I should place my animals and how I should do this? I don't tell her how to run her show."
To further complicate matters, another reason that Ms. Batkis will not return Iggy to Ms. DeGeneres' hairdresser and daughters is due to Mutts and Mom's policy of not putting pets up for adoption to families with children under the age of 14.
In this entire scenario that has unfolded before our eyes, I find this piece of information to be the most disturbing.
What Ms. Batkis is practicing is age discrimination. Ms. Batkis automatically deemed this an unsuitable home based on the ages of these young girls. Not once did she take into consideration their feelings nor the feelings of Iggy, who had bonded with the children. To add insult to injury, she sent a police officer to remove the pet from their home. Had Ms. Batkis or her organization been in possession of a sensitivity chip, they would have fully understood the damage and trauma they were causing these two young girls and their mother. But in this case, more consideration was given to an 8 1/2 x 11" sheet of paper over the pleas and tears of these heartbroken children.
The RIGHT thing to do would have been to see that there are always exceptions to rules. Ms. Batkis could have done a home evaluation on the spot - she could have observed these girls with Iggy to see how much they love him - and she could have brought along new adoption papers. Had Ms. Batkis done this, the media storm that she's now complaining about never would have happened.
As of this writing, the Mutts and Mom's web site has been taken down (it's been reported that the organization and Ms. Batkis have been the recipients of death threats and other hostile acts or retaliation). This is in no way the mature or appropriate way in which to handle this situation and I would hope that people would choose to conduct themselves in a more thoughtful manner. The world is not going to collapse over this - but the hearts of two young girls certainly have, and that is the issue to which I would like to speak now.
I would like to make an appeal to Ms. Batkis to review the age policy Mutts and Moms has put into place. Thousands of loving, nurturing homes with younger children are being deemed unsuitable based on a number you have selected. Who is to say that a child of 14 is more responsible than a child of 11 or 12? Unless you have a Ph.D in Childhood Development and have extensive studies to back up your claim that a child under the age of 14 does not possess the maturity to own a pet, you are doing a great disservice to both the child and the animal. Some of my best memories as a child include the pets that I had over the years. They taught me more about unconditional love, responsibility, patience and commitment than any adult ever did. How does it feel, knowing that your age requirement is perhaps depriving a child of that same experience?
The BEST that any pet adoption agency can do is to evaluate potential families on a case by case basis. If Mutts and Moms has successfully put pets into good homes in the past, then they should have no trouble evaluating each family and situation individually, free from a restrictive chronological number. It's common sense: putting a giant, aggressive dog in the home of a three year old is probably not the thing to do - but an 11 and 12 year old owning a puppy just slightly larger than the size of a teacup?
Come to the table, Ms. Batkis - admit your error in judgment as Ms. DeGeneres has - and DO THE RIGHT THING. Amend your age policy and return Iggy to his family.
The world is watching................................................
