Sheriff refuses to uphold court order

[k9gang]

Washington State.
Responsible pet owner's pets were illegally seized by an animal rights group. The court ordered the pets be returned to the owner. Sheriff refuses to uphold this court order after the animal rights group filed a civil suit against the pet owner to force her to pay for the time they spent taking care of her pets.

Any suggestions?

 

[racer72]

Any suggestions?

Depends on what the lawsuit that was filed says. It may have requested a hold be placed on the animals till the case is decided. Without reading it, there is no way to answer your question.

 

[k9gang]

The animal rights group filed the civil suit against the responsible pet owner only "after" the judge ordered the illegally seized pets be returned to the owner. The animal rights group did this in an attempt to keep the pets and force the owner to relinquish her rights to them.

The pet owner was more than willing to pay for the care of her pets (and has) up to the point when the judge ordered they be returned to her. But she is not willing to pay the thousands of dollars acrued in boarding fees "after" the animal rights group refused to respect the judge's decision and return her pets.

The pets are being help in various unnamed foster homes, not in a boarding kennel situation. One of the pets has already died while in this care of the animal rights group.

When a sheriff will not uphold a court order, what is the next step?

 

[outonbail]

If they had a reasonable suspicion that your pets were being neglected and acted on their belief that the animals were in danger or being abused, then they are entitled to be paid for the expenses they incurred during the time the animals were in their care.

If they acted negligently and had no legal standing to take possession of your animals and they should have known this, then you can probably get out of paying for their expenses.

If they acted on a tip made by someone who was providing them with false information, either out of spite or to cause you financial and/or emotional harm, you should pay the care bill and then take that person to court for the costs you incurred as well as punitive damages.

First however, if this animal rights group has filed a civil law suit against you, you should hire an attorney, or at least consult with one to see if you have any chance of prevailing in a trial.

If not, then pay them what they are asking if you wish to have your animals back. The longer you wait to do this the more it is going to cost you for their food, housing, general care and medical expenses.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

If they had a reasonable suspicion that your pets were being neglected and acted on their belief that the animals were in danger or being abused, then they are entitled to be paid for the expenses they incurred during the time the animals were in their care.

If they acted negligently and had no legal standing to take possession of your animals and they should have known this, then you can probably get out of paying for their expenses.

If they acted on a tip made by someone who was providing them with false information, either out of spite or to cause you financial and/or emotional harm, you should pay the care bill and then take that person to court for the costs you incurred as well as punitive damages.

First however, if this animal rights group has filed a civil law suit against you, you should hire an attorney, or at least consult with one to see if you have any chance of prevailing in a trial.

If not, then pay them what they are asking if you wish to have your animals back. The longer you wait to do this the more it is going to cost you for their food, housing, general care and medical expenses.

OP wrote the owner is willing to pay for care up to the point where the court ordered the return.

It sounds to me like the owner needs to go back to court for a contempt hearing.

 

[k9gang]

The animal rights group had absolutely no good reason to take the pet owners pets (other than the fact that they are purebred and they can charge large adoption fees for them), which is why they were ordered to be returned. The owner did everything that was required of her. She has had an attorney since the beginning.

So, a comtempt hearing should be next? Thank you. I will pass this along to the owner.

 

[CdwJava]

Washington State.
Responsible pet owner's pets were illegally seized by an animal rights group. The court ordered the pets be returned to the owner. Sheriff refuses to uphold this court order after the animal rights group filed a civil suit against the pet owner to force her to pay for the time they spent taking care of her pets.

Any suggestions?

What "animal rights group" can seize pets and not have it called "theft"?

There must be more to this story.

Just what group is this? And why do they feel these "pets" are in danger?

- Carl

 

[outonbail]

What "animal rights group" can seize pets and not have it called "theft"?

There must be more to this story.

- Carl

I was wondering this as well. However since the OP mentioned that they had gone to court, I figured it was actually the county animal control or humane society who too possession of the animals.

Then I read that they are keeping the animals at different locations, which is not something the county would do unless they didn't have room in their local facility.

It also seems strange that the pet owner would pay the boarding fees for the pets and then whoever has them, after taking the money, would change their mind about returning them.

I wonder if the group believes the animals are being used for medical research/experiments?

I can't imagine any animal rights group defying a judges order if it were only a matter of someone's pets not having clean water at some point. They are definitely setting themselves up for a contempt charge and sanctions, not to mention a civil suit,,,,,

 

[racer72]

I have done some searching and I think I found the case in question. The animal rights group (it's not PETA) did ask for and was granted a stay on the release of the animals. When the stay was granted, that means the release order was pulled. This was one of many high profile animal abuse cases that have made the news the past few years. The animal rights group has no intention of keeping the animals and by law cannot sell them for profit. They are a non profit group anyway. The OP needs to let the pet owner's attorney do his/her job, that is what he/she is being paid to do.

 

[CdwJava]

But how did this group get away with snagging the animals in the first place? Even if they were mistreated, trespassing and theft comes immediately to mind.

- Carl

 

[racer72]

But how did this group get away with snagging the animals in the first place? Even if they were mistreated, trespassing and theft comes immediately to mind.

- Carl

The group was asked by the county humane society to help with finding temporary foster homes for the animals. The HS only has provisions for temporary housing of animinals, this group helps find foster homes for animals that are held for more that a few weeks.

 

[CdwJava]

The group was asked by the county humane society to help with finding temporary foster homes for the animals. The HS only has provisions for temporary housing of animinals, this group helps find foster homes for animals that are held for more that a few weeks.

Okay ... so, if I get this right, the animals were lawfully seized by the HS or other agency authorized to take animals into their custody for safekeeping and then turned over to this private organization (likely pursuant to a contract or MOU) for proper care. Now the outfit caring for the animals is balking at returning them to the original owners citing a concern for the animals' continued well-being or treatment. Is that about right?

- Carl

 

[racer72]

Okay ... so, if I get this right, the animals were lawfully seized by the HS or other agency authorized to take animals into their custody for safekeeping and then turned over to this private organization (likely pursuant to a contract or MOU) for proper care. Now the outfit caring for the animals is balking at returning them to the original owners citing a concern for the animals' continued well-being or treatment. Is that about right?

- Carl

Yep, that's about it. This is not the first time the owner of the animals has run afoul of the law before and feel it will likely happen again. Can you say puppy farm?

 

[k9gang]

Puppy farm? No, this is simply a pet owner, not a puppy farmer. Please don't assume you know who this is.

Perhaps you were thinking of the American Eskimo Dog breeders who were 'busted'?