How is THIS news???

[E-man]

A couple put up a puppy for adoption then went back 4 hours later to get the dog back. NOPE, someone just came in and got the new puppy. Now the old couple want to sue to get their puppy back...

"Couple who gave up puppy for adoption want it back

Tuesday, March 27, 2007
The Associated Press



http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07086/772879-100.stm
EBENSBURG, Pa. -- Hours after giving up their golden retriever for adoption, a couple said they made a mistake and wanted the dog back.

Trevor and Judy Yardley's dog, however, had already been adopted, and now the Richland Township couple wants a Cambria County judge to order the Humane Society of Cambria County to release the name and address of the dog's new owner to them.

In a handwritten petition filed Friday, the Yardleys said 4-month-old Casey "was put up for adoption by error. And within a couple of hours of doing so, we tried to get the dog back."

In court documents, Judy Yardley said Casey was taken to the Humane Society of Cambria County on March 20 because her husband didn't want the animal.



"Mrs. Yardley was insistent we take the dog and, very fortunately, a couple came in about an hour later and wanted him," Humane Society Executive Director D. Black said.

The Yardleys bought a classified ad in Sunday's Tribune-Democrat in Johnstown appealing to the new owners. Ms. Black said the new owners had contacted her after seeing the ad and asked to remain anonymous. She said that had the new owners agreed to give the animal back, she would have acted as a go-between.

Judge Timothy Creany has scheduled a hearing for tomorrow on the Yardleys' request.

[Bob Loblaw]

tough shit, morons. you can't sue to get the dog back, but you can go crawl in a hole and die.

[gozling]

why cant anyone take responsibility for their decisions?????

geesh.. those poor people who adopted the dog... so help me god if this fudger of a judge doesnt uphold the adoption that is really going to screw up the process of getting animals homes...

I can see it now... the hesitation of taking a dog for your KID and then telling them.... nope sorry.. they changed their minds... they want it back??? and then you know in a year those a-holes wont want the dog

omg this pisses me off reading this.

its not a friggin baby

[E-man]

Here is how the ruling should go...


Judge Fudgebelly: In the matter of Dog givers vs. Dog takers, I rule

NO GIVE BACKS

[Growler]

So who's to say this lady's husband doesn't change his mind again?? Screw them. Let them eat dog crap. They didn't want the dog and someone gave the puppy a good home. Sour grapes

[countybear]

Hours after giving up their golden retriever for adoption, a couple said they made a mistake and wanted the dog back.

[BEB]

There was a stray dog in the neighborhood here years ago. He didn't cause trouble and had a pretty set routine so I'd see him going past the house about the same time each day. One day he got picked up and taken to the pound. I called, told them if nobody adopted him by the end of the week don't destroy him, I'll take him. So he ended up being there 10 days.

Few days after I brought him home a teenage girl from down the street comes by. "Can we have our dog back?" Checked my anger, let her pet him and took him in the house after I made it clear she no longer had a dog.

How the **** do you not notice your dog, who you weren't taking care of in the first place, is missing entirely for two weeks? And not give enough of a damn to check the pound?

Dogs > people any day.

[Ducky]

Umm, in most cases, the SPCA makes those surrendering animals sign a waiver to any and all claim, present and future, on the animal. Once they signed, they lost all rights to the animal, it was no longer theirs. I hope a judge sees this, laughs in their faces, and gives them a lecture on responsibility.

[TXCharlie]

Sounds like a story in the Old Testament... You know how that ended.

Ok I won't say it (it involves an axe, sword or other dog slicing equipment) - But this is too stupid to even draw a connection.

[E-man]

ANOTHER Breaking news update

I cant believe this is on the local papers BREAKING news section on the interweb thing...


"Couple seeks court help in adopted dog case
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

By Ian Kriegish, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

A Cambria County couple who surrendered their golden retriever puppy, then tried to get it back, told a judge it was all a mistake today.

Trevor and Judy Yardley of Richland Township grew frustrated with their two golden retrievers, and gave one away to a friend and surrendered the other -- 4-month-old Casey -- to the Humane Society of Cambria County March 20.

The couple was before Cambria County Judge Timothy Creany seeking an order directing the humane society to release the name and contact number of the new owners to the Yardleys.

In a handwritten petition filed Friday, the Yardleys said Casey "was put up for adoption by error. And within a couple of hours of doing so, we tried to get the dog back."

In court documents, Judy Yardley said Casey was taken to the Humane Society of Cambria County because her husband didn't want the animal.

Humane Society officials said that Judy Yardley was "insistent" they take the dog and he was adopted about an hour later.

During today's hearing, in which the Yardleys represented themselves, they tried to argue that the adoption was not legitimate, though that wasn't the issue before the judge, who was considering whether the names of the new owners should be released.

Mr. Yardley told the judge he was not aware that his wife was going to take the puppy to the humane society, and that since they were co-owners she did not have consent and thus was not entitled to surrender the dog. Further, Mrs. Yardley argued that because she was distraught and did not have her glasses, she did not read the consent form and thus did not understand what she was doing.

The Humane Society argued that to release information about those who adopt animals would be a violation of privacy and also against the state's interest in placing animals. If potential owners were to fear that their new pet could be taken back -- or that the previous owner could get in touch with them to seek return of the animal - it would discourage adoptions.

The Yardleys bought a classified ad in Sunday's Tribune-Democrat in Johnstown appealing to the new owners. An official with the Humane Society said the new owners had contacted them after seeing the ad and asked to remain anonymous.

The judge did not rule today. He gave both parties a week to submit memoranda on the case and said he would rule after he has reviewed that information."


http://www.postgazette.com/pg/07087/773199-100.stm

[E-man]

update here

Finally a good decision.