Cry Me a River, Ellen DeGeneres!

Well said, NikkiTR!

This topic is so interesting to me. When I first heard about this and saw a tiny portion of the "Ellen breakdown" on Entertainment Tonight, I was not really convinced. I just thought she lost control of her emotions ... it just sounded like she was more upset about the money she put into the dog than the fact that it was gone. Especially because she mentioned feeling bad for the little girls when they'd only been around the dog for like two weeks.

After hearing more about it and reading the responses back and forth between Holly and Jen, I think there is much more to this than I thought at first. I would be emotional too if I thought a pet that I love is not being treated well and then to be confronted with this agency that at this point doesn't seem to be too sympathetic to the situation.

I feel that maybe another underlying part of the contract signed between Ellen and the agency was who was going to hold the responsibility for the dog. I think that is an issue here. If Ellen does not have the dog and gives it away, then the responsibility for the dog and its well being probably falls back on the agency. I think that when Ellen told the agency that she gave the dog to her hairdresser's family because they'd be the perfect, instead of just ripping the dog from their home, the agency should have taken the time to talk with the family and see if they "qualify" to keep the dog (which they should) and then leave the dog with that family and transfer the contract and responsibility to them.

I also think what's hard in this situation is that with Ellen and her friend is that the dog would have been safe and happy with the hairdresser's family; but there are many situations in which hand-offs like this are not for the better and the agency really does have the responsibility to the animal to make sure that it is going to be safe. It is really hard to know when to make exceptions and when not to, but I think in this case, they should give the dog back.

Ugh. This event is now ridiculous, overwrought, and it seems, entirely about pride. Really sad.

Far, far enough.

I think this has all gone far enough. Yes, Ellen should have read the contract. Yes, the agency owner should have just let the family keep the dog. But at this point, it's only going to get uglier.

I say let the dog settle into the new home (although I really have to wonder just what kind of "strict process" the new owner went through considering it was placed in the home within–what, a day??) and let it go. The girls have learned about the unfairness of life. Being a bitch isn't just for dogs.

I agree that strict procedure must be in place, but in a world where there are so many children and animals needing homes and families, I question some of the "faults" they may find such as age or how much money one makes. I'm certainly not saying that all you need is love!

I'm just saying that I wonder whether being given back to the agency/shelter is really any better for the child or animal...it's still being passed from hand to hand, it's just a more formalized hand. It just seems to amount to the same thing in the end. But I definitely see that, hopefully, the agency/shelter would have the child/animal's best interest in mind.

hollyg: In a perfect world, safeguards would be a little less judicious, less litigious, and I absolutely agree with you on many counts.

Still, the dog is returned to the center from which he was adopted to also protect him from the very event that happened to me, which is simply being passed from hand to hand because the dog (or child) is just too much trouble. I was really fortunate to end up with people who, after four years had passed, decided to make it official.

I absolutely agree that love is the most important thing. I really, really do. But there's a process of adoption in place for a reason, and even when it's blindly followed, it genuinely is intended to protect the dog (or child).

I disagree with this. Animals bond differently than people do and their social system is different. And while I hold animals in extremely high regard, I hold humans even higher. Well, usually. But if someone adopts a child and can't handle it, do they just give him/her back to the agency? Is that somehow better for the child? I don't think so. I mean, I don't think they should be allowed to just be given to a different family, but still.

I also question both the shelter that would make the judgement call on your friend regarding how much he makes and the adoption agency that told your parents that they might be too old to adopt. I understand that practical matters need to be taken into consideration, but at the same time I fail to see how either of these considerations (without more information such as your friend's spending habits or your parents' health) has anything to do with the love and care that the adopters are willing to give.

It is a rigorous process to the point of absurdity. I was once rejected from adopting a cat online. To this day I have no idea what I answered wrong in the ten page application. The response I got: "Your application was rejected." That's it. I am all about being careful to find good homes but come on...I may not have a palacial yard for the animal to run free in, but I got a whole lotta good lovin to give. Basically this adoption agency just wanted to be able to tell their clients that Ellen adopted one of their dogs, and they were PO'd to find out they couldn't anymore. Makes you question the integrity of the agency. Ellen is the one with the integrity here. Rather than just throwing it back to the agency out of laziness (what most celebs would do) she actually took it up on herself to make sure the dog was loved and taken care of. Now she is being condemned. Totally ridiculous.

I'm suspicious of TV tears, but when she covered her face from her audience and really wailed, man. Yikes. I really understand why Ellen feels so miserable.

I understand why the dog was taken away, though, and I don't really fault the shelter. In the adoption process, the shelter (at least the one my friend and coworker Mike adopted from) is actually pretty tough on who gets to adopt and who doesn't.

I just asked Mike here in the office. He explains that there's a rigorous screening process, and when he was being screened for two weeks--answering questions, filling out paperwork, becoming acquainted with the dog, promising to fulfill a contractual obligation to take his dog to training classes--the shelter, more than once, expressed hesitation, particularly in the way of "you work too much and you don't make enough." Which is just incredible to me, because he's the most loving dog daddy in the world. Last of all, he signed another contract stating that, if it turned out he couldn't care for the dog, he is obligated to return the dog to that particular shelter and no other--this is because the shelter he adopted from has a stringent no-kill policy. He would not even be allowed give the dog to his parents, because, say they can't care for the dog, either? Where do THEY take the dog?

But also look at it this way: I'm adopted. That was a pretty rigorous process too. My parents almost didn't get to adopt me because the court figured they were too old. If they went through all those bills and paperwork and legality, got me home, and then realized I was too much of a handful, it wouldn't be legal for them to hand me to someone else, no matter how loving that person is. Dog adoption is just the same as person adoption.

The whole situation stinks, to be sure, and absolutely the family should be with that dog. But they should be able to hurry through the adoption process, make it legit and formalized, and everyone can be happy again.

ah, sorry, mirimysweet...I didn't watch the webcam rant and thought you were being serious. Next time I'll be more thorough!!

that's definitely real- Ellen crying... that's just ridiculous!

because...that would be better for everyone involved? The contract is just a piece of paper, and this seems like a pretty isolated incident. It's the animal that's paying the price...which would seem against the whole concept of trying to protect it in the first place.

I'm sure she's going to lose a ton of business due to this. What a Grinch...

weird...give the dog back?

i agree w/ holly. ellen doesn't seem like the type who'd fake anything, anyway. she seems so genuine and down to earth. and yea.. that was definitely an "ugly cry."

i'm sure families all over will want to adopt the puppy now that he has some publicity connected to him. i hope those that are interested are doing it for the right reasons and not for a slice of fame.

Oh, that was totally real. That was what Oprah would call an 'ugly cry'...there's the pretty cry, which is what most tv folks do, and then there's the ugly cry, which is what Ellen did. Meaning that you really do lose your shit...no single tear streaming down the cheek with a little chin quiver but rather full facial contortion and lots of snot.

She's legit. A tad emotional perhaps, but totally legit.