DeGeneres: Dog Custody Battle "So Insane"

Admits She Made Mistake, But Says Dog Still Belongs With Family

(CBS/AP)  Ellen DeGeneres' dog custody battle took a nasty turn Wednesday, according to an owner of the non-profit animal rescue group Mutts and Moms.

The trouble began last month when DeGeneres and her partner, actress Portia de Rossi, adopted a black Brussels Griffon mix terrier named Iggy. When Iggy wasn't able to get along with DeGeneres' cats, the couple gave the dog to DeGeneres' hairdresser.

Giving the dog away to someone else, says Marina Batkis, co-owner of Mutts and Moms, violates a written agreement de Rossi signed in which she pledged to return the dog to the agency if the adoption didn't work out.

"We won't be bullied into placing a dog with people we don't know, we know nothing about, just because a celeb is involved," she told The Early Show national correspondent Hattie Kauffman.

When Mutts and Moms found out DeGeneres and de Rossi no longer had Iggy, it went to the family where the dog was living, and took him back.

DeGeneres had said her hairdresser's daughters, ages 11 and 12, have bonded with Iggy and were heartbroken when the dog was taken away.

Acknowledging that she erred in giving the dog away instead of back to Mutts and Moms, DeGeneres said Wednesday that her hairdresser's family shouldn't be punished.

"This is so insane," said DeGeneres, speaking on her talk show Wednesday. "The dog needs to go to the family."

Gordon, DeGeneres's hairdresser's husband, said that when Mutts and Moms came to their home, they assured the family that Iggy could remain with them.

"I really, really want Iggy back so badly and I don't think it's fair," Gordon's daughter Ruby said.

---

Photos: Ellen DeGeneres

---

The agency points out that its policy is not to place small dogs in homes with young children. And they claim DeGeneres's televised tears are unfair.

"I see an abuse ... by somebody who's powerful, somebody in the media, against a little person," said attorney Keith Fink, who represents Mutts and Moms. "If you don't do it, the Ellen DeGeneres Hollywood way, then you're going to be threatened with litigation and destruction of your business."

Batkis says there have been so many threatening e-mails and phone calls that Wednesday that she had to close her dog grooming business, the Paws Boutique in Pasadena, one day after DeGeneres broadcast her first tearful, televised plea for the dog to be returned to her hairdresser and the woman's daughters.

"You Nazi scum sucking pigs. You're gonna pay dearly for stealing this dog from these little girls," a man said in a voice message.

"It's very upsetting to hear that someone is getting those kind of calls," said DeGeneres' publicist, Kelly Bush, adding: "Ellen just wants the dog reunited with the family."

Batkis is not budging in her refusal to return Iggy.

"We just wanted the dog back brought back to safety, which is part of our organization," she told Kauffman. "We are a safety net for the dog for the rest of its life."

[lisann3261]

Ellen DeGeneres is not the type of person to use her power to hurt anyone. What about the power this organization took by coming to the house and taking the dog before any investigation. Why couldn''t they allow the family to apply like any other family for the dog? Who is using the media? Ellen certainly doesn''t need to. Afterall these woman isn''t Social Services so why is she acting like it? Give the famiy a chance. There are no absolutes in placements. These two little girls may be perfect for a small dog. I work with feral cats and I have heard every negative comment there is but I have placed feral cats and I have a special talent with cats. So no one will convince me that small dogs shouldn''t be placed with small children until there has been an observation.

[pwmboat]

Why not explain Ellen told the hairdresser NOT to fill out any application? They would not and so they lost the dog, thru thier own choice.

[andor3]

Ellen did so much for these people and dogs, not only by adopting a dog, but by talking about it and providing free positive publicity.

Ansd you know Ellen would have been criticized if she gave the dog back. instead, she did the responsible thing and found a new home.

Until this agency intervened and removed the dog from a good home. Moms and Mutts had no right to do that (that part of the contract is likely invalid and only binding on Ellen, not the new family).

I think Moms and Mutts tried to use Ellen''s fame and good nature to try to get some free buzz and it backfired. I hope the lawyers straighten them out good.

[kevzgrl]

Two points - first, it was Portia who signed the contract, but since she is not as famous as Ellen, her tears over the removal of the dog wouldn''t have quite the same publicity value, and, second, if they took the dog back because of the contract that was signed, did they give the $3000 back that Ellen & Portia gave them as a "donation" (read: extortion) in exchange for adopting the dog? I am willing to bet not.
So, both parties are in the wrong, because the contract wasn''t honored as written, and because Mutts and Moms is nothing but an overpriced racket. Bottom line is, a family who loved and wanted a dog doesn''t have the dog, and the dog, who needs a good home, is probably sitting in a cage somewhere, whimpering...

Spay and neuter, people, spay and neuter!

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by bizzzz at 06:45 PM Hey boo hoo!! Get lost with your anti-liberal political krapp.

[bizzzz-2009]

Are we on the air...we are? Ok. I''m sooo upset....boo hoo hoo. Pleeasssse, give the dog baa...the cameras not on? Well could you turn the d@mn thing on?! I don''t have all day people! We''re on now? Are you sure? Geez, FINALLY! I''m sooo upset...boo hoo hoo. Pleeassse, give the dog back.."

[bizzzz-2009]

I find it ironic that Ellen DeGeneres so upset about the shelter intervening to insure the dogs safety. Liberal montra dictates more government intrusion in our lives, more government authority over personal issues- rights of parents, rights of family, etc.
Personally, I think this situation with the dog is ridiculous and that it should be returned to the kids. HOWEVER, this non profit dog shelter has it''s rules and guideline and someone ESPECIALLY A LIBERAL should respect the right of this shelter to be intrusive to insure the safety of the animal.
I think it was Ellen''s celebrity ego, not the issue itself, that caused her meltdown.
YOU THINK THE INTRUSION OF THIS SHELTER TO INSURE THE DOGS SAFETY IS RIDICULOUS?? I THINK THE INTRUSION BY THE GOVERNMENT TO GIVE MY 12 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER BIRTH CONTROL OR AN ABORTION WITHOUT TELLING ME IS RIDICULOUS.

[ralan40]

a so-called "adoption" with strings attached, should not be referred to as such. A so called "pet rescue" agency that takes an animal away from a non-abusive environment should not be referred to as such. Ellen made the mistake of being party to this farce called an ''adoption''.
Simply put, this animal shelter has asserted that it always maintains it''s ownership rights over all else. Therefore, they are merely ''loaning out'' animals. and not truely finding permanent homes. Mutts and Moms has always been the owner of this dog and should keep this and every other dog they ''rescued''. They may think they know what they are doing, but what they are not doing is finding homes for these pets.

[rudy654-2009]

Posted by Petesis at 02:50 PM

I totally agree with you. This mutts and mommy''s club has nothing to do with helping unwanted animals. In fact, they are contributing to the problem. I hope if any of its members have an ounce of decency, they will quit their membership and join a sincere organization that is truly dedicated.

[lanaedawn]

I dont understand this clause in these contracts. Does it only last for a certain amount of time? What if, God forbid, you cmp271, gets sick and are unable to care for your cat but your sister, who has bonded with the cat, is willing to take it. Do you have to still give the cat back to the agency for them to give to strangers?

According to this agency, they don''t place small dogs in houses with children under 14. What if you adopt a small dog and then a few months later you get pregnant. Will the agency then come and take the dog away from you? Where does agency ownership end and yours begin? After you pay the adoption fee and take the pet home, it is then your responsibility to make sure its needs are met, not the rescue agency. Furthermore, its not as if the home Ellen put the dog in is that of a crack dealer and his dog fur wearing wife. Its a nice home of a woman with a stable job and two children who have another dog that they have managed not to kill!

[petesis]

Just by the laws of supply and demand it is obvious these shelters with their restrictive rules are contributing to the glut of unwanted animals. They force well meaning people to go to breeders which creates a demand for more dogs while there are still lots of dogs in shelters.
All their self righteous hoo ha aside they cannot deny that they are the greatest contributor to back yard breeders and back yard breeders are the greatest contributor to dogs in the shelters. they have serious control issues these animal shelter people.

[jack3213]

Contract baby, you are no exception. You signed now you must oblige. I''m sorry it turned out this way, but for goodness sake why are you so surprised?

[mkbjon]

I am more interested in the fact that the agency is insisting on being a stickler for the rules when it broke one in the first place when Ellen adopted the dog. She has stated that there was no home visit before the adoption, which is one of THEIR rules. Oh, I see.....it only matters when SOMEONE ELSE breaks the rules. You can defend a shelter for sticking to the rules, but when they pick and choose which ones to follow, it is just pure hypocrisy.

[jmop3]

If I am not mistaken even the SPCA thought the dog should be returned to the family. Your report this morning dismissed that and make it look like Ellen was using her star power to get her way. I don''t see it that way. The children were old enough, not toddlers. All reports I have seen show Ellen really very emotional over the children being upset about having the dog taken away.

[misssuzq]

Someone suggested that getting the dog back was a way of double dipping the adoption fee of a couple hundred dollars, but on TV it was also mentioned that Ellen paid $3,000????

[eggy1620]

Written agreement? Dog adoption agency? Does no one just go to the Humane Society or local shelter anymore? Or is that not the fashionable Hollywood thing to do?

[pam1sadge]

I recently adopted a dog from the East Bay SPCA and there also was a clause in my adoption papers that indicated if for any reason I could no longer keep the dog I was under contract to return the dog to the SPCA. The intent is only to make sure the dog is placed in the appropriate home. With that said, I think this little dog was in a good home, and for some reason, the agency decided to get into a power play with Ellen. I don''t think the agency even gave the family a chance to keep the dog, they just wanted to show Ellen they were right. The interest of the dog should have been the consideration and not the huge egos involved.

[misssuzq]

Last night on TV, they showed the owner in front of her business.
It looked like it could have a few code violations for the facilities and the neighborhood where it is located may be more residential.

If she were a boading kennel, I wouod not take my dog there.

She had crates all over the place and it did not look well taken care of.

[bshoney]

I can honestly say I know exactly how Ellen and her friends feel. I appreciate the rescues effort however there should be a limit. I recently rescued a elderly maltese at the same time a rescue was called in to help by someone else. Falling in love with the dog was easy! I was taking her to the vet for check up and shots, she so obviously needed due to neglect, when the rescue woman from Small Breed Rescue of South Carolina shows up claiming the dog had been turned over to her and she was to take the animal immediately! I refused and stated my family had planned on keeping her and there was no need for her service, and I thanked her. This is when the "Rescue" woman went mad and pushed me, snatched the small dog from my arms and fled! She was gone in her vehicle before I knew what happen. I contacted the police a short investigation insued and I was told that she would be keeping the dog, and there was nothing I could do but apply to become the dogs adopted family not to mention pay $300 - $400 dollars (which is the fee for adoption)! Some rescues are not rescues at all! They are thieves and money grubbers, they have no interest in the sad little animals! It''s disgusting!

[rudy654-2009]

But death threats should NEVER be rewarded!!!!!
Posted by EllenBlue at 10:41 AM

Ellen didn''t make the death threats. What are you - a nut? It''s a dog! The mommy''s club can keep the dog, and hopefully this family will go get a dog that really needs a home and doesn''t belong to the fashionable mommy''s club, like this one did. No way I would support an organization that claims to own the dog after I already adopted it. It''s a sad day when people treat these animals as if they were actually adopted or foster children. SAD!! SICK!!