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."

[lfaucette]

GIVE THE DOG BACK TO THE FAMILY!! It''s just that simple!! Mutts and Moms need to get a grip!

[arealtexan]

I work with a dog rescue, and I fully support Mutts for Moms'' decision to take back the dog. The contract Portia signed is a legally binding instrument. The reason such provisions exist in animal adoption contracts is to insure the health and safety of the dog.

The agency is simply doing what it sees best for the animal. Most private rescue agencies have such rules in place because they check background and if the person can be financially responsible for the animal. While it may have been heart wrenching for the family to lose their dog, ultimately their beef is with Ellen, not the dog rescue.

[nbenn514]

The ASCPA has sided with Degeneres. Mutts and Moms initially were quoted as saying they wouldn''t give the dog to "that type of family". Then they came out with the age restriction thing. The hairdresser''s kids are old enough to handle the responsibility of this type of dog. Degeneres knows the family. She got the thing neutered and trained for them. She''s shown responsibility towards animals and I doubt she just willy nilly gave Iggy to some jerk off the street. The contract may be legally binding but it wasn''t blantantly ignored - it was overlooked. I think the real issue here is that Mutts and Moms are being snobs - they want their rescues to go to celebrities so they can hobnob with the rich and famous. The hairdresser didn''t meet that criteria. They''ve given the dog away again - I''d love to know if the new owners are common folk. Bet not. Ellen should help the family find another dog and make a sizable donation to the ASPCA who understands the human/pet connection and what it''s really all about. Moms and Mutts should be ashamed of themselves. And, they weren''t bullied - they were just called on their shameful behavior.

[mudrose-2009]

When you hear of the abuse animals are subjected to, it is not so unusual for Mutts and Moms to react in such a way. Their contract was with Ellen. Contracts, last time I looked, are binding. This will eventually be resolved, but Ellen doesn''t get a pass here. Very irresponsible of her to do what she did.

[kelg2]

I have adopted from rescues before and my contract clearly states if we weren''t able to keep the dog it goes back to the rescue but I also think there can be stipulations. All that the rescue organization had to do was have the new family fill out an application to adopt, then they would check the home and references, as far as the age of the children, I feel 11 and 12 are far to old to be considered young children. Young children to me are kids that don''t know any better when it comes to pulling tails, poking eyes, pulling hair, not knowing that a growl means "leave me alone".

[rudy654-2009]

Millions of pets (dogs and cats) end up homeless all the time, and to hear about this nonsense, as if one dog was like some adopted child, is just plain stupid. What a stupid organization. If they cared about animals they wouldn''t be into power plays. As far as I am concerned, there are very good dogs and cats available at the local SPCA or pound, and if they don''t get adopted then they will be destroyed. It makes way more sense to go get a pet from there, than from some stupid Mutts and Moms club that has other interests.

[ellenblue]

The dog should NOT be returned to the hairdresser''s family!!! If that happened then any celebratiy could get their way & have peoples'' lives threatened by their nut-case fans. Once the death threats started, then Degenerate and her hairdresser lost any chance of getting the dog back. If she had contacted the Shelter in private and attempted to find a amicable solution then she should have gotten the dog placed with the hairdresser. But death threats should NEVER be rewarded!!!!!

[dgshiner]

If the dog was in a good home I see no business of who Ellen wants to give her dog too these animal rights activist are going to far had there been abuse or whatever that is different but this dog was placed in a loving home with a family who wanted the dog this is just some BS!

Leave Ellen alone and the family too! How dare they come in and tell you what to do over your own animal!

[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!!

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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????

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.."

[rudy654-2009]

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

[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!

[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.

[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.

[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.