# Family dog put down by accident



## Lenny (Jul 25, 2005)

This is a sad story but a good step towards dog being recognized as part of the family. The court rules they can sue for sentimental value of their dog which, at least here in Texas, is a new thing. Before it was just the $ value of the dog.
Dog owners can sue for sentimental value of pet | wfaa.com Dallas - Fort Worth


----------



## Dooney's Mom (May 10, 2011)

How sad- that would literally kill me. I am glad that law is changing....!


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

That is very sad, for all involved.

Expect vet fees, adoption fees, and animal control fees, dog walkers, boarding kennels, etc. to significantly increase. The insurance costs for these businesses/organizations are going to explode!

The owner of this dog sued the vet tech personally. How is someone making minium wages expected to be able to aford a huge settlement?


----------



## pyratemom (Jan 10, 2011)

What a horrible sad thing to experience. I'm sorry for the technician that made the mistake as well. I'm sure there was no malice, only neglect in paying attention to details. The people may be able to sue but they can never cuddle with their furry baby again. Nothing can bring the dog back.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

How terrible for all involved. I don't think I could ever forgive myself if Sasha got out and died because of it. Also, does anyone else think it's weird they had to keep her to get her microchiped? That takes about 3 seconds to do.


----------



## Syaoransbear (Sep 25, 2008)

The link isn't working for me, but I can tell by the title how awful this situation is .


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

While I feel very badly for the family....

That's the truth.....if this becomes a widespread precedence you can expect a lot of people to get out of pet related businesses. An awful lot of them are sole proprietorships and very few people become wealthy grooming, pet sitting, working as a vet assistant as it is.

(Surprised this happened in TX .....)





Caledon said:


> That is very sad, for all involved.
> 
> Expect vet fees, adoption fees, and animal control fees, dog walkers, boarding kennels, etc. to significantly increase. The insurance costs for these businesses/organizations are going to explode!
> 
> The owner of this dog sued the vet tech personally. How is someone making minium wages expected to be able to aford a huge settlement?


----------



## pyratemom (Jan 10, 2011)

NewbieShepherdGirl said:


> How terrible for all involved. I don't think I could ever forgive myself if Sasha got out and died because of it. Also, does anyone else think it's weird they had to keep her to get her microchiped? That takes about 3 seconds to do.


I do find that odd. It never took them more a few seconds to do any of my furry ones. Of course, sadly, second guessing that isn't going to bring back the family pet.


----------



## GSDkid (Apr 19, 2011)

Your link no longer works so I googled it: Dog owners can sue for sentimental value of pet in Texas | WHAS11.com Louisville

I'm glad that it's starting to get through to the law that Dog's are family members. Great share!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Actually, it's disturbing and sounds like a PETA platform.....


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

While I am super glad dogs are being recognized as family members, the precedence this sets scares me to my toes. The "pain and suffering" and "emotional distress" judgements have cost the human medical industry. if people are allowed to sue for ridiculous amounts over their pets the way they can their own doctors and hospitals then we will see a HUGE increase in what vets, groomers, sitters and the like charge since they will ALL have to pay malpractice insurance rates. 

Was what happened horrible?? Yes, it was. Should there have been an investigation and the person responsible fired?? Absolutely. Is given this family a few thousand dollars REALLY going to make them feel better about losing their dog?? God, I hope not. It certainly wouldn't make me feel better, I wouldn't even want the money. A few thousands dollars for Dharma's life?? NO WAY- not even a million would make me feel better. It does make me think they are greedy and opportunistic though. 

Sorry, but IMHO, this is a VERY bad idea.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

DharmasMom said:


> While I am super glad dogs are being recognized as family members, the precedence this sets scares me to my toes. The "pain and suffering" and "emotional distress" judgements have cost the human medical industry. if people are allowed to sue for ridiculous amounts over their pets the way they can their own doctors and hospitals then we will see a HUGE increase in what vets, groomers, sitters and the like charge since they will ALL have to pay malpractice insurance rates.
> 
> Was what happened horrible?? Yes, it was. Should there have been an investigation and the person responsible fired?? Absolutely. Is given this family a few thousand dollars REALLY going to make them feel better about losing their dog?? God, I hope not. It certainly wouldn't make me feel better, I wouldn't even want the money. A few thousands dollars for Dharma's life?? NO WAY- not even a million would make me feel better. It does make me think they are greedy and opportunistic though.
> 
> Sorry, but IMHO, this is a VERY bad idea.


On the whole I agree with you on this. Action should take place, but I don't think it should probably be money either. However, I don't necessarily see those people and necessarily being greedy. I'm guessing (and I obviously don't know them, so this is all speculation) that they are really hurting and just feeling the need for some sort of restitution, and since the person that wronged them can't give back their family member they should give them money to pay for what they did. Now, I don't think that's what I'd be going for, but I don't necessarily think they're greedy.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 25, 2005)

So, we should be afraid to do what's right because your goomer might raise their rates on you? You can sue the machanic that messes up your car but go ahead and kill my dog because I don't want my dog walker to be too expensive?
You can't put a price on a dog but I don't think it's about money it's about holding people responsible and unfortunately no one pays attention or changes policies unless money is involved. I HATE sue happy people but I don't think it applies here.


----------



## mssandslinger (Sep 21, 2010)

wow.. i dont know what i would do. probably fly off the handle and freak out at someone.


----------



## arycrest (Feb 28, 2006)

That's really sad!!! I feel very sorry for the family!!!

What are the Hooligans worth? IMHO they're priceless ... but I'd sure hate to be on the receiving end of a law suit filed against me by someone who feels the same way about their dogs ... hundreds? thousands? millions? the sky's the limit? IMHO it's a very slippery slope. And what's to stop other animal owners from declaring that their much loved pet rats/gold fish/gerbiles/etc lives are as valuable as those of our pet dogs?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Here's another way to frame the concerns....

There are a lot of threads here which revolve around the cost of owning a dog.

This could very well jack up the price of being a _responsible_ pet owner so as to exclude many people from dog ownership. This in turn would affect good breeders AND rescues as demand for dogs drop.

Additionally, as someone who works in the petcare industry I work very hard and really don't make tons of money to show for it. I will not work harder to enrich lawyers and insurance companies. I believe this would cause many small mom/pop type pet related business to close shop thereby eliminating competition and putting further pressure on pet care pricing from vets to groomers to kennels and dog walkers. 

It goes to follow that this is all inter-related and we should be aware of the impacts.

(p.s. in the case of the car you cannot sue the mechanic for anything above actual costs incurred due to a faulty repair. If you get in a wreck and your car is totaled you usually only get replacement value, so IMO not an apt comparison)




Lenny said:


> So, we should be afraid to do what's right because your goomer might raise their rates on you? You can sue the machanic that messes up your car but go ahead and kill my dog because I don't want my dog walker to be too expensive?
> You can't put a price on a dog but I don't think it's about money it's about holding people responsible and unfortunately no one pays attention or changes policies unless money is involved. I HATE sue happy people but I don't think it applies here.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I am sorry that this is the case that might change the law. 

The owner let their dog get loose and picked up by AC, so many things might have happened to the dog while it was loose. 

The owner did find the dog at the shelter, which is good. But left it there until Monday? Why? Is that just a policy that they do not let the dog without a microchip, and the person who does chips wasn't there? I might have agreed to bring the dog back on Monday, but no way am I going to leave my dog in a shelter for the weekend. 

Someone made a mistake. Mistakes happen. 

I would rather see the law change when someone does something to deliberately cause pain to a person by torturing or killing their dog. Like the creep who sent the dead dog to his x-girlfriend gift wrapped. That guy should be paying way more than the dog's purchase price. 

Maybe if a vet puts your dog through surgery after surgery due to their own mistakes, and the dog is lost. Maybe that vet, if you can prove negligence should be penalized with more than the dogs' monetary value.

I think you should have to prove some sort of malice, cruelty, or gross negligence.

These people would have been very fortunate to get their dog back. And I am sure it was heart-wrenching to find the dog and then find out that they went ahead and euthanized him, but I do not think they should be able to sue shelter workers for thousands of dollars for making a mistake.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Lenny said:


> So, we should be afraid to do what's right because your goomer might raise their rates on you? You can sue the machanic that messes up your car but go ahead and kill my dog because I don't want my dog walker to be too expensive?
> You can't put a price on a dog but I don't think it's about money it's about holding people responsible and unfortunately no one pays attention or changes policies unless money is involved. I HATE sue happy people but I don't think it applies here.



If you sue your mechanic then you get the monetary value of the car or whatever the repairs are, there is no "emotional" value attached to a car. Once you attach words like "emotional suffering" "pain and suffering" then it becomes a free for all. It has already happened- with human health care. You have some OB-GYNs in this country that don't do the OB part- the malpractice insurance is too high. That could very well happen if people are allowed to attach those words to their pets and then sue when something goes wrong. 

There is no question that losing a dog in that way (or anyway) is devastating. I would be inconsolable. But if you allow people to start suing for thousands of dollars then where does it stop? Hundreds of thousands of dollars? Millions?? So everyone in the pet industry now has to have insurance like the human health industry. Those rates are astronomical and they WILL pass those fees down to the customer. 

Man, you think an emergency trip to the vet is expensive now??


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Selzer, I knew you would post that perspective on the dog owners. 

I agree with you, that the dog was in that situation in the first place because of a mistake made by the owners of the dog. The second mistake was by an employee of the shelter, a place where dogs are rountinely put down.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

selzer said:


> The owner let their dog get loose and picked up by AC, so many things might have happened to the dog while it was loose.



I have to agree with this as well. Why aren't the owner's taking responsibility for their part in the whole tragedy? If their dog had not gotten loose, it never would have ended up at the shelter to begin with. 

The shelter made a horrific, disgusting, tragic mistake. But so did those people by allowing their dog to get loose in the first place. The need to own their part of this as well.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 25, 2005)

Caledon said:


> I agree with you, that the dog was in that situation in the first place because of a mistake made by the owners of the dog...


I got separated from my parent at a ball game before and was lost for a few hours when I was a kid. If some one would have killed me would it have been my parents fault? I vote no and I think the courts would as well. 

I see what everyone is saying, but if someone kills my dog $50 and a "sorry" doesn't seem to cut it. I know $ wouldn't replace anything, but someone should be held responsible in some way to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen. The plug doesn't get pulled by accident at the retirement home for a reason. There would be consequences.


----------



## NewbieShepherdGirl (Jan 7, 2011)

Lenny said:


> I got separated from my parent at a ball game before and was lost for a few hours when I was a kid. If some one would have killed me would it have been my parents fault? I vote no and I think the courts would as well.
> 
> I see what everyone is saying, but if someone kills my dog $50 and a "sorry" doesn't seem to cut it. I know $ wouldn't replace anything, but someone should be held responsible in some way to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen. The plug doesn't get pulled by accident at the retirement home for a reason. There would be consequences.


Your parents would have had some responsibility for it, yes. Would they be soley responsible? Of course not, but they would have made a mistake too by letting you wander off, and I think any parent that loses a child because of a mistake they made would tell you they feel at least partially responsible because it was their action (or lack there of) that put the ball in motion. 

You're right $50 and a sorry would seem like a slap in the face, but so would a million dollars. I agree that something should be done, and I would be pushing very hard to get that lady fired if I were those people, but like selzer pointed out, it wasn't malicious (or at least we have no reason to believe it was). I don't think anyone is saying that there shouldn't be consequences, but suing someone for thousands of dollars because they accidentally killed your pet maybe isn't the way to go. If the dog got lose and accidentally got hit by a car should that person be sued? The result is the same, the dog is dead, and they were both a mistake.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

All I'm saying is that in this case both the dog's owner and the employee both made mistakes that lead to the death of the dog. I find it hard just to place the blame entirely on the employee. The owner made a mistake too. What percentage I have no idea but it is not zero.

I'm not even going to get into your lost example.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Lenny said:


> I got separated from my parent at a ball game before and was lost for a few hours when I was a kid. If some one would have killed me would it have been my parents fault? I vote no and I think the courts would as well.
> 
> I see what everyone is saying, but if someone kills my dog $50 and a "sorry" doesn't seem to cut it. I know $ wouldn't replace anything, but someone should be held responsible in some way to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen. The plug doesn't get pulled by accident at the retirement home for a reason. There would be consequences.


The owners made a mistake. Should they should pay several thousand dollars for making a mistake that put their dog in danger. 

The shelter made a mistake.

Your analogy does not work because the someone who killed would be at fault, if he deliberately killed you. If you toddled out into the street between two parked cars and was struck by an automobile, it would be your parents' fault for losing track of a toddler. It would be terribly tragic, and I do not think they would be held criminally negligent, that would depend on whether they were high on drugs or passed out with a hefty blood alchohol level when you were struck. 

The point is that mistakes happen. This dog would not be dead if the shelter worker did not make a mistake after it was picked up. This dog would not be dead if the dog's owner's did not make a mistake. 

I personally find the owners of the dog more to blame than the shelter worker, because while the dog was missing it could have been smooshed in the road, and who do you sue then? 

It is tragic. A healthy dog is dead because of mistakes made by people in charge of it. That's sad. But unless they can dig up some motive for the shelter worker to deliberately kill the dog to get back at the dog's owners, I think it would be criminal to hold her financially responsible. 

One can paint a grim picture of the people who work in shelters where they kill the animals after so many days. But most of them are not there because they want to kill dogs or that they hate dogs. Most of them are there because it is a job and they need a job, and maybe they can help some of the dogs. They make next to nothing. It is not a good job. It is an irritable, sad, depressing, dirty job. And if I had to set up the list of dogs to be killed on any given day, I would have to say that I wouldn't want to dwell on it. I would probably want to get it over with so I did not have to think about it more. 

It is NOT shelter workers' fault that animals are put down. It is the irresponsibility of owners who dump their dogs, or let their dogs roam and don't bother to go and find them. 

This owner DID go and find the dog. If there is a policy requiring microchipping prior to being released to the owner, then I think the shelter is as liable as the euth tech. Because, dogs in shelters are in close quarters with other dogs and can pick up anything. Leaving a dog in that situation one minute longer than necessary is somewhat negligent in my opinion. 

It is usually not a single mistake that causes a tragedy, it is usually a series of events/mistakes that work together to create a bad situation. 

I do not think the owners should get anything other than an apology and a promise to look into the current policies and make adjustments to ensure this does not happen again. 

A dog is priceless. There is no price tag you can put on a dog that you love. Why should people be trying to profit from the misfortune of their dead dog. I really hate people sometimes.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Lenny said:


> I got separated from my parent at a ball game before and was lost for a few hours when I was a kid. If some one would have killed me would it have been my parents fault? I vote no and I think the courts would as well.
> 
> I see what everyone is saying, but if someone kills my dog $50 and a "sorry" doesn't seem to cut it. I know $ wouldn't replace anything, but someone should be held responsible in some way to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen. The plug doesn't get pulled by accident at the retirement home for a reason. There would be consequences.



While your analogy is a bit on the ridiculous side, I will answer it. Yes, it would have been your parents fault- partially, for not watching you closely, in a public place. No, the courts wouldn't have blamed them but that doesn't make it any less true. The courts rarely see things with common sense and pretty much always absolve people of any personal responsibility when something bad happens to them (which is why a dog is ALWAYS blamed for biting, even if the person bitten is to blame). 

No one is saying the shelter should have just said "Oops. Sorry. Our bad" and moved on. There should have been an investigation and the person responsible fired. The tech who did it may not have even been the one responsible, someone else may have inadvertently put the dog on the euthanasia list and the tech was just doing her job. That person should be fired for their irresponsibility and recklessness. No question. 

Money isn't going to bring the dog back. One of the biggest problems we have in this country today is the "I'll make them pay. I'll sue the pants off them" mentality. It is our go to answer anytime we feel someone has wronged us. And it has gotten out of hand. 

Besides, what if that shelter can't afford to pay? What if they have to shut down as a result of the verdict? What about other shelters that are small and can't afford it if something like this happens?? What happens to all of those animals in that particular shelter or other small shelters? Do we want to see them euthanized because they have no where else to go and now they have to shut down due to one incompetent person's mistake? The consequences of this verdict are much further reaching then just one family getting some kind of "justice".


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Ouch! You are firing me from a really crappy job where I make next to nothing and have to put dogs to sleep. Now I can apply for unemployment benefits, help with my mortgage or rent, help with my utilities, help with medical, and possibly keep all of these benefits while getting a GED and a college degree. 

In the meantime, the shelter loses a worker that made a mistake. How many of us lose our jobs when we make a mistake? How many of us have ever made a mistake? 

We have no idea what series of events caused that mistake, but OFF WITH HER HEAD!

American products, our health care system, our safety services, etc. must be exemplary considering one mistake here will get you fired and sued, even in a minimum wage job.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

I see your point selzer, I do but this is a pretty big mistake. I guess I would have to see the results of the investigation first. You are right about not jumping the gun. See what contributed to it. Is this a sloppy employee who has made mistakes in the past? Or is she a really good employee and somewhere the system broke down? Is the shelter's system for tagging dogs a mess and confusing or was she sloppy and not paying attention? 

You are right, I am being hasty. There would need to be a full investigation on HOW and WHY this happened before axing anybody. And certainly there would need to be policies and procedures put into place to prevent it from happening again.


----------



## Caledon (Nov 10, 2008)

Again Selzer, I agree with you. Firing this person is not the way to go either.

A mistake was made at a job that unfortunately you cannot just say oops, and fix it. I've made many mistakes and so has my employee. Didn't fire them but, put procedures in place to make sure it could not happen again. That is what needs to happen here. The shelter needs to examine HOW this happened and put procedures in place to make sure that it does not happen again.

I'm not entirely sure that the shelter could legally fire this person anyway, unless, they broke policy and procedures in the past and received written notice if they do it again they will be fired. Not that easy to fire some one.

The shelter should offer these people another dog when they are ready to move on, throw in some vet care and whatever they can afford to do to try and make this right. Does not replace what they had in no way or form.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 25, 2005)

Dog digging under a fence and getting out(or whatever happened) doesn't compare, not even close, to checking paperwork, opening a kennel, putting a leash on a dog, walking him/her to the vet area, checking paper work again, getting the drugs out, finding a vein, triple checking paper work, insterting needle and taking the life out of a dog. 
Also, comparing the above to the dog accidently getting run over is beyond comprehension.
We are all just disagreeing here. It's hard to tell in text but I'm not getting upset by the discussion.
DharmasMom, my analogy isn't ridiculous. It's pretty solid.


----------



## DharmasMom (Jul 4, 2010)

Lenny said:


> Dog digging under a fence and getting out(or whatever happened) doesn't compare, not even close, to checking paperwork, opening a kennel, putting a leash on a dog, walking him/her to the vet area, checking paper work again, getting the drugs out, finding a vein, triple checking paper work, insterting needle and taking the life out of a dog.
> Also, comparing the above to the dog accidently getting run over is beyond comprehension.
> We are all just disagreeing here. It's hard to tell in text but I'm not getting upset by the discussion.
> DharmasMom, my analogy isn't ridiculous. It's pretty solid.


Your analogy is ridiculous because someone who murders a child is a psychopath who does so maliciously and with the intent to do so. There is no "accident" involved. This was an accident, a horrible, horrible accident. There was no malicious intent to hurt these people. Apples and oranges. 

No one has claimed you are upset. I hope you are not upset. I think it is an interesting discussion and I think we are discussing it like adults should, respectfully and civilly. I always enjoy hearing other people's opinion and debating issues with them. Unfortunately, many times, discussions like these turn into bickering and go downhill from there and the thread ends up locked. Believe it or not, I DO respect your opinion, even if I adamantly do not agree with it. 


Oh, and if the mistake happened and the dog was accidentally tagged then all the checking, double checking and triple checking in the world wouldn't have changed things since the dog was already tagged. That is why the investigation needs to be done- to see HOW the mistake occurred and to ensure it never, ever happens again.


----------



## Rott-n-GSDs (Jul 7, 2010)

There's no way on EARTH I leave one of my dogs for even a second in a shelter. If they have a policy that requires a hold for whatever reason, I fight it. If I lose, I sleep on the dang kennel floor with my dog until they release him.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I agree with you... and in red, that about sums it up. 

Human beings have a great deal of risk aversion but at the end of the day accidents happen. Going overboard because of an accident only ends up costing society as a whole.





selzer said:


> Ouch! You are firing me from a really crappy job where I make next to nothing and have to put dogs to sleep. Now I can apply for unemployment benefits, help with my mortgage or rent, help with my utilities, help with medical, and possibly keep all of these benefits while getting a GED and a college degree.
> 
> In the meantime, the shelter loses a worker that made a mistake. How many of us lose our jobs when we make a mistake? How many of us have ever made a mistake?
> 
> ...


----------



## marshies (May 18, 2011)

I'm not familiar with American law, but I think it wouldn't be too different from Canadian law. But wouldn't the responsibility be with the animal control, since the employee acted negligently while at work. So technically, the employee can turn around and say, well, the agency was negligent in training. At least that's how negligence would be in Canada. 

I agree with the ruling so that others who are involved with pets will really be more diligent in their care and treatment of our beloved pets, but I really think it should be directed towards the organization.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 25, 2005)

DharmasMom said:


> No one has claimed you are upset.
> Oh, and if the mistake happened and the dog was accidentally tagged then all the checking, double checking and triple checking in the world wouldn't have changed things since the dog was already tagged. That is why the investigation needs to be done- to see HOW the mistake occurred and to ensure it never, ever happens again.


I know no one claimed I was upset. Just making sure. Hard to tell in text.

On what you said above, then the person who tagged the dog to be put down should have triple checked. Heck, I read over emails three times before I send them at work and nothing dies if something is wrong in an email.

And my analogy is rock solid. Because it was to point out one thing isn't always to blame for the other. "Accident" or not.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In red usually, that's another bizzare thing about this case.

I do not mean this as a put down, because I don't expect you to be familiar with U.S. law (and the social mores which are VERY different here) the underlying message being, _especially_ in the state in question, what's more important a dog's life or a human's?




marshies said:


> I'm not familiar with American law, but I think it wouldn't be too different from Canadian law. But wouldn't the responsibility be with the animal control, since the employee acted negligently while at work. So technically, the employee can turn around and say, well, the agency was negligent in training. At least that's how negligence would be in Canada.
> 
> I agree with the ruling so that others who are involved with pets will really be more diligent in their care and treatment of our beloved pets, but I really think it should be directed towards the organization.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

I think that what blame is not held by the owners should be by the entity that makes the policies, and trains the employees too. Why oh why is that dog spending the week-end in a shelter after the owner found him? 

That is my major beef with this whole thing. If that dog was not there, then the employee would not have tagged him, and the tech would not have euth'd him. 

About double and triple checking the euth list, yeah, that would be what we monday morning quarterbacks would do, if we spent a week volunteering at a kill-shelter, tagging dogs to be euth'd, and putting dogs down. We would be looking for any out for the dog. We would be crying as we led the dog down the aisle to the needle. 

But after week one goes into week two, and month one goes into month six, and we lead hundreds of dogs down that aisle that we can find no out for, I am sorry, but we are not going to probably double and triple check each and every dog on the euth list. We would have to protect ourselves within our minds to just go on every day, and we would not be shedding tears as we lead the dog to the needle. 

It is not the fault of the workers who have to put down dogs, it is the fault of irresponsible dog owners who dump their dogs. Mistakes ARE going to happen. If this shelter puts down five dogs per year, this mistake would never have happened. If this shelter puts down a thousand dogs a year it is far more likely.


----------



## nmlvaio101 (Apr 28, 2011)

I am glad. It's just awkward to considered any family pet an object (in the eyes of a court). For many GSD owners, we raised them as a child, train them every day, and they protect/ comfort us. And for anyone to say they are an object of our possession is just wrong. And for people to think about the money investments is just wrong, but we do invest countless money and hours caring for them. For a court to tell us they are only worth a few bucks is pointless.


----------

