Glen Highland Farm

[Journey]

Just curios why GHF refers to all as "guardians" and not owners of either newly adopted or surrender dogs?

 

Karen

[Guest TheRuffMuttGang]

My bet is that this has something to do with humans merely being a stepping stone for a dog in its life...that we don't really "own" dogs but rather escort them through the part of their life in which they are physical beings. This sounds like an idea that Lillie could possibly agree with after speaking with her extensively about a dog I planned to adopt.

[Lenajo]

I don't know why people encourage that movement.

 

I own my dogs, period. Doesn't mean they aren't well treated, wanted, or loved, but when it comes down to it they aren't human, and that's a good thing. I can do a lot more for them as a property owner than their guardian.

 

California laws I call them.... They always sound good, then you think about what would happen if you took your "ward" in for vet care and the vet didnt' agree with what you wanted. Do they call DHR? or heavens, you want to euthanize your old, sick dog...but the vet thinks at least 2 more months of misery can be squeezed out because he doesn't know her like you do. Nope, no opinion allowed for you..."you are just an escort for the phsyical being". No rights for you...more rights for the state. care for your dogs our way, or you'll lose custody for being an "unfit guardian". yeehaw.

[OurBoys]

Personally, I consider my dogs as my 'kids'. Because I can't actually be their mom, I can see where I am their guardian. I really don't care what the 'title' is. Bottom line is I'm responsible.

[Journey]

Personally, I consider my dogs as my 'kids'. Because I can't actually be their mom, I can see where I am their guardian. I really don't care what the 'title' is. Bottom line is I'm responsible.

 

 

But see this is what I was wondering - why? Looking back at the issue in Ca. about "guardian vs owner" if you're the guardian you may not ultimately be "responsible" nor the owner! I do care what the "title" is, I don't want someone saying they are not mine that I am simply their "guardian". I paid/pay for them and I am responsible for them at the same time.

 

I just can't see a "rescue" org going this way. Are they too just "guardians" while the dogs are there? The term guardian to me leaves way too much room for Uncle Sam to get involved.

 

Karen

[OurBoys]

You're kidding?!?!? CA actually has a law like that??? I'm glad I don't live in CA. I agree. It's my money and no one knows my dogs better than I do. It's not easy making a life & death decision and if I'm not in denial & decide my dog/cat is suffering, a part of me dies with them.

[Guest TheRuffMuttGang]

Based on word of mouth (perhaps an adopter can verify this for us), GHF has a clause in their adoption contract that states if they--the rescue--feels that the home is no longer suitable they can take the dog back at anytime. Hence the term guardian. If this is true, GHF does still in fact own all of the dogs they adopt out.

[Lenajo]

No way would I adopt under that clause. It's appropriate to have to qualify and have criteria to maintain ownership - but unlimited "guardianship" for GHF? no way! Thats basically one person's whim of whether you keep the dog or not...one person. Sheesh.

[Root Beer]

Based on word of mouth (perhaps an adopter can verify this for us), GHF has a clause in their adoption contract that states if they--the rescue--feels that the home is no longer suitable they can take the dog back at anytime. Hence the term guardian. If this is true, GHF does still in fact own all of the dogs they adopt out.

 

That's funny because every shelter/rescue I've ever adopted from had a similar clause. In fact, the SPCA I got Sammie from had a clause that they could do a home visit at any time and that they could take the dog if the home was not suitable.

 

I thought that, and the fact that the dog, if no longer wanted or cannot be cared for, must be returned to the rescue/shelter that he or she was adopted from, was standard.

 

I'll take a look at Dean's contract when I get a chance, but I did read it thoroughly and nothing in it jumped out at me as being any different from any other adoption contract I had ever signed. The only thing I ever signed that basically said "your dog, see-ya, bye!" was from Speedy's breeder.

 

Personally, I think that GHF uses "guardian" on the website to convey the fact that they see the dogs as part of the family in their new packs. The short blurbs on the website are happy ending stories. Guardian is, I think, in keeping with that tone.

 

Edited to Add: If you page through some of the other pages on the site, particularly the one for "Relinquish a dog" the word, "guardian" is not used. I really don't think they use "guardian" to try to imply that the adoptor does not own the dog. As an adoptor I know I am not treated as if Dean were not "mine all mine".

[OurBoys]

We did-twice. We adopted JJ and Jake both from different rescue services. We don't have a problem with it for 2 reasons. #1-They aren't going to step in and 'take' them away from us just because we do things differently than they do. IMO, they aren't Big Brother. Yes, you have to fill out an app and they do a home inspection but they don't tell you how to raise them. They are there for you if you have questions but they don't have strict 'it has to be this way or else' attitude once the adoption is final. #2-No one knows what the future holds. If I die tomorrow, is my DH going to be able to take care of my mom, our 2 dogs, 1 cat and work full time? If not, then it gives me peace of mind knowing if he feels he has to give the dogs back, they'll be going to someone who will care for them as much as we did.

 

But that's just my .02.

[Liz P]

GHF has exercised their rights before on dogs people have adopted. You don't really own a dog you get from them. I wouldn't agree to those terms either.

[sharkie]

if you're a guardian, shouldn't they pay you to keep the dog instead?

 

I thought that, and the fact that the dog, if no longer wanted or cannot be cared for, must be returned to the rescue/shelter that he or she was adopted from, was standard.

 

thats the same with the two shelters i adopted skye and clover from and this clause seems perfectly reasonable to me. also, many of these dogs ended up in the shelter because they're not cared for and if they end up in the same mistreating environment i think they should be allowed to go back.

[sharkie]

on the other hand, (this may open a can of worms...) i'm also sick of people elevating dogs to the human level.

[OurBoys]

GHF has exercised their rights before on dogs people have adopted.

 

I don't live in their state and it might be different here so I'm a bit confused. Even with a contract, I would think before they could come on your property or in your house, they would still have to have your permission. And then, wouldn't they still have to have a court order before removing any dog (property)? If not, isn't that stealing? Don't they have to prove any mistreatings?

[Journey]

Edited to Add: If you page through some of the other pages on the site, particularly the one for "Relinquish a dog" the word, "guardian" is not used. I really don't think they use "guardian" to try to imply that the adoptor does not own the dog. As an adoptor I know I am not treated as if Dean were not "mine all mine".

 

 

No, actually they do refer to previous owners as "guardians" DIAMOND: A 2 1/2 year old Border Collie, Diamond is a loving, friendly, gentle girl who enjoys people. She is a very good natured and adjusts easily to new situations. She would be a wonderful companion and could easily be a solo dog though she likes to be around Border Collies, too. Diamond is not high energy, she has a more even tempered energy level. A very loving girl, she is delightful. Diamond is good with cats. She was relinquished to the Farm because her previous guardians had no time for her. She was in one home since a pup and had another Border Collie living with her. She came from NY.

 

No way would I touch a contract indicating I was only a "guardian". I can completely understand clauses that say they must be returned to original rescue if circumstances get bad and the owner cannot care for the dog anymore. That's a safety net for the dog. But using the term guardian makes me think they are playing doG.

 

And yes, it does make me wonder who should pay for what. If your the guardian of a child doesn't the state pay you? That's why I so dislike the term......it means what it means, you are not the owner and they can come in and remove said property (the dog) that you paid for - on a whim.

 

Karen

[kelpiegirl]

This may not wash in NY state. Dogs are considered property in NY state. So, if this WAS ever put to the litigational test, this term may not be worth the paper it is written on. So, the fact that dogs are considered property, the term guardian in the contract, may vitiate any such contract.

Julie

[Lenajo]

There is a big difference between clear clauses about how the dog will be kept/must be return to that rescue if owner dies, etc...

 

and an unlimited license called "guardiadship" that meanss they can come get the dog back at any time, for *any* reason, that that the rescue group sees fit.

[sharkie]

Adopter's Statement of Commitment
All of the above information I have given is true and complete. Should an un-neutered or unspayed dog
be placed with me, I agree to have it altered within one month of adoption or by a date agreed upon by me
and the Rescue representive. I also agree that this dog will reside in my home. I will provide the dog with
adequate food, water, shelter, training, affection and medical care and the dog will not be tied out or on a
run. Fencing will be in place or some other form of containment, as agreed upon. I understand that Lillie
Goodrich/Glen Highland Farm, is not responsible for the accuracy of information received about the
temperament, habits or physical condition of dogs available for adoption. However, all information
provided is given in an effort to do the best in knowing a dog prior to adoption.

 

actually i think the term guardian just refers to their philosophy...in the statement above they don't mention about you not owning the dog.

[mbc1963]

I personally prefer the term "guardian," just for the simple fact that I think living beings are distinctly different from stereos, say, or iPods. I own my TV set and my car. But my dog is another live thing that I keep in my care. I'm not sure I technically have the right to own any other living thing. Since I've had Buddy, I've gotten really philosophical. I kind of lean toward thinking that we created dogs when we domesticated them, without any particularly strong "right" to do so. It's our job to caretake the things we've created so they do the best they can in the world. But it's a different responsibility from ownership.

 

That's not a legal viewpoint, obviously, and I wouldn't want anyone else having the right to come take Buddy away from me. But it's a philosophy that I suspect informs GHF's choice of the word "guardian."

 

Mary

[Brandon M]

I coincider myself the owner and guardian of my dogs. But I was thinking to be the owner you have to be able to sell it if you want to. So if you cannot sell it, but rather give it back to the previous owner, then maybe the term guardian is appropriate.

[Dixie_Girl]

Well, just the fact that rescues ask for an adoption donation, or adoption fee, with a slick lawyer, the rescue could at any time claim true ownership of said dog, and you are simply the guardian. Because some things I have heard about GH is hearsay, I won't repeat those.

[Guest TheRuffMuttGang]

You won't get the direct terms of the contract unless you adopt a dog from GHF. The statement sharkie posted is from the application, I believe, because I remember reading it myself. I doubt Lillie would approve of the direct words from her contract being used here, so even those who have adopted from her probably can't write word-for-word what's on their contract.

 

But I know of at least one situation where Lillie "exercised her rights" of the contract and took a dog back against the owner's will because she thought it was the best thing for the dog. I was told by this person that the contract stated that she had a right to do so if she thought the home was no longer suitable for the dog so she felt like she didn't have much of a choice. If dogs are in fact property in NY state, an adopter probably has some footing for a lawsuit if they chose to pursue one.

 

Either way, from what I've been told, the terms of GHF's contract do not really give ownership to the adopters.

 

MOST rescues DO have a clause that REQUIRES a dog that can no longer be kept by the adopters to be returned to said rescue. I have such a clause on my own adoption contract. I do not, however, have a clause that states that I can take your dog from you if I think it is in the dog's best interest. I CAN take a dog from you if I find out you lied on your application, though, but that's a whole 'nother story, really. I could not legally go take one of my adopter's dogs from them if I thought they were, say, abusing it without filing a lawsuit to get the dog back. If any of the terms of the contract are broken, that is grounds for removing the dog from the home, via legal methods, not just calling the owners and saying "I need my dog back."

[Root Beer]

No, actually they do refer to previous owners as "guardians" DIAMOND: A 2 1/2 year old Border Collie, Diamond is a loving, friendly, gentle girl who enjoys people. She is a very good natured and adjusts easily to new situations. She would be a wonderful companion and could easily be a solo dog though she likes to be around Border Collies, too. Diamond is not high energy, she has a more even tempered energy level. A very loving girl, she is delightful. Diamond is good with cats. She was relinquished to the Farm because her previous guardians had no time for her. She was in one home since a pup and had another Border Collie living with her. She came from NY.

 

Karen

 

No, actually I said that they refer to previous owners as "relinquishers" and adoptors as "adoptors" on the other pages of the site. The quote that you have presented is from the same page we were discussing originally.

[Journey]

Either way, from what I've been told, the terms of GHF's contract do not really give ownership to the adopters.

 

Thanks RuffMutt - your insight and knowledge has answered many of my unasked questions. I have no interest in dealing with GHF but was wondering about the terms and verbiage they have on their website. Questions answered, thanks! I hope no one else falls victim to GHF taking back a dog against the new owners will.

 

Karen

[Guest TheRuffMuttGang]

Since I have not actually SEEN GHF's contract, all of what I have said is based on word of mouth. I have talked directly to adopters and heard this from them, but I do feel the need to note that I have not in fact actually seen this with my own eyes. But I don't doubt it's the truth, either.