Being wronged - how do you get past it?

--LOS--

Many things you will never get over and you simply have to get on with it. All you can do is work on creating more happy memories so the bad memories will eventually recede.

PizzamanIRL

Wrong forum. Kind of funny considering the topic.

Smidge

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Leaving aside the whole personal aspect of your post, being wronged etc, I think you should post your problem in animal and pets issues where you might get some advice about how to find out what happened to the dogs.
There's a lot of detail left out in your posts such as the exact arrangement you had made with the people you left the dogs with, or if you or they are affiliated with a registered charity etc.

Its a peculiar tale alright.
Op gave the dogs to someone who in turn gave them to someone else and now OP wants to know about the dogs from the new owners and they dont want to speak to the OP.
Is that about correct?

NewYork1979

Smidge wrote: »

Its a peculiar tale alright.
Op gave the dogs to someone who in turn gave them to someone else and now OP wants to know about the dogs from the new owners and they dont want to speak to the OP.
Is that about correct?

There's very little peculiar about it but apologies for the lack of the full tale so to speak.

Basically I volunteer with a charity, I took on these puppies as the charity hadn't room, so I did it myself as I was made aware of the situation personally and I didn't want to leave them where they were, my call. I decided to take it on, pay for everything myself, neutering, food etc. I looked after them in my own home until I found good homes for them. While I wasn't under the charity, I was very careful with my homecheck for the dogs etc. I adopted the dogs to these people however I hadn't the adoption agreement signed as I was calling back myself to collect them and take them to the vet. I did all this as I knew the people in question hadn't much money. Sadly the dogs were moved before I contacted the people to arrange for me to call to take them to the vet etc.

I heard from woman who introduced me to these people that the father got rid of them as one of the dogs got sick, the sickness was a slight cold which I knew about and which I gave my advice on and I kept in touch. The dogs were apparently given to a "friend" of the father's.

That's about the size of it.

Thanks everyone for reading this, some food for thought.

thegreatgonzo

NewYork1979 wrote: »

There's very little peculiar about it but apologies for the lack of the full tale so to speak.

Basically I volunteer with a charity, I took on these puppies as the charity hadn't room, so I did it myself as I was made aware of the situation personally and I didn't want to leave them where they were, my call. I decided to take it on, pay for everything myself, neutering, food etc. I looked after them in my own home until I found good homes for them. While I wasn't under the charity, I was very careful with my homecheck for the dogs etc. I adopted the dogs to these people however I hadn't the adoption agreement signed as I was calling back myself to collect them and take them to the vet. I did all this as I knew the people in question hadn't much money. Sadly the dogs were moved before I contacted the people to arrange for me to call to take them to the vet etc.

I heard from woman who introduced me to these people that the father got rid of them as one of the dogs got sick, the sickness was a slight cold which I knew about and which I gave my advice on and I kept in touch. The dogs were apparently given to a "friend" of the father's.

That's about the size of it.

Thanks everyone for reading this, some food for thought.

So essentially you assumed ownership of the dogs if you were footing the bill for everything. Did you say you involved the gardai, what did they say?

NewYork1979

The guards were lovely about it and tried to talk to the father on the basis of just letting me know they were ok but he just ignored them and there was nothing they could push him on as there was no evidence of them being harmed, same with the ISPCA. The minute I said to the father that I wanted to know what happened to them, he said sur there was nothing signed, pr88k. Basically turned my goodwill to him and his family against me.

Sadly the fact I'd no agreement signed didn't help my cause, something I always did but because I was outside the charity this time, I delayed it until I had done what I wanted to do vet wise. Lesson learned. To be honest I am not going to rehome anything for quite a while, my confidence is gone, I obviously missed something.

thegreatgonzo

That's very frustrating OP, my take on it was that as they hadn't signed anything and you had assumed the financial responsibility of the dogs that what they had done was unlawfully disposed of your property.
(Just to clarify I don't think of dogs as property myself, but the law does :-)).
I'd check out my consumer rights just out of of curiosity to see where I stood.

NewYork1979

I might speak to a guard in one particular station again, he thought I should make a statement about what happened but another guard said it might go better if she could just find out what happened without going down the statement route but they ignored her and it was left at that. I appreciate the guards time and I didn't want to push it as I wasn't sure what grounds I had given I'd nothing signed, the morality of the situation means nothing.

Smidge

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

That's very frustrating OP, my take on it was that as they hadn't signed anything and you had assumed the financial responsibility of the dogs that what they had done was unlawfully disposed of your property.
(Just to clarify I don't think of dogs as property myself, but the law does :-)).
I'd check out my consumer rights just out of of curiosity to see where I stood.

Nobody had anything signed!!!
Dogs were handed over without any paper work

the_monkey

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

but seriously, explain how you, personally, were wronged?

Do you think these people not explaining themselves to you is you being wronged? Why do you think they own you an explanation as to what they did with these dogs?

To add, I once took in a rescue dog, Had it for a two years and loved that dog but he was to big and unpredictable to have when I had my first child. I re-homed him. I wanted to check on him but my wife and dad advised to just cut the ties and that what I did. In hindsight it was for the best. I don't owe the person who first gave me the dog any explanation as to where that dog is now.

Funny I did the very same thing ... allthough replace "re-homed" with "put in a sack with some bricks and dumped in the local canal".

But you know, we got a smaller more child friendly dog - so everyone was a winner !!

thegreatgonzo

Smidge wrote: »

Nobody had anything signed!!!
Dogs were handed over without any paper work

Yes but the OP seems to have entered in to some kind of verbal agreement where he/she was still paying for costs such vet bills, eventual microchipping etc while the dog was in the care of these people. This might give her ownership status. It's a messy situation but it's worth looking into.

Smidge

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Yes but the OP seems to have entered in to some kind of verbal agreement where he/she was still paying for costs such vet bills, eventual microchipping etc while the dog was in the care of these people. This might give her ownership status. It's a messy situation but it's worth looking into.

In essence sadly, it doesn't as the dogs were the property of the charity. She was fostering them and assumed the costs off her own bat. Thats all well and good and very decent of her but she had no business handing these dogs out without signed paper work from the charity.
I hate to say it, but my feeling is that she may be in a tight spot now that the dogs are on the missing list and there are no signatures to be had for these pups.
Have worked for sanctuaries and have NEVER heard of the like tbh.

RobYourBuilder

the_monkey wrote: »

Funny I did the very same thing ... allthough replace "re-homed" with "put in a sack with some bricks and dumped in the local canal".

But you know, we got a smaller more child friendly dog - so everyone was a winner !!

Everyone except the dog you drowned. I really hope that you are on the wind up.

thegreatgonzo

Smidge wrote: »

In essence sadly, it doesn't as the dogs were the property of the charity. She was fostering them and assumed the costs off her own bat. Thats all well and good and very decent of her but she had no business handing these dogs out without signed paper work from the charity.
I hate to say it, but my feeling is that she may be in a tight spot now that the dogs are on the missing list and there are no signatures to be had for these pups.
Have worked for sanctuaries and have NEVER heard of the like tbh.

Well I'm not sure the charity was ever involved in this case which is probably why no correct procedures were ever followed. It just sounds like she made a major error in judgement regarding the people she gave the dogs to and another serious error in failing to ensure the right protocol was adhered to.

Smidge

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Well I'm not sure the charity was ever involved in this case which is probably why no correct procedures were ever followed. It just sounds like she made a major error in judgement regarding the people she gave the dogs to and another serious error in failing to ensure the right protocol was adhered to.

I thought she said she took them(foster) from the charity where she was a volunteer? Thats what she said in the OP.

thegreatgonzo

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Everyone except the dog you drowned. I really hope that you are on the wind up.

I'm pretty sure that it is if you read the post it was responding to:)

thegreatgonzo

Smidge wrote: »

I thought she said she took them(foster) from the charity where she was a volunteer? Thats what she said in the OP.

Maybe, it's hard to know exactly what happened. I thought it was that she intervened before the charity was involved as they were too stretched.

Smidge

thegreatgonzo wrote: »

Maybe, it's hard to know exactly what happened. I thought it was that she intervened before the charity was involved as they were too stretched.

Story is very muddled tbh TGG. I read back now and what it appears is that while working for a charity, pups were presented but there wasn't any space for them(odd but anyway). She then assumed responsibility for them off her own bat, so nothing whatsoever to do with the charity at all.
She says she found a family for them but admits they had very little money upon home checks etc( a big no-no for possible adoptees)but handed the dogs over anyway with no papers signed(still not sure where the papers came from as these dogs had nothing to do with the charity and were, just "given" to the OP)
Something justs seems off with the story.

thegreatgonzo

Smidge wrote: »

Story is very muddled tbh TGG. I read back now and what it appears is that while working for a charity, pups were presented but there wasn't any space for them(odd but anyway). She then assumed responsibility for them off her own bat, so nothing whatsoever to do with the charity at all.
She says she found a family for them but admits they had very little money upon home checks etc( a big no-no for possible adoptees)but handed the dogs over anyway with no papers signed(still not sure where the papers came from as these dogs had nothing to do with the charity and were, just "given" to the OP)
Something justs seems off with the story.

Yep. I would give OP the benefit of the doubt but it's a peculiar chain of events alright.

Savage Tyrant

The father wanted rid of the dogs, possibly due to one of them being sick?
Are they an urban based or rural based family?

I'd hate to suggest, but it does at least niggle in my mind that "get rid" might mean a long walk with a shotgun. Which would partly explain their reluctance to furnish you with any details as to their new home or owners.

thegreatgonzo

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

The father wanted rid of the dogs, possibly due to one of them being sick?
Are they an urban based or rural based family?

I'd hate to suggest, but it does at least niggle in my mind that "get rid" might mean a long walk with a shotgun. Which would partly explain their reluctance to furnish you with any details as to their new home or owners.

Oh I'd say they are dead alright but that would be preferable to some other possibilities which are in my head.

Smidge

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

The father wanted rid of the dogs, possibly due to one of them being sick?
Are they an urban based or rural based family?

I'd hate to suggest, but it does at least niggle in my mind that "get rid" might mean a long walk with a shotgun. Which would partly explain their reluctance to furnish you with any details as to their new home or owners.

It seems they were "given" to another family.
I think a shotgun would be the least of worries here sadly. So many dogs being used as bait atm, very very sad.

NewYork1979

Smidge wrote: »

Story is very muddled tbh TGG. I read back now and what it appears is that while working for a charity, pups were presented but there wasn't any space for them(odd but anyway). She then assumed responsibility for them off her own bat, so nothing whatsoever to do with the charity at all.
She says she found a family for them but admits they had very little money upon home checks etc( a big no-no for possible adoptees)but handed the dogs over anyway with no papers signed(still not sure where the papers came from as these dogs had nothing to do with the charity and were, just "given" to the OP)
Something justs seems off with the story.

I'll clarify.

It's not unusual for a charity to have no room. Ask anyone in a charity that.

I took them in because otherwise they were going to be left there and there wasn't good. I neutered their mum who was going to be looked after.

I did it 100% on my own, I wasn't working under the charity. The family weren't poor in that they couldn't feed the dogs. I home checked them and I got a good reference from someone I know. I wanted the dogs neutered, microchipped, vaccinated etc, I said I'd do this for the animals and all I asked was they were well looked after.

I was planning on getting them to sign some sort of agreement but not under the charity name.

I absolutely fu88ed up not having anything signed. Part of me wanted to wait until i took them for the last vet visit and to make sure they were settled but I was wrong. I said it several times that they were to come back to me if it wasn't working out and I checked in. I didn't just fire the puppies anywhere and to anyone.

Sadly no one on here can make me feel worse than I do. If taking personal responsibility for my part in this was a way of not being tortured, I'd be fine now.

thegreatgonzo

I certainly don't want to make you feel worse OP and I hope you do get closure.

NewYork1979

Savage Tyrant wrote: »

The father wanted rid of the dogs, possibly due to one of them being sick?
Are they an urban based or rural based family?

I'd hate to suggest, but it does at least niggle in my mind that "get rid" might mean a long walk with a shotgun. Which would partly explain their reluctance to furnish you with any details as to their new home or owners.

They are urban based. I was in contact with them when the pup had a cold, organised a medicine through my vet.

Listen, I've no doubt they're gone, I'll forever blame myself but I just wish I knew. I'm not looking for sympathy, just trying to deal with it.

the_monkey

RobYourBuilder wrote: »

Everyone except the dog you drowned. I really hope that you are on the wind up.

Course I am

NewYork1979

bilbot79 wrote: »

Dogs trust are overrun and have to put dogs down all the time. It's a harsh reality and you come across as exactly the kind of person that couldn't cope with that. Very loving very caring and extremely emotional. Probably best for them not to tell you for various reasons. Not least of which being bad press and the risk of losing a volunteer. I think you have a right to know but I'm not sure you should be doing this if you can't cope. I would hazard a guess they are trying to avoid your reaction to a reality that you could never be realistic about.
I think you're a very nice person and you should accept this and move on instead of melting your head. Understand that those people are outside of your span of control

I do value every input but you really have no idea of my background, I've seen and dealt with the very harsh reality of animal welfare for a long time and I've coped. I think this came after a long line of harsh realities and it has snapped me.

bilbot79

NewYork1979 wrote: »

I do value every input but you really have no idea of my background, I've seen and dealt with the very harsh reality of animal welfare for a long time and I've coped. I think this came after a long line of harsh realities and it has snapped me.

I had actually deleted my post in light of other comments. It's hard to judge without much information. Sorry. I feel for you. Don't feel bad, you had the best of intentions and you can't control what other people do. You've likely done more good than harm in the world and deserve to give yourself a break for that.

Mongfinder General

NewYork1979 wrote: »

I do value every input but you really have no idea of my background, I've seen and dealt with the very harsh reality of animal welfare for a long time and I've coped. I think this came after a long line of harsh realities and it has snapped me.

I don't particularly like animals but anybody who is cruel to one should be pistol whipped to a pulp.

NewYork1979

Thanks to everyone for their comments and input, I really do appreciate them.

My post wasn't meant to be a pity party, I'm just struggling with what happened.

Thanks again.