Owner Of Mutts And Moms Dog Rescue Agency Files Police Report After Claims Of Death Threats


The owner of Mutts and Moms dog rescue agency is claiming that she has received death threats after the public has heard the story of Ellen DeGeneres giving an adopted dog, Iggy, away to her hairdresser and her two daughters, ages 11 and 12.

Marina Baktis, the owner of Mutts and Moms, said that DeGeneres violated the organization’s policy by giving Iggy away to another family without notifying them. Baktis then took the dog away from the hairdresser.

Despite DeGeneres’ pleas, Baktis refused to give back the dog because she violated her agreement with the agency. Also the shelter said it has a policy of not giving puppies to families with children younger than 14.

Baktis said, “If Ellen wants to start her own rescue group then she can decide where the dogs go. Who is she to say who is a good home and whose not? And who is she to say where I should place my animals and how I should do this? I don’t tell her how to run her show.”

On “Good Morning America”, Batkis’ lawyer played a message that he said is from a DeGeneres public relations representative.

The voice mail said: “We’re filing a legal case against you. We’re going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization.”

Batkis stated that she would not return Iggy because of the way she has been treated by DeGeneres. She also said she has received death threats and is afraid for her safety. She filed a police report with the Pasadena Police Department last night.

DeGeneres stated on her show today, “This has become so insane. It’s not even, it’s just just the dog just needs to go to the family. It’s like the fight should … not be about anything. It just needs to be in a good home. That’s all you’re supposed to do is put a dog in a loving home.”

Source: ABC News, TMZ

130 Responses to “Owner Of Mutts And Moms Dog Rescue Agency Files Police Report After Claims Of Death Threats”

  1. Stefani says:

    This woman is on a freakin ego trip. Why would she refuse to give the dog back to a family that cares for it because of what DEGENERES has done?

    This egomaniac is holding people responsible (hairdresser, children, and DOG!!!!) who should not be held responsible.

    “My” dogs?

    “My” dogs?

    So that’s it — she sees the dog as “hers.” She’s not interested in being of SERVICE to the animals she rescues, she’s interested in . . . her proprietorship of them.

    She is acting like a BEEEOTCH.

    Of course, no one deserves death threats, but it’s her reprehensible behavior that has triggered the outrage, NOT the mere fact that Degeneres chose to disclose her reprehensible behavior.

    Deep down, this woman must be embarrassed and ashamed for how she is acting to be so defensive. So, Ellen told the world. Big whup. She signed no confidentiality agreement . . .

    The woman’s mad people know what she did. Too bad. Tough luck. It’s YOUR behavior, why is it people’s responsibility to help you hide it?


  2. mittens says:

    when you act INSANE,Mutts and Moms, people respond in kind.if i had money i’d have no problem sueing your ass into the ground. normally i would never consider it appropriate to hurt such an organization but sick control freaks have no business being in control of the lives of animals and other humans.

    once a person gives you money and assumes responsibility for the pet it’s THEIR property, not yours. my understanding is it’s even very difficult for dog officers and animal control people who are empowered by the laws( that is deputized by local authorites) to remove a pet from it’s rightful owner save in cases of extreme abuse. and since when are small dogs inappropriate for children who are nearly teenagers? only in your rigid deluded mind. youre just flipped out because someone dared to violate your unreasonably applied rules which in fact have no basis in law. youre not god andyou have certainly proved you wouldnt know what was best for an animal through your cruelty.

    get help. do you enjoy making little girls cry so you can indulge your overweening need to police other people and their lives? youre not helping these animals by denying them happpy homes that dont pass your own twisted set of unbendable control freak rules. get help through therapy not by feeding your illness through your ‘ charity’ work which is little more than a platform for your compulsive propensities.

  3. Carol says:

    Sounds like Batkis is using Iggy as a pawn—she’s not returning the dog because of how she was treated by Ellen!!! And she actually made that public!!! I guess she is not looking out for the pup’s best interest after all! How she feels about Ellen should have no bearing on whether the dog whould go back to the hairdresser. Shame on you Batkis—rules are rules, but it seems that’s not what you are thinking of!

  4. Carol says:

    Oops, I did forget to mention that she (or anyone else) never deserves death threats!

  5. PetMono says:

    Somewhat surprised how Craig’slist pet forum responded. Typically a savvy, emotional, pro-adoption group, one would have expected the forum to attack the shelter for taking dogs away from a home, from children. On the contrary, when the dust settled, the sentiment was that Ellen should have made the call to the shelter that she could not keep the dog. Also, Ellen should not have taken this public on her show.

    Here is what one forum member said about the shelter. “we adopted our dog, Apple from Mutts & Moms 2007-10-16 15:52:14 I feel bad for the kids, but I know first hand that this rescue isn’t made up of crazies and I feel bad that she is being made to look like a villain. I don’t think it was right for Ellen to take it to national tv - a little over dramatic. The rescue is run by one woman out of a corner pet shop that sells high end dog foods and boutique type toys and dog accessories. (…}
    For more details visit http://www.petmonologues.com/pet022207/?p=427

  6. Anonymous says:

    IMO, If the only reason she’s not giving the dog back to the family is the age of the kids, rather than abusive or neglectful behavior, that’s a little bizarre. She should tell her side of the story in the proper context if there’s some sort of overt problem with the family. Having any sort of blanket policy that doesn’t allow leeway for good homes with kids of that age might be costing more lives than it saves. Better to have a case by case attitude, or find someone with the time to evaluate the family properly.

    If this is some sort of personal agenda the media is the wrong place to air it on all sides. How about adults acting like adults for a change of pace?

  7. Anna says:

    Absolutely stupid! Wait….let me get this right Marina… so a Doberman Pincher (a big dog) will not bite or hurt a 12 yr. old, but a small dog like Iggy will hurt them?! You have NO clue what you’re talking about! Families with 12 yr. olds ALL over the world own dogs! You said that a little dog like Iggy could hurt them, but you’re willing to give them a big dog!!!!???? Are you just stupid! A big dog is more likely to hurt a 12 yr. old! You should get a life and learn more about what you’re doing, because ALL of America knows you’re just plain stupid! The home was a nice place for the dog, and you made a reason up just to get some publicity. Well guess what? Practically no one is on your side. “I will not be pushed around by the Ellen Degeneres’s of the world.” If you give it back, or not, you just embarrassed yourself in front of ALL America. Feel smart?! Ellen does so many nice things, and just put sooooo much $ into that dog, and you can care less.

  8. Tanya says:


    once you adopt them out, you may be curious, you may be hopeful, you may be loving, but you do not OWN them.

    How is she (ellen) qualified to know what a good home is? probably by common sense. DO YOU HAVE ANY???

  9. elizabeth says:

    This could have been and should have been resolved privately. Ellen’s heart is in the right place but she was wrong to take this public using her celebrity in the way she did.

  10. Jenny Bark says:

    Ellen did not take this public until M & M came over to do what they said was a home inspection. Instead the women grabed the dog & would not leave it go & called the cops in frount of the girls crying. Imo the cop would not have let her have the dog back if it did not have the chip still regestered to M&M. Imo it is time for Ellen to stop being such a wonderful women & sue, I don’t think their contract will hold up in court. If she reads her 12,435 comments ( last time I looked) I think she will agree & file a law suit, enough of being a good person time for her to act. I’m with Ellen.

  11. Stefani says:

    IMHO, Ellen SHOULD have contacted the rescue per the contract — which she admitted.

    However, also, IMHO, Ellen has EVERY right to talk about this, on her show or anywhere she wants. How can that “Mutts” lady expect Ellen or the hairdresser’s family to keep mum about what she has done? They don’t owe her that, and if she doesn’t want to face the music for her bad behavior, she shouldn’t have done it in the first place.

    It’s not their job to protect her from the outcry, or prevent it.

  12. Bridgett says:

    When you have dealings with celebrities there is a good chance it will go public. That is just the way it is. Ellen is a talk show host!!! She is going to talk about things that are near and dear to her.

    If this hysterical owner of M&M is going to stick to her guns, she owes Ellen alot of money. At the very least Ellen should get the adoption fee back and her $600 donation.

  13. Tanya says:

    Oh, and imagine if Ellen had come out on her show and discussed what a WONDERFUL shelter this was, and how great the people were, and that everyoen should go adopt from them.

    i’m sure this woman would have loved that exposure. but as someone just said, if you deal with celeberties, and want the good from it, you better be worth it, cause “it’s all gonna come out in the wash”. that’s just the way it goes.

    I do find that i’m becomming slightly frustrated with some (not most or all) of these specialized shelters. someone mentioned a book about this, and if you all have the title i’d love to read it.

    Shelter workers see so much uglyness, i think they want to “prove” to themselves that the home will not be ugly. But we all know you can’t do that. some people who are poor will make great parents. some people who are rich will make abusive parents. Making sure a parent will not declaw will not insure the parent doesn’t “devoice” a dog, or confine it to a bathroom the rest of its life.

    I couldn’t work at a shelter, due to the horrors those people face often. Poster Traci talks about a cat with rat bites that required surgery. due simply to owner neglect. but at some point, resuces need to remember that there is no “perfect home” and no matter how well you screen some good parents will be denied and some lousy parents will be approved.

    maybe getting *most* pets into *good* homes is better than getting all “your animals” in to “perfect” and “forever” homes.

  14. Bridgett says:

    “Baktis said, “If Ellen wants to start her own rescue group then she can decide where the dogs go. Who is she to say who is a good home and whose not? And who is she to say where I should place my animals and how I should do this? I don’t tell her how to run her show.””

    Aaahhh the hysterical ravings of a mad woman.

  15. Jan says:

    I hope Ellen does sue. Poor Iggy and Iggy’s family. What’s your next move “Mutts” lady? Euthanzie Iggy? Shame on you “Mutts” lady.

  16. Harry says:

    It’s very interesting that they “seized” the dog from the hairdresser’s house. Very much like OJ’s “sting”. However, as a legal matter, Mutts & Moms may not have had the legal right to take the pet from the hairdresser’s family. They may be guilty of burglary or larceny. The hairdresser had no privity of contract with Mutts & Moms and dogs and, unless Mutts & Moms filed a Uniform Commercial Code statement with respect to their “property” it is quite possible that the hairdresser’s family was the legitimate owner and was robbed. In any event, a court order should have been issued. It is also quite possible that the laws in California do not permit such discriminatory agreements that pets cannot go to a house with minor age children (unless there is a public safety issue). It’s the same as saying that they can’t go to a house with lesbians.

  17. Stefani says:

    Wow, Harry, that is a smart post. Never thought of that . . .

  18. Jenny Bark says:


    Redemption, by Nathan Winograd, I think is the book you are looking for. I think it is a great book, if this isn’t the book you are looking for I’m sorry.

  19. Lynn says:

    At what point does “checking up on a dog” become harrassment or stalking?

    Ellen did not sign the contract. Her partner, Portia, did. If I were Ellen I would charge the MandM with harrassment, stalking……you name it.

    And if there’s a tax attorney on this website take a look into the Mand M non-profit status. How does one know she’s not laundering pet boutique income through MandM [and paying no taxes].

    If MandM store is shut down…….and if dogs are kept on premises in cages…..can someone legally arrest MandM for neglect or something?

    Meanwhile Iggy suffers through all of this. Sucks. Really sucks.

  20. Jenny Bark says:

    Tanya, sorry about the typo on your name. A big sorry. I was up all night reading posts.

  21. Furbabies says:

    Harry, are you an attorney? If not, you sure missed your calling. You would be a great one!

    PS: They should give the pup back. It no longer “belongs” to that group. It was Ellen’s pet when she paid for everything!

  22. Lynn says:

    Harry - last night on LA news a woman was interviewed. She adopted from MandM. Not long afterwards she was walking the dog, sans leash, and the MandM drove up, parked their car, snatched the dog, and drove off wit it. That’s stalking in my book. No?

    Anyone live in Pasadena? Can you drive by and see if they’re open. If so, can you go inside and see if they have dogs in cages there?

  23. kaefamily says:

    “”some people who are poor will make great parents. some people who are rich will make abusive parents. Making sure a parent will not declaw will not insure the parent doesn’t “devoice” a dog”"
    VERY TRUE assessment! I CAN CERTAINLY and personally SUBSTANTIATE all of scenarios above.

  24. straybaby says:

    Harry says:
    October 17th, 2007 at 4:59 pm

    the pup was still micro-chipped under mutts and mom’s name. so that is why the cops let them take the dog. otherwise i’m not sure they would have.

  25. Debra says:

    And Ellen did not come off as a mad woman? I tend to side with Mutts and Moms. Ellen signed a contract and should have abided by it. Guess as it was just a dog–she didn’t need to read or give due diligence to her side of the bargain.

    I adopted from Milo Foundation (two times) and they have the same restriction. At the time of adoption, they were quite careful to verbalize this requirement and made sure I confirmed my understanding of same. I cannot vouch for Mutts and Moms but if they are anything like Milo, a tremendous effort is put into rescuing dogs. My Jelly was pulled with her sister from the Clovis Animal Shelter after the euthanization order was signed. They drove for hundreds of miles to save them. If Milo says they retain ownership and I am custodian, I am fine with that.

    Ellen is not passing the sniff test on this. Look at the time line. She adopted the pup on Sept 20. It was neutered and then went into training. It wasn’t specified whether the training was accomplished at her home, but sounded (to me) as though the dog was sent away. The dog had been at the hairdresser’s for TWO weeks. That left one or two weeks max that the dog resided in the Degeneres home. She GAVE up on the dog in a very short time. I adopted a fox terrier/cattle dog mix and he was an ungodly terror with my two kittens for MONTHS. I never gave up. He was tied to me or a tie down for 3 months and then never left unattended with the kittens for months. My point of view is that Ellen’s commitment to Iggy extended only as far as throwing some money at the problem and then giving up.

    Now she is threatening lawsuit against Mutts and Moms. I am really disappointed in her. M&M seems rather strident, but I can easily believe there is a very pushy, used to getting her own way celebrity diva behind the ‘tude.

  26. 2CatMom says:

    Now I’m really glad I didn’t follow the rule about microchips my cats’ shelter had in their contract. They had the same thing - the chip stays with them ‘for safety purposes.’ First thing I did was change the chip registration. So sorry, after checking with my attorney, I learned that since under the law the cats were my property, anything pertaining to them (including the chip was mine legally). And since the shelter shut down, if I hadn’t changed the chip and didn’t know about it closing my animals would be registered to a non-existent entity.

    Also, while its nice to know that they would always take the cats back, I also didn’t follow their ‘cats must come back to us’ clause. If something happens to me, my cats are provided for in my will and are bequeathed (remember, they are property under the law) to my dear cat loving friend who has agreed to give them a home.

    I agree with declaw and keeping them indoors restrictions, since these concern the animal’s safety, but some of this other stuff is just plain control freak stuff.

  27. Tanya says:


    This is again why i have problems with issues like contacts about how you will rasie your pet.

    What businness is it of yours, why the pet was given away? If it was given away to a loving home, it’s well cared for.

    I’ve brought some 10 pets into my home over my life. my pets become my kids. if a new pet was not getting along, if i felt my first pets were threatened, or were getting sick from fear, or any number of other reasons, i’d give away my new pet if i could find a loving home for it.

    it is not your job to judge what people do with their pets.

    It is not your job to assert that the only good pet parents are those who would not give up a pet for any reason. nor is it your job to assert that only people who view animals the way you do (as loved members of the family) have legal rights in this society.

    Ellen gave away her dog. note, HER dog. that is her right. no contract anywhere in the us can assert that you do not have the right to dispose of your property as you see fit, BARING ABUSE. you can’t leave a dog by the side of a road. but you can decide that your dog, and your cats would BOTH be happier if the dog found a loving home where it were the center of attention.

    Judgmental much?

  28. Stefani says:

    At any rate, I am not sure who this lady filed a police report against. It is not Ellen’s responsibility what people are doing over this.

  29. kiko says:

    $32 = Pet adoption fee charged by LA County Shelters. Includes deworming and age-appropriate vaccinations.

    $25-$100 = Average adoption fee charged by private rescue organizations in LA area. Includes deworming, age-appropriate vaccines, and usually spay/neuter surgery.

    $250-$500 = Purchase price charged by professional breeders for pet-quality Bichon Frise puppies. Includes deworming, age-appropriate vaccines, spay/neuter surgery, health guarantee, warranty against genetic deformities that may appear later in life, and official AKC registration papers.

    $250 = Starting price charged by Mutts & Moms for purchase, eh, excuse me, I mean “adoption” of puppies to non-celebrities. Includes deworming and age-appropriate vaccines. Does not include spay/neuter surgery.(Are the deworming and vaccines provided by the LA County shelter before M&M pulls the dogs from there?? Do LA taxpayers pay for these services and medications?)

    $600 = Price charged by Mutts & Moms for so-called “adoption” of puppies to celebrities. Includes deworming and age-appropriate vaccines. Does not include spay/neuter surgery.

  30. Dennis says:

    I agree with the notion that the dog should be with the family and that barring the dog from being with these kids isn’t a good idea. And I think both sides are out of control on this. The shelter should have met with the proposed owners and attempted to verify them as proper owners and let them keep the dog assuming they were otherwise acceptable. After all, the shelter’s purpose is to save pets and place them in good homes.

    But the issue here should be a lesson about contract law, about property ownership (as pets are unfortunately property), and about reading what we’re signing instead of dealing with the contract contents after something happens. Consulting an attorney is something best done before the lawsuits are needed - before the contract was signed. I don’t like all the terms that some of these have in them either, but the proper response should be to walk away, not sign it, or negotiate fairer terms, instead of having to fight the terms later on. Pet rights, pet status as property, and limits on what a shelter can put in such agreements are all good topics to talk to the State Legislatures about for them to cook up some new Laws. Each State varies on this type stuff.

    Depending upon the contract and the State Law, the property may have reverted in ownership when the original adopting party breeched the agreement. The shelter intended the contract language to permit them to rescue back a pet that wound up in a bad situation where it was no longer safe with the original adopter. The original intent was to protect the dog from abandonment and from being in bad situations after being abandoned. Of course, a good intention in this situation got lost in the press and emotions. A breech of the contract would mean seizure of the dog was simply taking back the shelter’s property because the parties to the agreement likely agreed to the ownership return in certain situations, one of which apparently occurred.

    My bet is that after this is all over with, Ellen or the partner who signed the contract will find herself on a shelters black list unable to adopt any pets. Not that I think that is fair either.

    …Don’t shoot the messenger…fix the Laws…

  31. straybaby says:

    interesting point Dennis. makes me wonder. . . .

    if a person has their pets covered in their will should something happen to them, what happens to any contract they may have signed with a rescue group as inflexible as M&M?

  32. sylvia says:

    The NY tv news this evening reports the Mutts and Moms tyrant has already placed the poor little Iggy in yet another home. So she has the dog in 3 or 4 homes in a month or so and grabs a dog out of a child’s arms and claims to be the life long controller of any pet she places and some people actually think she is about the welfare of animals. Give me a break!

  33. Bridgett says:

    She has already placed the dog!? So quite possibly if Ellen decides to pursue this legally… this dog could be ripped out of some other families life.

    I wonder if this woman didn’t have a friend who wanted the “Ellen” dog? Mighty suspicious that she would place this dog so quickly.

  34. Walter Slezak Admirer says:

    Ellen Degeneres and her over-the-top performance are what’s wrong with this picture.

    But for that, this matter would have remained private and there would be no talk of rescuers losing the public’s support or pet store owners losing business.

    Very few of you seem to get it. Degeneres (not DeGenerous, that’s for sure) is an actress and she used her acting skills in an attempt to get her way.

    Turn your lights on. I’m with the pet store broads on this one.

  35. sylvia says:

    Walter are you one of the “pet store broads”???

    No one is going to stop donating to rescues run by people who care about animals,and people and are not run by tyrants on an ego trip.
    I do donate regularly and even help place.

  36. Traci says:



    Good grief, haven’t we moved beyond the 1950s?

    Whatever, Dick.

  37. Jenny Bark says:


    Take a look at this. You guy know I’m not good on a computer but if I did this right it should tell you M & M lost their corp. status in Calf.. If I did it wrong you can find this information on tmz post.

  38. Di says:

    Would I give them a death threat?? Answer is definitely NO. Do they deserve death threats?? Well, maybe. Ha ha. There are so many pets who need to be rescued and M&M were so wrong on how they handeled the situation. They not only affected this family but the also jeopardized potential adoptions and donations with their facility.

  39. straybaby says:

    i don’t see ellen pursuing it if the dog has been placed. by the time it’s resolved the pup will be part of the new family.

    and for those that she she was over the top/using her celebrity/acting. think about the time line. this happened sunday afternoon. on monday when the show was taped, she prob saw her hairdresser before the show and maybe they discussed what was happening/how the kids were doing/etc. it’s also possible she found out it was being reported on TMZ. the tape TMZ had was taken on sunday. but whatever it was, she obviously started the taping still very upset. i have to wonder if she hadn’t been so upset if she would have aired it on the show. or if the taping had been at a different time would it have unfolded differently.

    damn they placed that dog quick. hope they did the home and ref checks this time. and the new owners update that chip lickity split! wonder what the adoption fee was . . . .

  40. Scratch says:

    It is bad publicity like this that actually drives good homes away from adoption. I know a few impeccable homes that were turned away for minor details that just went and bought a pet.

    Harry, I’m with you, I believe the hairdresser has a good case against Mutts and Moms. This may cost Mutts and Moms a lot of good money that could have been put to good humanitarian use.

    No doubt Ellen was wrong. But this is between the hairdresser and Mutts and Moms at this point.

    Unless Mutts and Moms has a very legitimate reason that this particular pet will not be a good placement in this particular home M & M will be the losers, one way or another. The difference between an 11 yr old and 14 yr old child is a minor detail. If there is an insurance issue than have the adopting party sign off on liability. Which I don’t see as an issue in this case.

    If they aren’t allowed to adopt Iggy they will probably just go buy a pet. It is self defeating for a rescue group to not have any flexibility in their general rules.

  41. 2CatMom says:

    Straybaby: Think of it this way - the shelter would have to know you had died. They’d have to remember you as the adopter of one of their pets. Then they’d have to find who had disposition of your estate. On so on.

    To me the really egregious thing is that this woman gained entrance to a private home on false pretenses. And the fact that a cop actually helped her is pretty suspicious to me. How could the cop know who the chip was registered to? I don’t think ED is the only one throwing her weight around. Talk about abuse of power.

    And the shelter that is so careful about placing animals that they’d rather have animals in a kennel than in a foster home immediately found a new home for the dog? Not buying it. The dog went home with one of the owners. Now if the family or Ellen try to get the dog back they can use the same ‘he’s bonded with his new family’ bit against them.

    And no, I don’t approve of death threats under any circumstances. If you don’t like a business’ policies, don’t patronize them. But violence or even the threat thereof is not acceptable.

  42. RoonieRoo says:

    All I can see how much MaM has damaged the cause of rescue work. Makes me very sad for all the talented rescue people that have the skill and maturity to love both the animals and the people.

    They will have to fight through the poor perception these two have created to future adopters.

  43. Nancy G. says:

    Hmm, I wonder why their corporation status in Calif. was suspended? Before all this happened, or as a result of it? If they are no longer a corporation, what are they? And why do they charge a $600 adoption fee to “celebrities”, and then squawk about Ellen being a “celebrity” and throwing her weight around, but they won’t cave in to the pressure? On the one hand, they don’t mind exploiting celebs, and on the other hand, they seem to resent them. Such a mixed up position is not a good sign. They seem to be as self-righteous as PETA has become.

  44. kaefamily says:

    Not unlike children’s adoption, before anyone knows it we’ll be adopting pets abroad ;-)

  45. Jenny Bark says:

    I still say Ellen is a wonderful women. You may want to read this I was right about the chip. M & M hasn’t followed the rules in the past about age or home inspections.


    I sure hope I’m doing this pasting right if not i’m sorry.

  46. Andrea D says:

    You know, a friend of mine signed one of those clauses when he adopted a golden lab two or three years ago. I went with him to see her, and she seemed like a great dog. The shelter, honestly, lied a lot about her. They claimed that she had hip dysplasia and couldn’t run. She was a very quiet dog, and my friend, who lived in a large apartment overlooking a park, felt that she was a good match. The shelter assured him that she was great with kids and other dogs. Calm, collected, a little sad. He agreed to bring her back if it wasn’t a good match.

    Well, it turned out that the dog wasn’t calm or collected - she was extremely ill. She had probably developed kennel cough early on. As soon as she got home, she started coughing blood. My friend was pretty angry that she hadn’t received medical care at the shelter. Once she was well, she was a terror. She didn’t have hip dysplasia and could jump up onto the kitchen counter if she got a running start. She shredded his couch. She snapped at kids. She dominated other dogs. With a bit more research, we found out that she had already been returned to the shelter for nipping a young boy.

    My friend knew he was obligated to bring her back, but after spending so much money on her health care (and new furniture), and considering that the shelter hadn’t bothered to inspect her before to see if she was sick, he didn’t trust their judgment. He found a middle-aged couple with several acres of orchard and two other high-energy labs (and no kids!). He interviewed them several times, met them for playdates, and eventually decided it was a great fit. The shelter did find out, and they called to berate my friend, but honestly, I agreed with the decision. He really loved the dog, but she needed ROOM, and other dogs to wrestle with.

    He calls the family once a year (they agreed to it) to check in. It’s been a couple of years, and they love her.

    I understand where the shelters are coming from, but I think the tactic is heavy-handed. This shelter didn’t take the time to make sure the dog was healthy - how was he to know if they’d take the time to find her a better home.

  47. JB says:

    The saddest part of this situation, owner of Mutts and Moms doesn’t seem to feel she has done wrong, bad buisness ethics, unprofessional, and to turn around and blame it on Ellen (”Batkis stated that she would not return Iggy because of the way she has been treated by DeGeneres”) bad excuses. She needs to realize the real reason she went into the dog rescue business. She should re-evaluate her goals and intentions because it’s obviously not to protect or provide for these dogs as much as her bank account (600$ adoption fees, please). She sounds more like a puppy-mill owner rather than a rescue. Unfortunately, this owner may close her website for a cool off period but will just turn around and simply promote under a new name and people will not realize her business practices are unethical.

  48. Lynn says:

    Marina is an opportunist. And an extortionist, from what I’ve read. I wonder if she is just SAYING that she placed Iggy elsewhere.

    Jenny Bark - you did well. And inspired me to check to see if Mutts and Mons has a 5013c [non-profit status]. See


    Sorry - it’s a long link.

    They do….and it’s viable until December 2008, also registered to Woodland Hills, CA. I’m thinking they canceled their corporation status when the non-proft status came through. [One terminated in December and one apparently started in December.]

    So now the question is: Is Marina claiming income from goods sold at the shop as tax-free due to non-profit status?

    This Marina is sounding stranger and stranger all the time.

  49. Jenny Bark says:

    Lynn, did you read the one above where M&M didn’t even do a home inspection of Ellen?

  50. SMITH111 says:

    I think this organization needs to grow up. Their MAIN objective is to find good homes for their pets in need. Why didn’t they investigate the new home before taking away this families new pet? I truly believe that Ellen had nothing but good intentions. They could have fined Ellen for breaking the contract (which I hope would go to the care of the other animals) I’m sure Ellen wouldn’t have minded. She knew she broke the contract and there would be consequences. Ellen’s heart was in the right place. Was the agency’s? NO. Now, who really suffered? The dog, as usual. If anyone is listening: PLEASE TURN THIS INTO A WIN-WIN SITUATION.

  51. Ryan says:

    I don’t care what some of you dumbasses say. Ellen didn’t do anything that wrong, that Mutts and Mom woman is a stupid evil bitch saying “awww Ellen wasn’t my best friend so I’ll hurt everyone involved.”

  52. John says:

    Solution … M&M approves Ellen’s hairdresser and gives dog back to them. Ellen donates $10,000 to M&M. Win-win.

  53. SMITH111 says:

    One more note on pet adoption agencies. Some are as bad as Menu Foods. Just in it for the money. I adopted a cat after two of my cats died from posioned pet foods. When I adopted the new cat I was told she was healthy. That she had just gotten over a cold. They had given her antibiotics twice. At this point she was only 5 months old (they told me she was 4 months old). Well, to try and make a long story short, I had her at the vets three times before I could get her fixed. She went on antibiotics two more times. I called the agency on several occasions and they NEVER called me back. I wouldn’t have taken her back under any circumstances, but did they give a S**T? NO. They got their money. At least, the end of this story turned out well. She is fixed and healthy now and has not had a relaspe since she was fixed. Moral to this story, don’t believe that all pet adoption agencies have the welfare of their pets at heart. Sad, but true.

  54. SMITH111 says:

    NO. The court orders M&M to return the dog back to the family.
    Ellen donates money to a respected pet adoption agency. To hell with M&M!

  55. SMITH111 says:

    WIN - WIN for the ANIMALS. NOT M&M.

  56. elena says:

    Ellen found a GOOD home–the object of pet adoption. Lady get a grip,
    check out the family, make an exception. Rules are guidelines written
    on paper, not carved on stones that can be hurled and hurt others. Dog
    was happy, hairdresser and family happy , Ellen happy–you unhappy
    and sharing it with the world. Bad PR for you the way you are handling
    it, cooperate, work it out, give over yourself.

  57. Lynn says:

    Ryan - right on!

    Smith111 - that’s the way.

    Jenny Bark - I heard Tuesday that Ellen didn’t even have a home inspection. Sounds to me like Marina practices discrimination to the hilt. This woman is an opportunist with an axe to grind.

    The 5013c is registered to a Woodland Hills, CA, Address…try 4610 Cerrillos. Wonder if Iggy is hiding out there. This address is just 30 miles from the Pasadena Mutts and Moms store on Raymond in Pasadena.

    And to all those who think Ellen was hysterical…..hey, she handled it better than I would have.

    Funny how the other Mutts and Mom woman has disappeared from the picture [Vannessa?]. Maybe she had enough sense to back off?

    Also, that voicemail that Marina supposedly received from Ellen’s employee - I would like to think that Ellen is smart enough to hire people who know better than to do this. I have to wonder if this wasn’t an Ellen fan who thought she’d scare off Marina.

  58. highnote says:

    I think having the age of 14 or over is really stupid. I had a dog when I was young and never miss treated him. To take this puppy away from a family just because of her stupid rules is really sad and terribly wrong. You would think if she had an feeling for animals at all that she would not have done this.

  59. KimS says:

    Ellen broke the rules and admitted it. M&M had rules and followed them. My first thought was the age rule is an odd rule. But then again, when we adopted our dog from another agency, they made us sign a paper with a lot of rules on it. One being we are not allowed to give the dog to another home. It’s practical. Agencies adopt to people they don’t know very well and it’s all for the wellbeing of the animal.
    It’s good that they have standards.
    Ellen used her “celebrity” status and power to get back at M&M for not getting her way.
    Celebrities often don’t think the rules apply to them and that is the sad thing.
    The dog will get a good home soon and Ellen should get off her soap box. She thought she was above the rules.
    It’s also pretty sad when wackos give death threats to people over giving a hairdressers daughter a dog.
    I think Ellen is using her out of wack emotions to manipulate the situation because she felt out of control. She is supposed to be responsible with that power and not incite selfish riots.
    This could have all been handled in private but she dramatically chose not to.
    She’s not really too different from Rush Limbaugh or Bill O Reilly huh?

  60. KimS says:

    OK, one more thing. Not all agencies are on the up and up. Some are downright greedy. I don’t know M&M so I couldn’t say, but honestly Ellen is a bit over the top.

  61. Scratch says:


    There is a bigger picture here. Rest of the story……….many people will read and watch the reports and opt to purchase rather than adopt.

    Don’t get me wrong, Ellen breached the contract. But, the hairdresser should have been given more opportunity to prove herself a viable home. Poor Iggy was moved again. I have seen no further reporting than the problem M & M had with the hairdresser home was a matter of the difference between an 11 and 14 year old. Minor detail.

  62. KimS says:

    Well M&M are obviously being very stubborn about this dog which is pretty weird. They could at least do a real home check rather than just storming the place.
    I don’t like celebrities much, so maybe I was judging it by that.
    How do you change the name on a microchip???
    I’m going to have that done.

  63. Sharon says:

    the mutts and mom bitch couldn’t care less about the dog. she probably has another friend/buyer who wanted the “ellen” dog, probably paid more than $600 for it. it’s all about the money people.

  64. Jana says:

    Maybe Oprah, the dog lover and good neighbor that she is to Ellen, can get involved as well.

  65. Lis says:

    KimS–M&M had rules and didn’t follow them; no home inspection for Ellen when all was sweetness and light and she was writing checks to them! And it’s pretty clear they did not do what most shelters and rescues do, point out that return clause.

    They only became sticklers for rules when they decided they were mad at Ellen. And now they say the family can’t have the dog–because of how Ellen treated them! (And is there a time/date stamp on the voicemail from her staffer? Be interesting to know when in the sequence of events that message, if real, was actually left.) She shouldn’t get any extra advantages for being a celebrity, but she shouldn’t be hurt for it, either–and certainly innocent third parties, including the dog, should not be hurt for it.

    Changing the name on a microchip–find out which company it’s from (if you don’t already know; it’s as simple as having your vet’s office scan it), and contact the company. It can take about a month, because they need to contact and verify the change with the former owner, or if the former owner doesn’t respond, wait a reasonable period of time to be able to say they won’t respond. They’ll then change the information–which is not actually on the chip, but stored in the company’s computers, keyed to the number on the chip.

  66. Anon says:

    Ellen screwed up by giving the dog away and the rescue had the right to take the dog back - period. But I have to say that this whole thing could have been avoided had they followed their policies from the beginning. I’ve read that Ellen has given several dogs away. For that reason I would not adopt a dog to her. She obviously wants an animal that is perfect and fits in from the get go. That is usually not realistic - especially with a rescue animal (and a puppy!). I would rather a family have the dog sleep at their home instead of pay a vet to take it to his. I would rather have a family train a dog themselves and not send it off to be trained. Perhaps this rescue feels that they were blinded by Ellen’s status at the beginning and don’t want to make that mistake again.

  67. catmom5 says:

    The absolute worst thing that will come out of this is a black mark on all rescue and adoption agencies. I fear it will affect the donations and decisions about adopting vs buying. Perhaps ED and M&M should consider the ripple effects of their public temper tantrums. There seems to be plenty of blame to go around here.

  68. Anonymous says:

    This tells the story;

    “Batkis stated that she would not return Iggy because of the way she has been treated by DeGeneres.”

    What is this a playground fight at recess? Give adoption papers for the hairdresser to sign and tell Ellen off and never let Ellen adopt from M&M again because she violated the adoption agreement. Don’t punish the dog because of a broken contract!

    Batkis says she refuses to be pushed around by the DeGenereses of the world. Sounds like a personal issue and a power play by M&M to make an example of a celebrity. Is there any prejudice here?

    Batkis lawyer friend immediately started bad press about Ellen saying she didn’t love the dog. Trying to get the public against Ellen? HOw does he know? The dog was too wild with her other animals. She probably did love the dog and that’s just why she found it another good home instead of sending it back to the shelter.

    Batkis went on the hairdresser’s property under false pretenses saying she was going to do a home inspection NOT. She took the dog away with no inspection - She lied and made a big show for publicity by bringing police. She is the one that increased the publicity for the case long before Ellen told the story on her show.

    M&M doesn’t follow its own rules of doing home inspection for all adoptions as it said it did.

    Was there a time line for having the microchip changed over to a new owner or having the dog fixed? Was this dog fixed before it was adopted?

    Ellen did not tell her fans to write or call M&M with death threats. M&M should not have received these threats if it’s true and probably is but they did deserve to hear how bad they handled the issue. Thousands of people have called, emailed or blogged this story.

    Ellen was wrong to hand the dog to a another family without telling the shelter. But. Remember she found the dog another home, whichwas supposed to be the purpose of the rescue shelter to begin with. The actions taken show that the dog’s best interest didn’t appear to be the goal.

    Is the dog really adopted to a new family or is it with a rescue group friend of Marina’s so it will never be turned over to Ellen’s hairdresser.

    The hairdresser should be backed by Ellen’s $$$ and fight for the dog. The hairdresser should sue M&M for coming on her property, lying, and taking the dog.

    This is a case of stubborness and being narrow minded. The dog’s happiness was not considered and the owner of M&M should be evaluated by the APSCA for how she handled the case and have her past adoption papers reviewed to see what she did and how many of her own rules she broke in past adoptions.

    I’d like to hear from other people who adopted dogs from M&M.

  69. Sophia says:

    I am a volunteer with rescue groups on the east coast and know many people involved with rescue. I have never heard of an adoption contract that does not require the dog to be returned if it’s adopter can’t keep it. Ellen did not bother to read the terms of the contract (and it was not a long one with “small print”). Or, if as others have written, the contract was signed by her partner, then it was not even Ellen’s dog to give away in the first place.

    There is no assurance that the hairdresser’s home was a good one for the puppy. Ellen had no business just casually giving the dog away. Although she threw $$ at the puppy’s issue with cats, it doesn’t sound like she did much HERSELF to deal with the puppy. And I’m sure that amount of money means very little to her. Unlike what several people have written here, adopted dogs should not be treated as “property” once the adoption fee has been paid.

    Both sides in this situation have made mistakes. However, the rescue group was well within its rights to remove the dog from a home it had not approved, and certainly did the right thing by taking a dog away from the person who was walking with it out in public without a leash. Rescues deal with thousands of injured, abandoned, “treated as property” animals and have put the requirements of their contracts in place based on their many experiences dealing with people and animals.

    The general public just has no idea of what rescues go through to save and rehome pets. Rescue people devote their lives and resources the help animals and for people to condemn and threaten this particular rescue because of one incident is stupid and shortsighted. If you have not been a part of rescue, you have no business judging this particular group.

  70. Judy says:

    This is a very sad situation I just hope Iggy has a good home at the end ot the day. I have a lot of respect for shelters, private or public kill or no kill. It’s tough for most employees and volunteers to work in kill shelters but they do it for the animals (yes I know there are bad shelters and some bad people who work in them).

    That said when I adopted the two cat that I lost this year from a kill shelter in 1991 there was the same prevision that if I was to give them up I had to give them back to the shelter. Would I have ever done that? Hell no as it was both my kitties were sick from something going around at the shelter and they ended up paying for my girl’s vet bills. After agreeing to pay the bills I got a call from their vet who offered to take her back. At first I was confused and thought he meant hospitize her and then I realized he wanted her back and would put her down. The conversation turned ugly at that point when I informed the vet she was not a broken toaster.

    I guess a little off topic there but the point is there is plenty of blame to go around here. Ellen should have contacted the shelter and told them she couldn’t keep the dog but the shelter seems to have unrealistic rules and to seize an animal without checking the home is stupid IMHO. The welfare of the dog should have been the most important thing. Taking an animal away from a loving home is wrong.

    There are plenty of animals put to sleep every day in shelters because there are not enought homes or homes can’t be found or the adoption fee is too much or the rules are too strict, or somebody doesn’t like the shape of an animals nose. This is the sad thing about this whole tale there are plenty of other animals available, and this mess might just keep someone else from going to a shelter to rescue a perfectly good dog or cat.

  71. Tanya says:

    One thing no one is talking about is that this is NOT how legal disputes over property issues are resolved.

    The owners (hairdresser) of the dog have a HUGE case against M7M AND against the police.

    If you have in your possession, somethign that i claim is mine, i **must** by law go to court to get a court order to remove it. a private citizen cannot remove something on the *claim* that “it is mine” pending a court saying so. why? cause it is a disputed issue. I could be lying, you could be lying - cops do not know who is lying and are specifically ENJOINED from removing something (or SOMEONE) from a premise without court order.

    What if they had the wrong dog?
    What if the chip malfuncitoned
    What if it was an out right lie?
    What if there is (as most of us suspect) a *legal* presumption of owner ship that is NOT assocated with a chip. (that is, if i give my legal dog to my sister, and she doesn’t chip it, or register the chip, it is *still* her legal dog. registration is NOT proof of ownership).

    This is beyond legally BS. and that anyone would support this shelter and thier blatently ILLEGAL tacticts is beyond me.

  72. Carol Johnson says:

    I found this on the internet…

    Number: C2693823 Date Filed: 12/20/2004
    Status: suspended
    Jurisdiction: California
    Agent for Service of Process
    140 S LAKE AVE STE 250
    PASADENA, CA 91101 CA Sec of State

    Suspended is defined as:

    Suspended: The California corporation has lost all rights and powers for failure to meet statutory filing requirements of either the Secretary of State’s office or the Franchise Tax Board. Information regarding the type of suspension can be obtained by requesting a status report. Fees and instructions for requesting a status report are included on the Business Entities Records Order Form. CA Sec of State

  73. shibadiva says:

    I guess we can expect the same kerfuffle if Angelina Jolie places one of her adopted children with a friend? Although Jolie does seem to keep them for longer than 2 weeks.

  74. Purringfur says:

    I think that Ellen first tried to make the situation work with her current pets, but it didn’t, so she had the dog trained elsewhere, outside her home.

    Is this any different from celebrities or other wealthy people packing up their dogs and sending them to Cesar Millan, the Dog Whisperer’s “Dog Psychology Center” in Los Angeles for training with Cesar’s dog pack?

    Are other celebrities degraded for sending their dogs to Cesar for weeks at a time? No, they’re viewed as trying to HELP their dogs.

    Just presenting another point of view…

    I hope Iggy has a good home now, although I believe he should go back to the home where he bonded with the hairdresser and her family.

  75. rikki says:

    Ellen’s credibility went flying out the door with me when she chose to publically chastise and berate this rescue on her show.

    Part of this story is confusing to me: The dog from what I read was adopted on Sept. 20 - that is not even a month ago (yes, now coming up close however) So the dog had all this money spent on it for training and it didn’t work so it was given to another home…and that home “bonded” with the dog. Do these people live in the same real time that the rest of us do? That is a LOT of stuff happening in 3 weeks from what I can piece together.

    I have 2 adult rescue dogs - these transitions take more than a week, no matter how much $$$ you spend. I too have cats, so I do have experience with bringing dogs into a household with other established pets. Time and patience works, money, well that hasn’t had much of an impact on how my dogs and cats get along each other…

    Personally I don’t think Ellen is in any way, shape or form qualified to chose another home for this dog. Her judgement seems to be bad to begin with by adopting this little guy, expecting money to make his transition into the household go quick and easy, giving up on him almost immediately and then sending it to the hairdresser’s home.

  76. rikki says:

    Ellen’s credibility went flying out the door with me when she chose to publically chastise and berate this rescue on her show.

    Part of this story is confusing to me: The dog, from what I read, was adopted by Ellen and her partner on Sept. 20 - that is not even a month ago (yes, but now coming up close.) So Ellen then spent all this money on the dog for training and that didn’t work so it was given to another home, the hairdresser’s…and that home then “bonded” with the dog. Do these people live in the same real time that the rest of us do? That is a LOT of stuff happening in a little over 3 weeks from what I can piece together.

    I have 2 adult rescue dogs - these transitions take more than a week no matter how much $$$ you spend. I too have cats, so I do have experience with bringing dogs into a household with other established pets. Time, patience and vigilance works; money, well that hasn’t had much of an impact on how my dogs and cats get along each other…

    Personally I don’t think Ellen is in any way, shape or form qualified to chose another home for this dog. Her judgement seemed to be bad to begin with by adopting this little guy, expecting money to make his transition into her household go quick and easy, giving up on him almost immediately and then sending it to the hairdresser’s home.

  77. rikki says:

    Sorry for the double posts - I was trying to edit a couple sentences and hit the wrong button.

    My apologies,


  78. Scratch says:


    I have personally rescued many hundreds of homeless pets over 41 years on the east coast. I have set up low cost spay/neuter appointments and assisted veterinarians do the altering. When there were rabies clinics many dogs and cats rode in my car from pounds to the clinics and unfortunately back to the pounds. This was an effort to make them more adoptable.

    My lifetime of volunteering and self education for the benefit of unfortunate companion animals has brought me many heartaches and fond memories. There are not many pounds or shelters in my state that have not been personally visited.

    For me this issue goes beyond the papers. There is no proof being presented to me that the hairdresser is an unsuitable home. As per the accounts presented, M & M has not followed their own policies of a home visitation to Ellen. But yet is unwilling to consider flexibility on the age policy of the children. Show me where there is proven or stated that the hairdresser is an unsuitable home, beyond a piece of paper.

    This is a prime example why I no longer directly volunteer for a group. I freelance my rescue efforts and work well with many groups in a mutual effort to save lives.

    Iggy has once again been recycled into another home. It has not been proven to me that this is for his best interest. Show me where the hairdresser proves to be a bad placement and I side with you, beyond the age restriction on a piece of paper. For me that’s the bottom line.

  79. stella blue says:

    My brother brought every animal home that you can imagine when we were kids. Dogs, large, small, medium, cats, furry, short-haired, snakes, lizards, raccoons, baby possum…etc, etc…
    we never had any “personality conflicts” among them- with the exception of the snakes and lizards (which were always set free) all was well in the animal kingdom of St. Gregory….
    They were so happy to have love, a lot of play, and a meal. It’s still that way- Ellen just needed Cesar Milan- I would recommend my brother, but he has passed on. Whatever happens to Iggy- my brother will be there to greet him on the other side. Not to worry
    Sometimes, you can go out and BUY a pet- you don’t even have to go through so much anguish to get them - sometimes, a friends dog has puppies or kittens and you can get one like that- we got one of our BEST cats from under a house - an orange tabby- one of the great love’s of my life-

  80. stella blue says:

    In regards to what has taken place between Ellen and the agency- well, that’s too bad. The kids can be comforted by the fact that the dog is still alive and well - take them and let them pick out a NEW dog that they can keep- life is full of suffering- they should accept this and move on because they are dealing with a stubborn, rigid woman who does not want to budge and doesn’t care about how they feel, after all, it’s the RULE…. oh well…poor dog - getting all shuffled around-
    No one is happy- not even the dog…

  81. Raylyne says:

    I have done rescue, and I understand how frustrating contract violations can be. HOWEVER, if the puppy was not being mistreated and is in a home where it is loved and treated as a family memeber… Mutts and Moms should have done a new contract to minimized the confusion for the puppy. Then again when you don’t really give a $hit about animals and their well being it is easy to say, “NO! you violated the contract”, and snatch the puppy from yet another home. If you ask me, SOMEONE wanted to be on TV. That woman should no longer be allowed to particpate in a rescue operation. The time and money wasted on this incident could have been redirected and saved several other dogs from destruction.

  82. Michelle says:

    They threatened to go public first - that is why Ellen did this

  83. Merlin Marshall says:

    Ellen is completely irresponsible and a complete jerk. She knows she is causing this woman trouble and intends to get her harrassed and threatened. At this point I wouldn’t give the dog back either! Besides, who’s to say the woman with the kids wouldn’t decide in a couple of weeks when the kids are tired of the novelty of the dog to just get rid of it? Ellen is completely in the wrong and disgusts me totally. I hope she rots in hell.

  84. CD says:

    It was Ellen who first made those threats:

    Please note: ” On “Good Morning America”, (Mutts & Moms) lawyer played a message that he said is from a DeGeneres public relations representative.

    The voice mail said: “We’re filing a legal case against you. We’re going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization.”

    So Ellen’s ‘people’ first tried intimidation, and when that didn’t work, she went public on her TV show. No wonder Baktis said she had been ‘bullied’.

    What is scary here, is how so many people immediately ‘know’ that Ellen’s on-air version of the story is the only true one–without even hearing all the facts from both sides. Do you really think you ‘know’ a celebrity based on their public image?

    My view: The on-air crying is either a clever ploy or an immature tantrum to get what she wants.

    When things escalated to death threats, it’s a frightening example of how much influence a celebrity can wield.

    I agree with Rikki, at the very least, this damages Ellen’s carefully crafted ‘nice’ image. For a celebrity, that’s really something to cry about.

  85. Phoebe says:

    Sounds like the rescue has double standards. They didn’t do a home inspection, yet adopted out to Ellen’s partner. Then they took the dog back because of the “no children under 14″ rule.

    They can’t pick and choose their rules based on each case, and then get self-righteously indignant that a rule was violated by someone else. Batkis put her foot in it when she said, “Who is she [Ellen] to say who is a good home and whose not?” Oh, the irony. Batkis might want to actually check out a home, herself, before throwing that particular stone.

    It’s odd, but seeing as this org. had no problem adopting out to Ellen’s partner without a home inspection, is it suddenly a big deal because now the rescue knows Ellen is involved? One wonders if a follow-up home inspection would’ve suddenly found that original couple ‘not qualified’ to adopt for a trumped-up issue when it was really because of Ellen being a well-known lesbian. Her partner probably wasn’t recognized, but Ellen most certainly would have been. I wonder if Iggy would’ve been ’saved’ by a rescue team with police back-up at Ellen’s home had Ellen kept the dog in the first place.

    Interesting. Prejudiced and despicable, if true, but still…interesting.

    Poor Iggy. If he ends up with behavioral issues, Batkis will blame everyone but herself.

    As for the recording Batkis’ lawyer played of Ellen’s representative, we have only his word that that’s who it really is on that tape. Why would I believe him at this point? Does his office have people stupid enough to leave threatening messages on recording machines? if so, then Batkis has real legal problems to deal with - starting with her own lawyer.

  86. Carol Johnson says:

    As a person with PR experiece….I can not imagine any PR person leaving such a message. Lets wait and see what happens….I would bet this was a hoax on the part of some idiot who thought this would help.

  87. Flamin says:

    I can’t believe the vindictive, controlling behavior of Marina Baktis, the owner of Mutts and Moms! Whining, and complaining about her heart palpitations, but never once mentioning how Iggy, or the two little children might feel. What a bitter, selfish old woman, she should not be in the animal rescue business. It’s seems she is more concerned about herself, that what is in the animals best interest! I don’t believe she is a real pet rescue, but only a dog mill in disguise anyway. Seems like she has repoed other dogs from new parents before, and turned around and resold them, according to the press. I sure hope she didn’t put poor Iggy down, out of spite. If M&M’s resold/readopted out Iggy, I hope the person will do the right thing, and contact Ellen, or the family, so the family can be evaluated for a forever home for Iggy, with the two children where Iggy belongs. I also hope M&M’s gets investigated, or audited soon.

    M&M’s Plain? Or just plain Nuts!

  88. Flamin says:

    btw, the real reason Baktis took down her web site, was to add the new, “no children under age 14 rule”

    But she can’t re edit the information on the way back machine archives:)

    No where on her site is the no children under 14 age restriction. I believe Baktis was pissed off at Ellen, the Ellen didn’t keep Iggy. If Ellen had kept Iggy, Baktis would have had her business boosted stating she placed Iggy with Ellen DeGeneres, a public relations celebrity status.

  89. straybaby says:


    aren’t web archives *fun*? ;)

    from april 07 web archive:

    Do you have children under 12 or 14? Getting a dog is like adding another child to your household. And a puppy is even harder. Many families find that with the demands of raising children and driving them to various activities, they don’t have time to housebreak or train a puppy. And soon the little puppy becomes a big dog jumping on children and guests, begging for attention, and even getting into trouble. Obedience training is recommended for every household member, so everyone is practicing the same techniques (consistent practice is the key to training). We strongly recommend families consider a more mature dog whose size and temperament is known. A dog who seems happy, active, likes to be touched, and is not sensitive to handling and noise is typically a good choice for homes with children.

    If you want a puppy, why? No matter how adorable, all puppies grow up, and grow quickly. A cute, sweet little puppy can become a rough and difficult dog if not given consistent, effective obedience training. Being good with children is highly dependent on the breed, temperament and practicing good obedience training. If you have a busy household, a puppy is not the best choice. Puppies require more supervision and training, especially for discouraging common behavior such as jumping, chewing and nipping.

    What size is right for you? If you have children in the home, tiny breeds are a poor choice, since children can accidentally hurt the dog, and many small breeds are naturally wary of children. Choose a dog with whom the children can safely play. And size does not indicate energy level; some small boisterous terriers seem to take up more room and time than a large calm dog. If you live in an apartment or condo, look for a reasonably quiet dog — and practice techniques for avoiding separation anxiety from day one. (A dog with separation anxiety will often howl and bark, as well as destroy things out of fear, when left alone.)

  90. CD says:

    RE: the voicemail from DeGeneres’ people:

    There hasn’t been a retraction, to my knowledge, from GMA or others, regarding that voicemail. And no protest from the DeGeneres side, that it was a hoax.

    Surely there would be immediate legal action if it was false–and loud public comment from DeGeneres’ legal team.

    On last night’s local (Los Angeles) news, there was a report giving more of the Mutts and Moms’ side of the story. But no indication that they had presented false evidence with that tape.

    Just following up on this point because–amid all the snap judgements and speculating–it’s an item of factual evidence. Worth further evaluation.

  91. Sophia says:

    Raylyne wrote: If you ask me, SOMEONE wanted to be on TV.

    Get a grip! I’m sure she really is enjoying the death threats, rumor mongers and bad publicity.

    Phoebe wrote: One wonders if a follow-up home inspection would’ve suddenly found that original couple ‘not qualified’ to adopt for a trumped-up issue when it was really because of Ellen being a well-known lesbian. Her partner probably wasn’t recognized, but Ellen most certainly would have been. I wonder if Iggy would’ve been ’saved’ by a rescue team with police back-up at Ellen’s home had Ellen kept the dog in the first place.

    Huh? This is ridiculous. Ellen’s partner is a well-known actress. Why in the world would you suggest that the rescue is homophobic? Are you trying to create more rumors? If so, this is really a stretch.

    and then she wrote:
    Batkis’ lawyer played of Ellen’s representative, we have only his word that that’s who it really is on that tape. Why would I believe him at this point? Does his office have people stupid enough to leave threatening messages on recording machines? if so, then Batkis has real legal problems to deal with - starting with her own lawyer.

    You are not making any sense here. Are you implying that Batkis’s lawyer is a liar? Why so? Or are you saying you think the lawyer sent the message? Either way, you are making some outrageously stupid remarks.

  92. Flamin says:

    Thanks straybaby, do you have the direct link to that statement? Yes web archives are fun:)
    From your copy and pasted info. “Kids:
    Do you have children under 12 or 14? ” “We strongly recommend families consider a more mature dog whose size and temperament is known”

    This still to me does NOT explain why M&M did not do a home study before placing Iggy into Ellens home, except that Baktis have other PR motives/celebrity status motives to boost her pet business. I say pet business, not pet rescue. Also your copy and pasted infor only recommends larger breeds for children under 14, not that they won’t consider placement on a case by case home study evaluation:)

  93. Flamin says:

    I think the police officer was the worst offender here. I don’t know what the contract reads but IMO, this is a civil matter to be settled in a civil forum, a court room! I can’t believe it would have a clause allowing a public servant, police officer to side step the system and take the dog by force. The trauma and brutality of how this was handled is horrible. If the dog was stolen, I think it might be a different story but in my neck of the woods, the cop would have been directed to leave as soon as he got there. Civil matter, not criminal. Can anyone now claim someones dog is their dog, and cops bust in and haul the dog away?

  94. KimS says:

    OK, I’m seeing it more clearly now. I didn’t know the whole story.
    Clearly M&M didn’t act well.

    When we adopted our dog, they didn’t exactly try him out with cats that well so getting it so they didn’t attack each other took a couple of months. Clearly Ellen was a bit hasty with getting them used to each other.

    But WHEN are people going to stop treating celebrities like the rules don’t apply to them. The greed/power/and the idea of breathing the celebrities rarified air gets to them I guess. And some celebrities expect it. I don’t know if Ellen and her gal are like that or not. I like Ellen and I appreciate what rescue orgs go through. It’s a sticky situation.

    I’d be upset if someone tried to take my dog away too.
    I heard iggy got a new home so I hope people leave those new adopters ALONE!!!

    Hope this furor dies down soon.

  95. Flamin says:

    Whatever the case, I think M&M’s could have at least conducted themselves in a better manner. When the new family filled out M&M’s pet adoption form, Instead of taking the address, and other personal information from the form to take Iggy, M&M’s could have done a home study. If the family was found not suitable for Iggy, then M&M’s could have gone to court to get the dog back, if they didn’t comply. If I were the children’ss mom, I would be filing an action for trama and distress it caused my children when Baktis entered their home under false pretenses, and snatched the dog. Since the hairdresser was not a party to this contract, I think they may have a good case to get Iggy placed back into their home.
    BTW, I have a chihuahua, and a 10 year old. Both get along great, since I have taught my child to always be gentle with animals.

  96. Bridgett says:

    Apparently, the cop took the dog because it’s microchip was still registered to Mutts and Moms.

    It is interesting the Ellen hasn’t requested a retraction of the threatening phone call from the PR person.

  97. Lynn says:

    One thing I wish everyone would understand:

    Ellen was never at fault. She never signed the papers. [Life partner did.] So if she didn’t sign the adoption papers how could she possibly know that what she was about to do was wrong?

    Marina has made this all about HER, not about the dog.

    And another thing: don’t construe the fact that the M&M corporation license was suspended is bad. This [as I am told] is what happens when you receive your 5013c [non-profit status]. You do away with one license in order to use another license.

    But the question remains: Was Marina’s boutique selling things to benefit the animals under the non-profit org license? Or was she using her non-profit status to avoid paying taxes on the monies brought in by the boutique? I’m sure ED’s attorney has the clerks checking out the financials here. Or at least I hope so.

  98. Flamin says:

    On “Good Morning America”, Batkis’ lawyer played a message that he said is from a DeGeneres public relations representative.

    The voice mail said: “We’re filing a legal case against you. We’re going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization.”

    Bridgett, is that the so called death threat that Baktis is whining about? I didn’t find it to be a death threat, but someone saying “We’re filing a legal case against you. We’re going to be contacting the media. This is not going to be good for your store or your organization.” I don’t think that statement is illegal to tell someone they are taking them to court, and it wouldn’t be good for anyone to go through court since it is time consuming, and expensive to boot!
    “Batkis’ lawyer played a message that he said is from a DeGeneres public relations representative.” Guess we will have to wait and see who made that call, or if anything will be filed in the future. Again I hope Baktis dog business is throughly investigated, and audited too. What is going on behind those covered gates?

  99. Lynn says:

    For all we know, that call from Ellen’s delegate [yeah, sure….with her money do you think she’s going to hire someone that stupid to make a call like that???] really came from one of Marina’s friends or an Ellen fan who thought he? she? was doing ED a favor.

  100. Lynn says:

    Kim: I have a hunch about Iggy getting a new home.


    1 - Marina was offered a bundle for Iggy because it was a celebri-dog,
    2 - Marina’s got the dog tucked away somewhere and is holding it as a pawn [perhaps hoping ED will offer a huge amount to “settle”]

    In either case, Marina has made this all about HER and NOT about the welfare of the animal. Who knows, she might be a brilliant extortionist and may have been planning this all along.

    Wish someone would contact the woman M&M stalked before and find out what she had to do to get her newly adopted [from them] dog back.

  101. Vicki says:

    I applaud you for your great work. I will never watch Ellen again. What a sad commentary for a public figure. I recall her having other dogs and saying on her show how she had to get rid of them for one reason or another.

    Keep up the good work! Hope Iggy has a great home.!

  102. Bridgett says:


    I totally agree with you. That thought hit me too when I found out how quickly she had placed the dog. Someone was waiting for that dog. Considering how long it usually takes to place a dog???? Something underhanded it going on here.

  103. Flamin says:

    I agree with you Lynn, this is why I don’t call M&M’s a pet rescue, but a pet business.
    “Wish someone would contact the woman M&M stalked before and find out what she had to do to get her newly adopted [from them] dog back.”

    I have a feeling we will be hearing a lot more from that woman, and how many others, that has had experiences with M&M’s. I wonder how many pets were reported as ” lost or stolen” that got placed from M&M’s too.

  104. straybaby says:

    Flamin’, I don’t know how to do a direct link on archives, but it’s under how to adopt>3. what dog is right for you?

    i learned about web archives during the Pet Food Recall and ChemNutra changed their site ( i was shocked a business would pull that crap SO publicly!!) so on Tuesday after the M&M site went down, i did some cruising. I didn’t get past the fact they were boarding dogs for up to a year or 2 to hit on the kids thing. good catch!

    those kids had already been living with a small dog for 2 yrs, so one would think they would be fine with a small breed puppy. i’d be more likely to adopt a small pup to children their age vs pre-k and k. and i might be hesitant adopting a larger dog to the very young also. it all depends on the dog(s) and the children.

  105. Krista says:

    Sounds like you give up alot with these contracts. Glad to know about this fine print as I would never sign something like that. What happens five years down the road when someone becomes sick and can no longer take care of their adopted pet? God forbid… Can’t give it to your sister? Must give it back to the shelter? Absurd…

    I always thought that once a shelter places an animal they have turned over the entire care, not just part of it, all in good faith to a new home and they are happy about it.. That’s why they screen in the first place, isn’t it?.. I never gave a thought as to a shelter saying I was okay for decision making in all other areas for the pet but not capable of finding a new home if necessary… So why have this clause for returning if you think the new owner is incabable of caring for that aspect should it arise? Certainly they aren’t putting in clauses about what vet to use, where to send for day care, food to feed, boarding, how long you can be gone on vacation, etc.. Are they? I’m just curious and maybe some of the rescue people here can answer.. How long till the return to sender part of the contract runs out? One year, two, five? How long?

  106. Realist says:

    If someone adopted a child and then gave it away a few weeks later it would only be the fault of the adopter.

    How is this any different? Regardless of what has snowballed the initial reason for interference was that a rule had been broken.

    And give me a break with all the “baktis doesn’t give a sh*t about animals” talk. You do not know her any more than you know Ellen so stop blabbering on and go rescue some animals yourselves.

  107. Bridgett says:

    Krista’s response is exactly what Mutt’s and Mom’s has done to rescue movement as a whole. People are now going to think twice before they sign on the dotted line. No one wants to have a beloved pet ripped out of their home because of some perceived infraction of a contract.

  108. Flamin says:

    Thanks Straybaby, I found it!
    I agree, it should be an individual home assessment , large or small dog with children. Some larger dogs can knock over a child wile playing, and some children can play rough with small dogs. A home study is always a good tool when placing any animal. I think if M&M’s did a home study with Ellen and the cats in the first place, all this drama would have been avoided.
    Could Baktis be evaluated under CA laws to see if she is fit to have a pet rescue/dog business? Near where I live there have been a few of the so called pet rescues shut down in Snohomish county that were horrible places! Not rescues at all, but dog mills, sold, resold, living in terrible conditions. I don’t know but after watching Baktis, and looking at her high covered chain link fences, the way she acted when the TV crew tried to see the yard, it just creeped me out!

  109. straybaby says:

    “How long till the return to sender part of the contract runs out? One year, two, five? How long?”

    generally, it never runs out. that said, it is put in contracts to protect the pet from ending up in a shelter or abandoned. not so rescuers can go play pet snatcher (unless the animal is being abused in the legal sense etc). the dogs i’ve independently placed have this in their contract. but they are in homes that have owned the breed in the past and also have family that owns or has owned the breed or dogs. i trust that their friends and family are equally capable to handle one of these dogs IF they (the original adopter) feel they can. If i got a call that one of my adopters could no longer care for their dog and would like to rehome it with a close friend or family member, i would want to check it out. but i would prob go into it feeling that is probably a correct placement. and might also be best for the dog, especially if the dog is already familiar with them. i know one of the dogs would prob go to the pet sitter if something happened to the owner. the owner brought the pet sitter with her to meet the dog (pet sitter had also cared for her previous dog). i wouldn’t have a problem with that. many people do make plans for their pets if something happens to them (not enough do though!), and i think most reasonable rescues would respect that (and be happy about it). but that clause does give the dog somewhere to go in case it wasn’t predetermined and family/friends can’t take the pet(s) some rescues will even take companion pets with the one they adopted in that situation.

    the clause in the contract should not be a scary thing for an adopter in general. just make sure if a pet is chipped, it’s in YOUR name as the primary owner (NOT second contact!) and it’s kept UTD with current info including phone number changes etc. also, everyone should have a copy of their vet records at home in case of emergency along with current rabies certificate and city license, a must have for disasters and emergencies, but also could be handy with a high and mighty rescue. see a vet right after you adopt also (should be done any way!).

  110. Flamin says:

    repost of ASPCA statement. It Makes good sense to me!


    NEW YORK, October 17, 2007—The ASPCA® (The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals®) today responded to media reports and overwhelming public inquiries regarding the situation of Iggy, the dog adopted by Ellen DeGeneres from the Los Angeles-based rescue group Mutts & Moms, who was recently removed from Ms. DeGeneres’ hairdresser’s home after the rescue group learned of the re-homing that was conducted without its knowledge or prior approval as specified in its adoption contract.

    Said ASPCA President & CEO Ed Sayres, “Ms. DeGeneres’ love and concern for animals has become practically iconic. As such, we have the utmost respect for her actions in trying to provide loving homes for animals in need—she sets a great example for not just other celebrities, but the entire American public.”

    “We also understand the point of view of Mutts & Moms. Several shelters, including our own, have similar language written into their contracts that essentially function as a safety net for the animals they adopt out, so that adopters know they can always bring the animals back in case the adoption doesn’t work out. With an estimated five to seven million companion animals entering shelters every year, the last thing any responsible shelter wants to see is the unnecessary euthanasia of pets.”

    All shelters in the United States function as independent entities, each with their own specific adoption policies. “Had a similar situation been encountered with an ASPCA adopter,” said Sayres, “and had the new home met our adoption criteria, in all likelihood we would have encouraged the new home environment for the animal. Furthermore, the ASPCA applauds those who provide responsible pet care by providing veterinary needs—such as spaying or neutering—behavior training, as well as providing the animal with a safe and loving home.

    “We would encourage Mutts & Moms to re-visit their approach to this situation and look forward to a positive outcome that reinforces the importance of pets in our society and the human-animal bond.”

    All M&M’s Baktis had to do was evaluate the home, (Ellen’s home too ), of the New family, instead of bulldozing her way into the home with a policeman under false pretenses not to do a home study, but snatch Iggy.

  111. Bridgett says:

    ASPCA has spoken. ‘Nuff said.

  112. Jenny Bark says:

    Msnbc just said that Ellen has again (2nd time) asked her fans not to make death threats & she will not talk about Iggy until the kids get him back.

    You all know i’m for Ellen & we all have the right to our opinion but have you all read some of the other posts. Not the posts you can tell are from rescuers or shelters or on pet sites but the ones from all the other people. Imo they are all for Ellen. This story has reached million’s of people & they have a lot to say. Imo they don’t see Ellen they see themselves, they don’t see the hairdresser’s kids they see their kids.

    I think this is going to affect the adoption of pets a lot. You all know we lost 2 babies & we have been thinking of getting an older dog & this has made the decision of where to get it very hard. We have gotten dogs from the shelters & they have never called back or inforced a contract. We also have pb show dogs that our breeder will take back but we also can find our own home for them. Our cat was wild. Since we are not showing we where going to get from a shelter but we will NOT co-own. Our babies are just that our babies period. They are also taken care of in our will just like our human kids. When we die they have a home to go to. I called our lawyer & he said we where safe but after reading the posts on pet sites I’m not so sure.

    What I’m getting at is if we are not sure how do you think other people feel who only want to get a pet & are now finding out they can be taken back & they really only co-own them?

  113. straybaby says:

    thanks for postin that flamin’! i hadn’t seen it.

    the shelters i’ve worked with here do encourage the pets coming back to them in their contracts (but it is sad when they do.) the alternative is they land in the city kill shelter and for some reason the original adopting shelter doesn’t get notified before it’s too late. luckily we have been working towards no-kill, so if a pet is chipped and no owner can be located, they can trace where the chip originated. and they do. still not fool proof though. we did have one pup end up in a socal kill shelter. luckily they always did once last scan before euthing in case it was missed. . . . .

  114. Jenny Bark says:

    If you adopt a child you do not co-own it, that child belongs to you.

  115. Flamin says:

    Oh no, update on Fox News, and TMZ. Ellen stopped tapping of her show, needed time off. Taping of her show to resume Tuesday. Comments on News people concerned Iggy has not been seen. Concerned Baktis rehomed the dog way to fast, causing suspitions as to the whereabouts of Iggy. I hope this doesn’t end worst then it already has!

    Baktis didn’t react professionally in this matter, if she is unstable, would she, could she hurt the little dog? Why dosent Ca animal control, humane service whoever look into Iggy’s whereabouts!

  116. Flamin says:

    Reading now,

  117. Phoebe says:

    Sophia says:
    October 18th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    “Get a grip! ………….

    Huh? This is ridiculous. Ellen’s partner is a well-known actress. Why in the world would you suggest that the rescue is homophobic? Are you trying to create more rumors? If so, this is really a stretch…….

    You are not making any sense here. Are you implying that Batkis’s lawyer is a liar? Why so? Or are you saying you think the lawyer sent the message? Either way, you are making some outrageously stupid remarks.”

    You’re the one who needs to get a grip. Am I “trying to create more rumors?” Ooo, you caught me. I’ve got Entertainment Tonight on hold. They really care what we have to say and can’t wait for the latest rumor to sprout. Puh-lease.

    I’m not impling anything. I’m stating that the lawyer doesn’t know who left that message. He’s assuming and speaking on national television about his assumptions. If I was DeGeneres or her PR people, I wouldn’t dignify such an allegation with a response. As for the death threats against Batkis, we’re taking her word for those, too. The same word that gave false information to the police in order to get them to help her intimidate the hairdresser and her two young daughters and help her steal Iggy. Oh, yeah, good call on trusting that word.

    As for Ellen, her partner, and Batkis’ motivations, again, I said I was wondering. People do that when circumstances warrant it and these most certainly do. Batkis railed, “I won’t let the Ellen DeGenereses of the world get away with this.” She said it. She needs to explain it. Not that she’s believable. She violated her own rules when adopting Iggy out without a home inspection, yet it’s “the Ellen DeGenereses of the world” who are trying to “get away” with something. Oh, no, nothing personal there - except deep animosity and this was said BEFORE any threats or backlash. So, why the spewing?

    And, hate to burst your bubble, but there’s a whole world of people who wouldn’t know Portia de Rossi, Ellen’s partner, from a hole in the ground. It seems Batkis might be one of those. She adopted Iggy out to Portia, yet she’s going after Ellen. The one who didn’t sign any legal papers regarding Iggy. Interesting. Going after the one with the deeper pockets, no doubt. I smell a lawsuit for emotional ‘distress’ in the future. Batkis is wringing her hands on-camera as often as possible. Obviously her response to self-reported threats is to make herself even MORE visible. Her lawyer knows exactly what he’s doing.

    As for your charming comment about my “outrageously stupid remarks…” Well, I guess you cemented your credibility right there, didn’t you? Good for you.

  118. Scratch says:

    I would love to see M&Ms actual adoption contract. Anyone have one with the personal information blacked out?

  119. Krista says:

    I could never co-own a pet with anyone and I consider myself an excellent pet parent after a lifetime of doing so.

    It goes against my nature to have the possibility of another person telling me what to do with my pet (on any matter) that I have loved and cared for. Or someone that monitors me. Can you imagine what happens should someone move out of state? Will that be next?

    I just can’t believe this invasive rule would follow me around for years and years.. Quite frankly that contract clause (for me personaly) it’s a smack in the face to my intelligence and capability. I don’t like it.. Initial screening should determine everything..

  120. arianna howard says:

    I think ellen made a mistake but mutts and moms are real jerks they are all twisted over nothing and just to be crappy they are punishing those little girls I HOPE THEIR BUSINESS DOES FALL APART they are just plain mean and that attorney is a slime

  121. caesar says:

    I highly disapprove of Mutts and Moms, Marina Batkis and Vanessa Chekroun’s actions. They acted on impulse with vengeance on the goodhearted-ness and best interest between a celebrity and deserving children; not with empathy or forethought. In researching the web, PETA, Humane Society, BBB, and SPCA historical information, these owners have not proven themselves respectful or caring. In fact they show spite, more than anything. Reviewing everything to date re. Marina. She still doesn’t show any emotion for the human bond between animal and a well deserving family. A reasonable human would not act on impulse driven by a bogus contract but allowed time for review and reasses the situation. A responsible business owner would have responded by now to the media, attorneys, and press with a RESOLUTION and not hiding and REACTING with negativity. When one appears as a villain one would naturally want to disarm the situation; not in this case. Nothing on the news has touched me in such a way that i would be actually reaching out and being an activist.
    This is Marina’s quote: “Celebrities you know, they, they get preferential treatment. They have lots of money. They go into a restaurant they get a table.”
    Look close at her glasses >. I try not to be judgemental but something doesn’t seem right.

  122. Lynn says:

    Re the last paragraph of the last post:

    And recognizing this, Marina took advantage and charged twice the usual fee, as I understand it.

    She speaks with forked tongue.

  123. The Lioness says:

    So, Baktis has essentially admitted, semi-publicly (it’s out via the media now,) that she rehomed the dog elsewhere just out of spite. NICE.

    Good luck getting your business out from under this, Ms. Baktis. You’re going to need it.

    People like this give animal rescue folks and organizations a bad name!

    ~The Lioness

  124. The Lioness says:

    Di, I’m sorry, but no one—NO ONE–deserves death threats or any other threats of their safety.

    M&M DOES, however, deserve the nice little ride through the mud they are getting in the media. Act like an asshole, get treated like one.

    I don’t wish M&M any ill will, but I do think Baktis needs therapy and should get out of the animal welfare business. Honey, run your store, but please, please, PLEASE leave rescue to those who TRULY care about the animals!

    ~The Lioness

  125. Mitch says:

    I am outraged! With all of the unloved, uncared for animals in need of rescue in this world, any rescue agency should be pleased to have an animal rehomed if it did not fit with it’s initial family. Folks, this is about the animals’ safety, well being, care and happiness (and yes, they feel happiness).

    Being ripped from a family that cares about a pet to spend more time in a cage by itself (especially as a puppy) is not being good to the animal and then being passed off to more new people is only going to create a pet with separation anxiety and other social issues. The rescue agency, M&M is not acting in this pet’s best interest. Why is it so important for this rescue agency to act on this pet contract when there are obviously more pets out there in need of a “good” home? A “good” home has most likely been found in this case, if in doubt - they should have just checked it out without causing all of the hurt and upset thus far.

  126. lhasa lover says:

    We recently lost a family pet of 17 years which nearly killed both myself and my husband. We purchased another pet from a private breeder and I can not imagine them coming into my home and taking him from us or if something would happen to us and another family member would take him in. I do not think Ellen did anything wrong in giving the puppy to another family and I am sure she would not just have dumped him on anyone. I would never recommend Mutts and Moms to anyone or I would make sure they knew what they were getting into if they adopted a puppy from them. I understand they would not want the animal just dumped out on the road or stuck with someone who cared nothing about the animal and I do not think Ellen would do any such thing. What is wrong with this whole picture?? I think they should return the puppy to this family with a public apology to all pet owners in the world|! I will shut up now so as not to say the wrong thing!

  127. Steve says:

    I have been a pet owner all my life. I have always had dogs in my household. A few years ago when I wanted another dog I researched the pet adoption agencies. The one thing that completely turned me off was exactly what happened between Ellen and Mutts and Moms. Once a pet is adopted, the adoption agency should NOT have any more authority over what is done with that animal as long as the animal is safe and unharmed. Furthermore, Mutts and Moms completely mishandled this situtaion. They could have used more tact, understanding, and better judgement. This is exactly why I will NEVER adopt from an agency like this.

  128. what happens if someone files a police report against you says:

    […] said she has received death threats and is afraid for her safety. She filed a police report with …http://www.itchmo.com/owner-of-mutts-and-moms-dog-rescue-agency-files-police-report-after-claims-of-…Curling up with an enjoyable mystery - Nashua TelegraphShe&39s the kind of heroine who, if you were […]

  129. Anonymous says:

    What’s wrong with you people? yeah if you think of it, Ellen did not abide by the ‘contract’ stated by Mutts and Moms, but seriously think about it? Ellen had the dog’s best interest at heart. If you look at the youtube video, ellen stated that she and portia were completely honest when Marina Baktis asked how is the dog doing. Ellen didn’t lie. she even said that when she moved the dog to the hair dresser, it was to see if that dog was compatible with that home instead. Why would you return the dog and move it back and forth, for god sakes, you’re putting that dog into shock. and it was Marina Baktis stupid fault for not registering the dog’s chip under Ellen’s name, because ellen did pay the legal way. If Marina Baktis really did care for the dog, she wouldn’t let some stupid ‘contract’ stated by something they made up get in the way for finding a dog a loving home. All you people who are against Ellen are retarded, cause you need to really think about what she did. Ellen loves animals. At least she didn’t keep the dog, because she was honest about not being the right family for the dog. There are hundreds of other dogs back at the Mutts and Moms agency waiting to be cared for and yet Marina Baktis decides to focus all her attention on Iggy. If Marina Baktis really was a caring person and ‘understandable’, she could have handled it more professionally. She LIED to the hairdresser family and SNATCHED the dog and RAN. wtf!? Ellen did not give the dog to an abusive family. Marina Baktis is a stupid b1tch because she fails to see the best outcome for the dog. She LIED by telling the hairdresser family that she was doing an ‘inspection’ of the house, and she FAILED to register the dog’s chip under Ellen’s name when ellen paid for it already. THose people who are hating ellen for whatever reason, can go screw yourself. Ellen did this out of good heart.

  130. TdR says:

    Baktis will forever be known as a controlling fruitcake. She shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near animals and sent to see a shrink on a regular basis.

E-mail It