May 26, 2017 at 4:38 p.m.
IM21, OCHS drop civil claims in dog case
Schneider will not face criminal charges; dogs will not be returned
IM21, OCHS drop civil claims in dog case
Stephanie J. Schneider and IM21 filed the civil action in Oneida County Circuit Court March 7 alleging that after the Oneida County Humane Society was contracted to care for and shelter the seized dogs, it sent a bill "demanding payment of $13,114.78."
IM21 "disputes the reasonableness of this amount," the petition said.
The petition named Oneida County, the Humane Society and the State of Wisconsin as respondents and requested the return of the animals on the following grounds:
• The seized canines are not needed as evidence.
• There is no reason to believe any of the animals were involved in a crime under state statutes.
• Even if Judge Michael Bloom, who is hearing the case, determines otherwise, the amount of money Oneida County is demanding through the humane society is unreasonable.
In addition to directing Oneida County to return the animals, the petition also asked Bloom to determine a reasonable sum of money owed to the Humane Society by IM21.
On March 27, the Humane Society filed a petition of its own asking Bloom to declare the animals unclaimed. The organization claimed the animals were found to be "housed in inappropriate-sized housing, had been on some instances kept without appropriate food and water and had been denied veterinary care. Many dogs suffered from significant veterinary concerns."
The petition noted that the organization would like to put those animals that are suitable into its adoption program, and has determined that at least some of the dogs would make good "indoor pets."
The petition also noted that "in light of the conditions in which IM21 was keeping the animals, it believes that there is no possibility that IM21 could establish that it would be safe or appropriate to return the animals to her (Schneider's) care."
A hearing was held on March 25, with assistant corporation counsel Michael Fugle representing the county and Maggie Hogan representing the Humane Society. Schneider was represented by Henry Schultz.
Although a civil proceeding, Fugle focused on the unsafe and unhealthy conditions of the rescue facility as if prosecuting a criminal case, with two witnesses testifying about photographs they had taken the day the animals were seized. Because Fugle intended to call more witnesses, including some former volunteers and employees of the rescue, Bloom adjourned the matter until Thursday, when he had scheduled a whole day for additional testimony from both sides.
However, when the case was called at 8:30 a.m., with Schultz appearing by telephone, it was over in less than five minutes.
"Your honor, yesterday afternoon we were able to reach an agreement with the Humane Society regarding the remaining dogs," Schultz told Bloom. "And as a result of that, I have electronically filed early last evening a motion order to dismiss the petition and the amended petition on behalf of my clients. I understand that the Humane Society will also be dismissing its petition."
Hogan agreed with Schultz's recitation of events and made a motion to dismiss the Humane Society's petition.
"Well, the court exists to resolve disputes between parties that cannot resolve them themselves," Bloom said. "In this case, it appears that the parties have resolved their dispute between themselves, therefore I'm granting Mr. Schultz's motion to dismiss the petitions filed on behalf of his clients, and I am granting Ms. Hogan's motion to dismiss the petition filed on behalf of the Humane Society. And that concludes this matter."
The brevity of the proceedings, and the lack of a clearcut pronouncement from Bloom left the members of the It Matters To Darcy group, formed in support of the seized animals and in opposition to Schneider's efforts to get the dogs back, angry and confused. Their frustration was compounded by assistant district attorney Mary Sowinski's absence.
It didn't help that the terms of the agreement between the parties was not announced by Bloom.
Hogan said both sides agreed that the terms and conditions of the dismissal agreement are to remain confidential.
Fugle filed a motion May 11 demanding that Schneider produce and allow that he make copies of "any agreement between (herself) in her individual capacity or as an agent, officer, employee or assign of It Matters to One Animal Rescue Inc. and the Oneida County District Attorney's Office."
The motion also asked that the documents be turned over before or at the scheduled May 25 hearing before Branch II Judge Michael Bloom.
On Thursday, Fugle said the motion became moot when the two sides agreed to drop their petitions, so he never received any documents.
"The county was only involved because of the petition filed by IM21. When that is dismissed, it is done, from our perspective," Fugle said after Thursday's hearing. "When IM21 dismissed its petition, the county's role ended."
Fugle said that as far as he understands, because Schneider dropped her petition, she will not get the dogs back.
Hogan confirmed Fugle's statement and said the health issues some of the animals had when they were seized have been addressed since the Humane Society has had them in their possession.
"They have been treated, they are being treated, some of the conditions will take longer than just a few months to be completely clear," she said.
Late Friday afternoon, Sowinski announced Schneider will not face criminal charges related to the treatment of the dogs at It Matters to One.
A complete account of Sowinski's decision not to prosecute will be published in the Tuesday edition of the River News.
When asked Thursday if the Humane Society considers the outcome in court a victory, Hogan said neither she or the group see it that way. She said the goal of the Humane Society is to find good homes for the dogs and to make sure that the care they receive is in their best interests.
"This has been a really tough situation," she said. "So I wouldn't say it was a victory. It's a win when the dogs find their forever homes and right now that hasn't happened. There has been a significant delay, so that has been hard on the dogs."
Hogan said she doesn't know if IM21 will have its dog facility operator license that the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection suspended as a result of the seizure of the animals.
"That's up to them," she said.
Kellie Snow, a former IM21 employee whose reporting of the conditions at the rescue to the Oneida County sheriff's department led to the seizures, was one of the more vocal detractors of Schneider after the hearing.
Snow started the "I Stand With Darcy" movement that started as a hashtag and has since grown to a Facebook page. Numerous people affiliated with the group attended both hearings.
It was the condition of Darcy, a female pit bull who was the first IM21 animal seized in a separate action, that led Snow to report Schneider to authorities. Snow said she volunteered at the shelter for three years before becoming a paid employee last summer.
The Humane Society has announced that it will redouble its efforts to adopt out the dogs seized from IM21 that have not already been placed.
People interested in learning more about adopting the dogs should contact them at 715-362-5992.
Jamie Taylor may be reached at [email protected].
Comments:
You must login to comment.