Stratford's Costly Animal Cruelty Case

The town of Stratford may be liable for thousands of dollars in animal shelter fees after a Supreme Court judge Wednesday dismissed animal cruelty charges against a 92-year-old local woman and her son.

Marion Perreira and her son, William Perreira, 58, were arrested January 2012 for allegedly violating a signed agreement with the town that outlined veterinarian care for five cats returned to the Perreiras from the town in July 2011.

The Perreiras have said that they stopped following the schedule of the contract because the veterinarian they took the cats to had told them that more shots or medication would harm the animals.

Supreme Court Judge Maureen Dennis dismissed the charges this week after a witness, the veterinarian who first examined the cats after the animals were seized, said she would not testify that the animals were maltreated.

Stratford Town Attorney Tim Bishop said he believes the issue of neglect should be adjudicated further. He did not say if the town plans to appeal the ruling nearly two years after the charges were brought on the Perreiras.

Shelter fees pile up, judge rules town has to pay

After the alleged breach of contract, officials in October 2011 seized four of the five cats – one could not located – from the Perreira’s Frash Street home. Since then they have remained in the town’s possession at Stratford Animal Control.

The role of custody is significant. Before the criminal charges came against the Perreiras, the town filed a civil suit against the mother and son, suing for possession of the four cats.

In September 2012, Superior Court Judge Dale W. Radcliffe criticized the town for complicating litigation by bringing the civil case first and then ruled the town responsible for the $15 a day shelter fee for each cat, retroactive to January 2012.

The math adds up to a tab that currently tops $41,000.

‘The unfortunate result for the Stratford taxpayer'

At the time, Bishop said that the town would appeal Radcliffe’s ruling, “but probably cannot do so until the final outcome of the case, which is likely to be many months from now.”

Bishop had added, “The unfortunate result for the Stratford taxpayer is that we all have to pay to house animals in a shelter while the person accused of neglecting them can drag out the criminal and civil proceedings without any consequence.”

While the civil case is still pending, William Perreira said he believes a favorable outcome in the criminal case will lead to a similar result in the civil suit.

Fifty-two cats seized

From July 2010 to March 2011, Stratford Animal Control seized 52 cats from the Perreira’s Frash Street home, including 20 whose sickly condition was so bad they had to be euthanized, according to a memorandum from the town attorney.

The first complaint to animal control during that time resulted in the seizure of nine cats, which “were covered in urine and fecal matter, as well as (…) infested with fleas, suffering from upper respiratory diseases, worms and eye infections.”

Two months later, in September, animal control officers reported that “the house had not been cleaned in years” and some wood furniture’s water damage “appeared to be caused by years of exposure to cat urine,” the memo states.

The contract that led to cruelty charges

After another visit when the home was still reported to be cluttered and smell of cat urine, the town and the Perreiras entered into an agreement to have the home cleaned in March 2011.

Per the contract, animal control returned five cats to the Perreiras in July 2011 with the stipulation that the cats be taken to the vet in accordance with the schedule included in the agreement.

When this was not followed, the Perreiras – who, again, said the vet told them any further treatment would harm the animals – were charged with animal cruelty.

It’s unclear where the contract originated. In December 2011, Bishop said it did not come from his office. In fact, he had said, “It doesn’t look at all like a lawyer wrote it up.”

Bishop had said that the town had good intentions to help the Perreiras when they entered into the agreement in early 2011, but “everybody’s best intentions failed.”