Woman: Animal Control Abused My Mother

Editor's note: Subheads have been added to the following letter to the editor for increased readability.

My mother is a Stratford resident and has a court date Monday morning, Dec. 12 where the animal control officer is trying to fine and possibly destroy her cats.

I think this may have been caused by a situation in which the the animal control officers were trying to put a dog pound in back of my mother's house and when it was defeated there seems to have been some type of vendetta by that department against my mother since she was one of the major people getting the move defeated.

At one point a neighbor that housed several feral cats on their property and in which my mother helped in feeding them, put in a complaint about the feral cats. I feel the animal control officers used that complaint to gain access into my mother's house claiming the complaint included her cats being sickly.   

My mother did have a lot of cats, but they did not go outside and the neighbor that housed the ferals never went into her house so they would not be able to judge the health condition of her cats since they never saw her cats. And since the initial complaint (which was never shown to my mother) was about the ferals I feel they never had any reason to go into my mother's house.

'No medical reports verifying the condition'

Instead they went into her house, removed all of the cats, told her that they were all very sick and that they all had bartonella disease. No medical reports verifying the poor condition of the cats was given to my mother even after repeated requests for those reports were given by my mother. As a side note about the ferals, my mother was sent a letter stating that she was no longer allowed to feed the ferals and I believe the neighbor that put in the initial complaint received a similar letter.

The animal control officers at one point did remove the ferals from the area to get them fixed but then returned them back to the neighbor's property. When my mother asked why they returned them to the area if they don't want anyone there to feed them she was advised to not feed them so they would move onto another area.

This makes no sense to me at all because why would you return them to an area that has people they know has fed them in the past, will feel sorry for them again, and more than likely will feed them again unless you are trying to set them up for failure. And why would you want to return feral cats to an area to not feed them only to allow them to move into another neighborhood to create a problem for the people in that area?   

'She was not given any time to see a lawyer' 

As far as my mother's house and cats were concerned, instead of fining her as is the normal process, she was told they obtained a grant from the ASPCA to clean her house, obtained monies to put her and my brother up at a hotel in town for a week and received donations to replace a few pieces of furniture. They told her she had to sign a contract that she did not agree with, or be arrested and put in jail. She was not given any time to see a lawyer and I feel she signed the contract under duress since she had approximately one day to sign or be put in jail. 

I don't know anybody that can get an appointment the same day to consult with a lawyer and she should have been given a few days to a week without the threat of arrest or jail to see a lawyer.

The contract stated that there was feces all over her house and that when the cleaning company comes to her house to work my mother and brother could not be on the property. The contract also stated that anything that her and my brother wanted to keep was to be placed in a box marked "keep."   

The contract stated that she would be given 5 cats back and there was a schedule for their care once they were returned. One issue I have with that part of the contract is, that if her place was as filthy and had feces all over it as they claimed, then why would they give her any cats back? Instead, she should not have had any cats returned if it was that bad.

I have been there many times over the years and there was never any feces on the floor at all, nevermind at the level the animal control officer stated. Also, if what they stated was true, I would never return cats to the house because even if the place was cleaned it would more than likely return to that way in a short time period. Lastly, I would not reward poor housekeeping and animal cruelty issues as claimed by putting the person in a hotel for a week with animal control finding grants to pay for their stay and cleaning needs.  

While she was at the hotel with my brother she was told that everything was fine and they were making things easier for her for when she returned. At one point they advised her that they had the building inspector come out to her house which was cleared as OK by that department. Originally it was supposed to be a 3-day stay at the hotel and it was changed to 7 days.

'The animal officer threw out 90% of her house'

Upon their return they found that almost all of the sealed "keep" boxes were opened and items out of every box was thrown out against the contract. Instead of a few items being thrown out according to the contract, the animal control officers threw out approximately 90% of her house. At no time during the process did they call and tell her what was being done. My brother had almost his entire bedroom thrown out and was left an air mattress and a sheet.

When asked why his room was even touched because the cats weren't allowed access into his room due to him keeping his door closed all the time, she was told that his bed was soaked in cat urine. I don't know anyone that is willing to sleep on a cat urine soaked mattress and even if it was remotely true there was no reason to throw out the furniture if the mattress was the only thing that was contaminated.

Instead they threw out all his furniture except one night stand, a black leather coat, all his expensive clothing, slippers, one speaker, the power cord to an electric razor but left the razor, his high school diploma, an antique table that converted from a coffee table to a dining table for 6 - 8 people and more plus broke his ceiling light.       

In my mother's bedroom, which the cats were also not allowed into, they threw out all her underwear, an antique sewing machine, her clothes closet, removed all of her scissors but left one pair that didn't work.

In the rest of her house they threw out batteries and tools that were in drawers, as well as glass hurricane lamps, dishes, pots and pans, a new mattress still wrapped in plastic, medications and much more. Many of which does not retain any scent or could be laundered if needed. Even floor tiles were removed from the bathroom floor and thrown out leaving the area a hazard for a 90-year-old woman that had a broken neck at the time to try to walk on.

When she asked why all the items in her bedroom were thrown out since the cats didn't go in there, she was advised that she tracked in everything on her feet. Maybe I am missing something, but, I don't know anyone, at any age, that is going to walk on top of an antique sewing machine, clothes closet, hurricane lamps or even open their drawers to walk on their underwear. 

How they can say that and have the town support that approach is beyond my comprehension.      

'Cleaning company was soliciting the neighbors for work"

The cleaning company supposedly got paid approximately $8,500 for their work which we are still trying to figure out what they did because nothing looked any different from how she left it before going to the hotel.

Instead she found that the cleaning company was soliciting the neighbors for work, made black marks on her living room ceiling, broke one of her doors and a gas stove and left a white powder over everything including the outside property. I told her to put some of the powder in a zip lock bag to have analyzed if need be.

She cannot get an answer as to what method they used to determine what was supposedly contaminated nor why Stratford is the only town in the area that has animal control determine contamination instead of the Health Department, who is more qualified for that type of work.  

'She was told only one cat had bartonella'

My mother did get 5 cats back and started taking them to the same veternarians that the animal control department took them initially. She was told that only one cat had bartonella and the rest were fine. Also, the one cat that did have the disease was left free to catch mice at the dog pound during its stay there. If the cat was as sick as they claimed, then it should have been under quarenteen and not roaming freely to infect other animals in the room nor be able to catch other diseases from any mice that came into the area.

They even had a sign on the door stating that 'Max' was out so everyone would be aware of where the cat was. If the cat was in custody then it shouldn't have been loose anyway let alone using someone's animal as a way to control their mice population. Makes me wonder what they are doing with the other animals they have there.  

Since my mother has returned home she has tried to put her house back in order but she is on social security and my brother no longer receives unemployment and cannot find a job, so their finances are limited to replace necessities and do everything that was required for the cats.

If 90% of her house was not removed as it was, then, she would not have any issues. Now they have taken 4 of the cats back and are claiming her house is filthy, full of feces and that all the cats are sickly, flea infested and have bartonella and animal control brought them to a different veterinarian rather than the original one.

My mother has still not received any statement form the new vet about their health, just what they claim in the summons. In addition, if the house was in the condition they claimed in the court documents and the cats were as sick as they claimed I would think they would have been back before this to get the last cat if they were so concerned about the animal's well being.

Also, if the house was cleaned as good as they claimed and the cats were at the dog pound for 8 months before being returned to my mother's house, how could they even have gotten fleas in the first place unless they were returned with fleas since the house was supposedly sanitized of all issues.

When they took the cats the second time they also had the building inspector back a second time and in less than 6 months from the first visit as well as the fire marshall to inspect her house. That was 5 weeks ago and she was cleared with everything being OK again. For them to be called to come out a second time sounds like harassment more than anything since she was already cleared on a prior visit. They did not have the board of health there and if it was as bad as they claim in their statement to the court I would think the health department would be involved.

'The town seems to be sweeping it under the rug'

The removal of her cats the second time came approximately 7 days after she had a meeting with the town to discuss reimbursement for the missing items and damages to her property. The town seems to be sweeping it under the rug and won't admit liability and told her to hire a lawyer.    

She is 90 years old and cannot afford a lawyer and has tried to get one but unfortunantly with her being so upset over everything that has happened to her she rambles a lot when talking to them making it appear to be a more complicated case than it is. One lawyer did say that the animal control department has a reputation of emptying out people's houses in town. If true, that in itself is a good story as to why the town is letting them get away with doing that to the taxpayers. 

My mother is by no means innocent of everything because she did have a lot of cats and her house did have an odor but she did not deserve to have most of her house removed without discussion nor did she need to come home to a broken house that looks like they are trying to set her up to get it condemmed, which seems to be what they are trying to do, especially when they have called the building inspector to come out twice within a 6-month period.  

Now the animal control officers are asking in the court documents for my mother to pay a fine of $500 per cat as well as pay for their care during this time they had them at the pound and also be allowed to put the cats down if need be. One of the cats they have has had all of its required shots according to the contract and even though my mother showed them the paperwork on the cat they never returned it to her and now they want her to pay for its care.

'Abusing their power'

Personally it seems as if the animal control officers are abusing their power and doing everything possible to get at my mother since she is the only one they put up in a hotel, that I am aware of, while they had full access to her house to do what they wanted to and let her deal with the aftermath.

I did speak to someone in my area that deals with hoaders and the like and I was told that the state has a formula for monetary fines for this type of thing and that they never find grants to put the offender in a hotel and pay to have their house cleaned. There is something wrong with this picture and I would like this paper to look into it and any possible corruption and/or abuse of power the town is sweeping under the rug.  

Sincerely,  

A Concerned Daughter  

Barbara Perreira

To send a letter to the editor, email jason.bagley@patch.com.