Stratford’s Costly Animal Cruelty Case Heads to Civil Court

Civil court proceedings begin Wednesday in an animal cruelty case where the eventual loser – the town of Stratford or a local woman and her son – could be liable for tens of  thousands of dollars in animal shelter fees.

Last month, Supreme Court Judge Maureen Dennis dismissed the criminal charges brought by the town against 92-year-old resident Marion Perreira and her son, William Perreira, 58, who share a home on Frash Street.

The ruling came after a key witness, the veterinarian who first examined the four cats after they were seized, said she would not “testify that the treatment of the animals rose to the level of cruelty to animals,” said Assistant Public Defender Jared Millbrandt, the Perreiras’ lawyer.

“The (Assistant) State’s Attorney (Nicholas Bove) was put in a position where the case hinged on that,” Millbrandt said of the veterinarian’s anticipated testimony.

After the dismissal of criminal charges, Stratford Town Attorney Tim Bishop said he believed that the issue of neglect should have been adjudicated further.

“Any time animals are taken in (by animal control) they are brought to a vet,” he said, “and if the vet had opined that the cats were fine the town would have brought them back.”

Bishop said Stratford Animal Control “had the discretion” to charge the Perreiras after what he understood was a report from the vet that indicated mistreatment.

Civil court to likely determine who foots big bill

Regardless, now the case heads to civil court where the focus turns to who will be awarded custody of the four cats seized from the Perreira home in October 2011.

If the outcome is favorable for the Perreiras once more, the town will likely be responsible for the more than $40,000 in animal shelter fees that have accumulated since January 2012 when the Perreiras were first arrested.

The town seems to already be at a disadvantage after Superior Court Judge Dale W. Radcliffe ruled September 2012 that Stratford is liable for the ongoing $15 a day shelter fee per cat.

When he made his decision, Radcliffe criticized the town for bringing the civil case before the criminal charges, saying it complicated litigation and created an unnecessary burden for the defendants.

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.” Now Bishop says a state statute meant to protect the welfare of animals seized in cruelty cases is “what controls the civil case.”

Connecticut General Statute 22-329a “provides that the municipality can take possession of the cats subject to a search and seizure warrant, then file the petition for custody, holding the cats until the owners come to court to explain why the custody should not continue with the municipality,” he said.

The contract that started it all

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

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.

After another visit found the home still reeking 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 veterinarian in accordance with the schedule included in the agreement.

When this was not followed, the Perreiras – who said the vet told them any further treatment would harm the animals – were charged with animal cruelty. William Perreira has said the veterinarian who advised against more treatment is not the same one the state’s attorney was ready to call to the stand.

‘Everybody’s best intentions failed’

Millbrandt, the Perreiras’ lawyer, said the case against his clients probably should have never seen a day in criminal court.

“The allegation of cruelty to animals was based upon a violation of a contract, an agreement between two parties and typically these types of disputes are heard in civil court,” Millbrandt said.

The origin of the contract is unclear. Bishop, the town attorney, has said it did not come from his office and that “it doesn’t look at all like a lawyer wrote it up.”

Bishop has said the town had good intentions to help the Perreiras when the contract was presented more than two years ago, but “everybody’s best intentions failed.”

Meanwhile, Millbrandt, who can’t represent the Perreiras in civil court, hopes the nonagenarian gets her cats back.

“I think the right thing would be for her to be reunited with her animals,” he said.