Indiana animal care workers fired for checking adopter criminal history
Indiana animal care workers fired for checking adopter criminal history
Two Indianapolis Animal Care Services workers were fired for searching names of potential pet adopters for previous animal cruelty charges.
When she first arrived, the standard policy encouraged counselors to check potential adopters on MyCase before releasing an animal into the adopter’s care.
That policy was first instated in 2022, after the gruesome hanging and stabbing death of a dog that had been adopted from Animal Care Services to an owner with a violent criminal history. The rule was changed about two weeks into Fox’s tenure at Animal Care Services.
“Within the first week or two of me being there, they took away the MyCase policy,” Fox said. “They argued that going to any home, no matter who it’s with, where it is, what not, is better than being in the shelter.”
You're viewing a single thread.
I am generally against criminal record bullshit except violence, fuck that shit.
I think in the case of animal adoption, the only relevant criminal check would be for animal abuse. Anything else is irrelevant, and could prevent a person who needs companionship from having that therapeutic comfort.
Add Domestic violence and child abuse to that list. Anyone who abuses their spouse or kids is definitely not above abusing an animal.
No one is above anything. A person could be a loving spouse and wonderful parent and still beat their animal.
Personally, I hold animals in higher regard than people. If a person bit me, I’d bite back.
Abusing animals is an warning sign for abusing humans, therefore the reverse makes sense too. In fact an abusive person who hurts people has very likely already hurt an animal.
I would NEVER put an animal in a known abusers care. Ever. It is completely unacceptable.It’s probably best not to, I agree.
Animal abuse AND violent behavior in general.
I don't think somebody who has been violent multiple times towards humans will be different to a pet. Just because there was no animal close to this person yet, doesn't exactly instill confidence that the pet will not be hurt.
I think this should be case by case. People who abuse pets, children, or family members? Absolutely not.
At that same end when I was younger and working at Micky d's, there was this dude who went to prison for stabbing someone in a barfight. He claims the other person started it, in reality? Who fucking knows, they where both probably being drunken dipshits.
I don't think that guy is gonna go beat his dog though.
I don’t completely agree. It’s very possible to want to beat a person, but never want to harm an animal. Although… it could be a red flag that needs some consideration.
I agree with this sentiment.
The risk of abuse needs to be weighted against need to shelter. World aint perfect
And shelters nowadays seem way to trigger happy to reject an adoption. Live alone and work 8 hours? Rejected because the animal will be alone. Have a 6 fooot fence around your yard? Rejected because 8 is "mandatory" for the breed. I have noticed that humane socieies are way too restrictive with their animals while city run shelters just want to make sure you have permission from the home owner take in an animal.
I'd also want to see if the adopter has a history of not staying out of jail for more than 6 months at a time. For example: my brother has been arrested at least 21 times over the last 15 years. I don't think his home-life is stable enough to support a pet.
Now, if, say, his roommate wanted a dog, my brother's bullshit shouldn't keep the roommate from getting a pup.
A stable home is important regardless of criminal history. When I got my cat I had to bring a copy of my lease. I thought it was a bit much, but I understand the reasons.