Paws on Hearts animal rescue and rehoming

22/11/2024

20/11/2024

PLEASE SHARE!

https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fgofund.me%2Fbf1ed09a%3Ffbclid%3DIwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR3dtzwJOlZs22ygJximWtoreC7wpxcxw3JmmaR-nGWiZcopptn22v0wey0_aem_mUob0eI85z99FSP2ztLp5w&h=AT22ZZfgOuev3hcHcTIsLETSoBhfXcmOATPH0efG3iqES75-J58Zgp9bCgX6wlWL0hOw1vWbv7XWvo4ePCevqjEzJWu4hsIICWDpdYH5pbIpQxBvraqiHvRN-8YyCzoKTVth5FREaTOR&s=1

Mr Bones: RIP Mr Bones A bit of back story regarding Mr Bones, he was coll… Lisa Walker needs your support for RIP Mr Bones's , Our legal fees outstanding

17/11/2024

Mr Bones:
This is our statement of what are the facts of the matter regarding the case of Mr Bones ;
A bit of back story regarding Mr Bones, he was collected by the rescue as a neglected thin podenco who was full of ticks and his back hip was shattered in what we think was a result of an RTA.

Mr Bones was not strong enough for surgery when he initially came to the rescue as he was too weak and also had a significant infection within the leg.

Over many weeks we nursed him back to health and he was able to mobilise independently with the use of 3 legs for a significant amount of time and often he would be hand fed at times by volunteers at the rescue to ensure he was getting the required dietary intake and protein to aid his healing. His own determination to live shone through to us and we knew he had to be given every chance of recovery. All of our many supporters fell in love with his beautiful noble face that was always full of love for humans.

We decided to call him Mr Bones due to fact that every bone in his body was visible when he came to us. Affiliated with our rescue we have a very experienced orthopaedic/trauma veterinarian specialist within Spain whom with the help of fundraising via the rescue successfully operated on Mr Bones and fixated his hip enough to stabilise and with the use of metal pins to assist this.

Following this operation he was again nursed and rehabilitated by volunteers within the rescue back to health and living a normal life as such.

We all had a big soft spot for him, normal when a dog has endured so much at such a young age and showed amazing resilience and love towards humans and the world despite what he had been through.

When it was deemed that Mr Bones was fit enough to travel in compliance with the DEFRA / APHA health certificate, he came to the uk to start his new life on our “Happy bus” alongside 19 other adopted animals.

Unfortunately his initial adopter changed their mind regarding the adoption due to personal circumstances beyond her control and couldn’t keep him and as per our Rescue Back Up and adoption contract we worked with the adopter to endeavour to find Mr Bones another home.

Following a new contract and home check Mr Bones went to his adopter at the centre of this story.

We had received regular updates on our designated “Happy Ever After ” group on social media platform with pictures and statements of how well our Mr Bones was doing and there was no medical issues ever highlighted to the rescue between this time, last social media post and contact with the rescue was 8th of September of happy pictures with his family.

The next communication after this date with the rescue and said adopter was by way of text message to state he was sorry to inform us but Mr Bones has been suffering with reoccurring infections within his leg for the last 6 months in relation to the historical injury and that he had discussed his options with vet and it was decided Mr Bones would be euthanised 15/11/24.

As you can imagine our reaction was of shock, complete shock He was barely 3 years old and this was the first time any medical issues since arriving in the Uk were highlighted to us.

We spoke to the adoptive family and asked them if they would please reconsider this decision in view of looking at exploring alternative options. We requested if we could please be involved to help facilitate this by way of allowing us to review his recent clinical veterinary consultation finding with our specialist veterinarian in this area of expertise. This was refused.

The adoptive family completely disregarded our request and continued to do so despite our desperate pleas for communication to discuss this. We begged them to reconsider.

The adopter was then contacted via telephone by a member of the Paws team to discuss this but due to the fact he was at a sports event and was under the influence of alcohol the telephone call had to be abandoned, however at said telephone call the adopter had advised he would call the team the following day to discuss prior to the call being terminated.

The adopter was then messaged following the telephone call to advance we were thankful for the telephone call and looked forward to discussing the issue further with him the following day as advised.
The adopter then asked us to call him. We did call him.

A very lengthy and at times difficult conversation took place regarding the proposed euthanasia of Mr Bones , the adopter was repeatedly pleaded with to allow us as his original rescue with adoption contract and rescue back up in place to consider an offer for us to take care financially and to seek a more specialist second opinion with a view to cover any financial implications following any treatment or surgery that may be a viable option to Mr Bones and also any post op rehabilitation. Unfortunately despite our best efforts no resolve was made again at this phone-call , once again it was agreed the rescue would try to attempt the next day to discuss again and the adopter was in agreement with this.

Later that day we discussed Mr Bones’s issues with the information we had been given verbally from his adopter as to what the treatment options, if any, were for Mr Bones to ensure that he could have a chance at exploring all feasible options to maintain life but also with that in mind he would not endure prolonged suffering as a direct result of this decision.

Our specialist vet stated in his expert professional opinion that Mr Bones’s body had come to start to reject the metal pins in his leg that were left in situ at initial surgery with the rescue, he also explained that secondary to this he would naturally develop chronic open wounds attributed to the area and further risk of re occurring infections. With regards to a viable treatment for this issue he advised of a fairly “simple” surgical procedure to remove the current metal pins in situ , he also advised that in his opinion amputation at this stage would not need to be considered prior to this. Our vet categorically stated that he felt an option of euthanasia was not clinically justified at this time based on the level of clinical information the adopter had provided to the rescue and so with this in mind the rescue proposed to the adoptive family of Mr Bones that we would like to help them explore once again to seek second opinion , again with an offer to cover all costs for further consultations and or treatment options including that of rehabilitation , at this stage there was no wish to remove Mr Bones from the care of his adoptive family we wanted to work together, the rescue were ignored and all contact began to stop.

The following day we attempted contact Mr Bones adoptive family and again communication was ignored despite our pleas to speak with us . We begged and begged for the adopters to liaise with us via messages,again explaining we felt there could be a solution and even more reason to request a second opinion following discussions with our vet, but we again received no response .
After multiple days of frantically trying to make contact with the adopters including reaching out to them that should they be feeling overwhelmed and daunted by our request for a second opinion with the prospect of going through with further surgery and or taking on the responsibility of caring for a disabled dog , we would be happy to take Mr Bones back under the care of the rescue without judgement.

Following on from this the rescue received a message to state that the adopters felt we were emotionally blackmailing them and they would not be keeping him alive to “appease us” .

This was a devastating blow to us and Mr Bones after trying for days to find some resolve amicably with a euthanasia date looming.

We continued our desperate attempts at communication with the adopters and with no response for the sake of Mr Bones and advised that unless we did not receive any further communication and in particular with regards to the veterinary surgery involved in the treatment of Mr Bones so we could liaise with them we would have no other option than turn to social media and the animal welfare network for support and help with the matter.

Following this we were then provided with details of the veterinary surgery by the adopter and advised to speak to their vet as they would like to speak with a member of the team.

A member of the team called the veterinary surgery in question and we will be honest to admit the conversation was not as constructive as it could have been on both sides and ultimately there was no agreement reached. It was expressed to the vet that as Mr Bone’s original rescue with an adoption contract and euthanasia clause within that contract, we would like to request a more specialist opinion on Mr Bones’s treatment options. The vet then went on to advise that the decision of euthanising Mr Bones was what the adoptive family had chosen and she would carry out their wish irrespective of the adoption contract. The question was asked to the vet “why would you send a dog home for seven days if he needs to be euthanised. Her reply “he has pain relief”. As a team we felt if she was confident to send him home we had time to get the second opinion from the appropriatly trained vet.

It was only following this telephone call with the vets we now felt utter desperation for the sake of Mr Bones and the realisation began to set in that we were not going to be allowed to be involved in any part of this situation despite our contract.

As a team we discussed the option of a social media public post , which was ultimately our last resort and always would be in matters of this context due to obvious reasons.

Once the post was devised, out of courtesy and also having an inclination of how the post would impact within the animal welfare social media network due to the sensitive and highly emotive nature we again contacted Mr Bones’s adopter with a copy of the social media post to advise of our intention to post and cross post over social media networks. We advised that was in the hope to reach out to our rescue community and legal specialists in relation to the matter and we offered the adopters an opportunity to reply back to this PRIOR to posting publicly and offered a final request to please work amicably with us , we also advised should they feel that anything within the context of the original post was unfair or untruthful to please let us know so we could take this into consideration - to date the rescue never received a response from this message.

The following morning we were emailed a falsified legal document that was taken from the internet and emailed to us to advise us that the document prevented us from posting any information regarding the situation publicly.

As we have various practicing solicitors who are part our rescue family we forwarded the document for their attention. We were advised to disregard the document as it served no legal basis and was indeed a document that had been self sourced from the internet.

Once again following this email we were still prepared to work with Mr Bones adopters and again requests were called for veterinary reports so we could please be involved in the decision with regard to treatment options.

Once again our pleas and communication was ignored, nothing.

We were in absolute turmoil, at this stage we didn’t even have validation that our sweet boy was still alive.

We then made the very difficult decision to agree to make the situation public via social media platforms.

As you can appreciate we tried so hard to keep this from the public domain, contrary to what some individuals believe we actually tried to protect everyone involved in this situation from this level of publicity, but how could we make a justified decision as a rescue to respect the decision to euthanasia without all the information we required to do so.

Throughout the one and only telephone call the veterinary practice would agree to, the call was suggestive of our euthanasia clause within our adoption contract which prohibits Mr Bones from being euthanised without prior consent from the rescue unless in case of clinical emergency with her clients
and that should a clinical emergency occur in the interim of planned euthanasia date with Mr Bones he would be euthanised under this condition and in effect would mean the rescue would have no say in the matter.

Following on from this conversation we felt that if Mr Bones was euthanised against our wishes it would be that of an “clinical emergency situation”.

14/11/24 - we had lost all hope and becoming deeply affected psychologically and physically by the pain and stress of the situation including the level of publicity that this case was receiving, yes the support has been overwhelming but it also had a detrimental impact on our mental health, this is the first time we have found ourselves at the centre of such a draining and emotionally stressful situation of this kind. We were devastated that we could lose Mr Bones after we had nursed him back to health months ago and we believed he could be well again with access to specialist vet care. Which was being denied him by his adopters. None of us could or do understand why this offer was refused.

Our solicitors wrote to the vet and to the adopters on the 13th November pointing out that the contract with us forbids the dog to be euthanised if we wished to seek a second opinion. The vet responded saying they couldn’t discuss due to patient confidentiality. This was despite being given permission and speaking to us earlier and despite the threat of legal action if they went ahead with the planned euthanasia on 15th. The adopter replied saying he disagreed with the solicitors interpretation of the contract and completely failing to address the issue raised in correspondence or to give assurances that he would allow us to get a second opinion for Mr Bones. The adopters attitude was unfathomable and in particular his intransigence was worrying. He did not refer to Mr Bones in his emails but seemed to prefer to point out his own interpretation of contract law. His emails suggested he thought he was right and that we had no right to question his decision. He did not give any indication of how Mr Bones was doing.

We had resigned ourselves to defeat and grief for Mr Bones when we then received a contact asking us to liaise with a specific barrister who specialises in animal law.
The team acted on this sought the advice and liaised with our solicitors in conjunction to this and within a very short window of time the barrister had agreed to take our case to the High Court with a view to obtaining an emergency injunction order to halt the impending euthanasia of Mr Bones.

During this time our acting solicitor received a 1 page - labelled “page 13 of 14”. - clinical consultation document from what appeared to be a 14 page document directly from the adopters of Mr Bones.

The document was suggestive that during consultation there were two options discussed, one was that of amputation and the other of euthanasia.
Within the consultation it also states that there are many reasons to choose either or clinical intervention, the latter stated that the adopters decision had been to euthanasia as felt it was “kinder” due to various factors such as risk of reoccurring infection.

Following the veterinary documentation we received and after review and consultation with our specialist vet we felt that our repeated requests to be involved in a more specialist second opinion were justified.

Late on the evening of 14th November our specialist barrister Miss Cathryn McGahey KC worked on the preparation of the court application until 4am on the 15th November .

15/11/24 - This was now the day of original schedule date for euthanasia as per communication with the adopter. We worked tirelessly that morning to secure a high court emergency injunction order that was granted to impose the immediate halt of Mr Bones’s euthanasia.

Earlier that day before the Judge heard our application the veterinary practice were emailed legal correspondence to advise that the case of Mr Bones was going to a High Court judgement hearing for emergency injunction. The same papers were sent to the adopters. So the vet practise and adopters knew by around 9.30-10am that a Judge would be considering our application. Both were free to respond as the papers were sent by email.

The veterinary surgery nor the adopters responded to any legal communication pre the court order.

We received the news that the order had been granted and that after reviewing all of the information the judge felt it necessary to impose an injunction prohibiting the euthanasia of Mr Bones and in by doing so ultimately granted dual ownership . The order also stated that the adopters were free to surrender Mr Bones back to our care.

We were absolutely elated when the news came from our solicitor and we had hoped that the public calls to please stop the euthanasia would have bought us the time we had needed, we furthermore went on to update our social media following of our developments and advised that Mr Bones was now at the centre of an imposed emergency injunction order.

Only how wrong were we, the vets had withheld the fact that our sweet boy was infact already dead and had been since 8 minutes past midnight that very same day. At no point had the vet or her legal team or the adopters notified us or our solicitor or the court for that matter and had allowed our solicitors, a barrister and a High Court Judge to go ahead with a hearing about our Mr Bones that they knew had been dead for 9/10 hours and by the time the injunction was served 15 hours or so. The vet and importantly her legal team ought to have notified the court and our legal team that Mr Bones was dead, not to mention the adopters. Just as a common courtesy to the court and Judge an officer of the court is expected to ensure that the courts time is not wasted. Yet they chose to let the application go ahead knowing it was fruitless.

They had waited until both themselves had been served and their client with the high court order that he was dead.

This information was withheld knowing that ultimately a non profit rescue organisation that would encounter thousands in legal fees was going to make an application to stop the euthanasia for an already deceased dog.

This is absolutely abhorrent and outrageous behaviour professionally, morally and ethically.

We later went on to receive the death certificate that night, as our adoption contract requests this.

As a rescue we are broken and we can not simply process how this could have been allowed to happen in the way that it did, the death of Mr Bones has deeply affected not only us a team but a wider animal welfare and public community and it poses a very dark cloud over rescue back up and contracts in general, we hope at best to come from this that as we were granted dual ownership by way of the emergency injunction order , there may be a more clearer guidance from regulatory bodies and protection of rescue contracts in the name of animal welfare in the future because ultimately when you pick this apart, all we ever asked for right from the start was a chance of a second opinion and to work together with the adopter for the most suitable outcome that was in Mr Bones’s best interests and that is all this has ever been about.
Thank you for taking the time to read this.🐾

*In relation to the high court injunction order- this is public information, we may be brave but we are certainly not brave enough nor stupid enough to try and falsify a high court judgement order and upload to a social media platform and allegations of this type are quite frankly absurd.

* Our current legal fees stand at £5000 in excess and this is the solicitor’s firm we used: Forbes Solicitors, Gordon House, Sceptre Way, Preston and we would highly recommend them for any situations of this kind.

* We would also like to add that at no point throughout this whole situation has there ever been any threats of violence and or abuse between any and all parties directly involved in this matter and we do not condone any behaviour of this kind, we please ask for this to stop as this is not what Paws on Hearts represents. We would also like to sincerely give thanks to the animal welfare/rescue community and all others who have offered support and kindness at this truly difficult and stressful time , we appreciate you all.
This will be our last public communication regarding this matter and we will be collaboratively working and liaising with other necessary and relevant bodies and organisations in private in the name of Mr Bones’s memory.
Our statement of events will not be open to interpretation nor questionable within our social media platform directly.
Many thanks
Team Paws 🐾 ❤️

16/11/2024

16/11/2024

❤️

16/11/2024

🌟 A Sky-High Thank You to Debbie! 🌟
And Phil Horton!!!
We are blown away by the incredible Debbie and Phil , two of our amazing Paws on Hearts supporters , who has faced their fears and jumped out of a plane to help us continue the work we do 🪂💙

Debbie’s and Phils incredible skydive has already raised over £4,000 to save other Dogs & Cats!

Their bravery, kindness, and selflessness remind us just how amazing our supporters are.

Debbie and Phil , we can’t thank you enough for going above and beyond (literally!) to make a difference. You’re a true heros ! 💖🐾

Let’s give Debbie and Phil the love they deserves in the comments! 👏

and phil