This thread has made me think of when I am home checking in future - is there a need to talk to prospective adopters at that stage so that they know should a need arise the dog is to be returned to the rescue and do they have an issue with it.

Perhaps those of us on the forum who do home check and belong to various rescues should speak to our other group members / committee meetings / the Rescue etc about this topic?

Good post and totally agree

Honestly, at that stage I don't think it's going to matter. No one just planning on adopting a dog is thinking about potentially rehoming it. Of course they plan on keeping it for the rest of its life. So they're likely to say "Yes of course."

Not to mention, at least over here, those agreements don't actually hold much, if any, water. Most rescues wouldn't have the legal fees to fight someone to return a dog and the handful that did often don't win.

OK - say a dog was homed and the adopter signed an agreement that they were going to take the dog back to said rescue should their circumstances change and they could nt longer keep the dog or want the dog. This incidently is not a rescue I am personally involved with

6/12 months down the line the rescue got wind that the dog had been passed on without their being told. Through whatever means they found out where the dog was, they went to the new address - told the people they were there to collect the dog as said dog "belonged" to the rescue and should not have been passed on. The dog was thin - kept outside and appeared fearful and in this case the dog did come back to the rescue.

Why home a dog from this type of rescue or shelter if you dont agree with their requests that the dog is returned to them should the need ever arise

Obviously every case is different and while that sort of horrible thing happens, it's not what always or even often does happen. I could understand a rescue showing up to make sure the dog is in a good home and trying to take the dog back if it were living in horrible conditions.

The reality is that no matter what contract rescues come up with, the law essentially looks on them as if they are selling a dog to someone, thus making the person they gave it to, the OWNER and the person who has the most rights.

I would personally rather rehome my dog myself because I would give it to someone who I KNEW would take proper care of her. I would rehome her with someone she knew, and make the transition slowly. I would not want to give her back to a rescue, have her at a new foster home with no one she knew and then sent off to yet another home. That seems horribly traumatic. This is why I adopted a dog from a rescue who did not require me to return her to them. I know several people who would be awesome owners for her and I would rehome her with one of them if the need ever arose.

On the flip side, I've heard of rescues trying to take back dogs for things as simple as their changing their food or something along that line (there's one large dog rescue in the States that requires you feed them a certain food; when they found out one person switched food, they tried to get the dog back...over FOOD). I don't understand why people think it's ok for a rescue to look at the adopters as "long term foster care" and thinking they can retain ownership rights for every dog who comes through their care and yet the adopters pay for all the care and the dog is in their name. I get that they're trying to make sure every dog has a wonderful home for life, but I don't think telling people they're just long-term foster homes is right at ALL.

just one question, you rehome said dog yourself, something happens in the future where the new home can't keep said dog, who takes the dog back then, the person who rehomed behind the rescues back, or does it get passed on to yet another rescue.

I have issues with rescues who believe they still own the dog even though you pay for the vet bills, you take care of the dog, you do everything for the dog. I'm not comfortable with that. For me, a good rescue says they will take the dog back if they need to or will help you find a new home for the dog if you need them to. I'm not some sort of long-term foster home. If I were, then I would expect the rescue to pay for everything.

I have the utmost respect for rescues and I work with plenty of them, but as in other areas, I think some rescues and the people who work for them are far too controlling. I don't think I'd adopt from one who was essentially retaining ownership and saw me as a glorified foster home. Therefore it wouldn't be a problem for me to rehome my dog with someone who I felt would give her the best home instead of trusting someone else to do it.

I fully agree, and this is one reason why I would not get a dog from rescue; I do assess dogs and homes for rescue but they would not allow ME to have one via their rescue because I am out all day. However to be fair I did rehome one dog before it entered rescue.

There are pros and cons to rescue dogs just as there are to any other choice. But, at the end of the day, if you signed a contract then IMHO you need to abide by those T & Cs.

I also agree with VB that this post is an interesting one to remind those of us that do home check, that one should mention this.

Thankyou for all your replies, sorry if was misunderstood and hope me n Scoop stay together, there is no reason why we shouldn't(at present, but things can change). However, the subject has been discussed again recently. I would hope that if the circumstances were right the rescue would rather a dog did not go back but stay in the care of a close relative who has been involved from the beginning. It would be most unfair for all concerned not to inform (or go against policy of) the rescue of any change should the need arise. If a rescue finds out a dog is being mistreated or has any other just cause to take them back then that is also understandable but hope is a rare. It is interesting to hear of others experiences and points of view.
Sorry to have caused a rumpus
Best wishes to all
H

I homecheck for Manytears, you are free to obviously mention this at a homecheck...ie........ ''and as you know mr/mrs blah blah if you have any problems in your circumstancies where blah blah needs to be rehomed you need to contact Manytears first etc.,'' but this will also be discussed by Manytears also and it is in the contract.
Hopefully the prospective adopters will endear to it, but its not always the case Im afraid, as I have heard of people that rehome with friends or relatives and not let the rescues know about it.

By a close relative do you mean someone living in the "same house" such as husband/wife/partner/parent etc? I doubt any rescue would find fault with this arrangement

Its an interesting topic H & I for one am glad you raised it. It has opened my eyes on the subject & future homechecks i do, i will make sure prospective adopters understand the situation & the rescues reasoning behind it

Perhaps it is a reminder, morbid & all that it is, especially for the likes of someone such as myself who is a fulltime Carer, i.e - existing close relative living in same house could not take care of said animal/s, to make sure our pets are
provided for with instructions on what is to happen to the animal should anything happen to you & yes I do have this written into my will.