Demand: Justice for Ginger & Reform the City's SBI Process
Donation protected
I am an attorney and a dedicated volunteer who spends my free time walking dogs and advocating for those facing challenges with their pets. Recently, I've become deeply concerned about how the City of Austin, through Austin Animal Services and the Animal Protection Officers at Austin Animal Center (AAC), are mishandling severe bodily injury (SBI) cases.
Under Texas Health and Safety Code, Chapter 822:
- SBI is defined as "severe bite wounds or severe ripping and tearing of muscle requiring hospitalization."
- A judge may order euthanasia but is not required to do so; alternatives like releasing the dog to an owner or third party are also outcomes contemplated by the statute.
- Mandatory euthanasia applies only to dogs that have killed someone, with limited exceptions.
- These proceedings do not apply to stray dogs or those in City shelters – they only apply to dogs with owners.
Current Trends:
- The City’s pursuit of SBI cases has increased dramatically this year, expected to quadruple compared to previous years, without a corresponding rise in severe incidents.
- Recent cases show the City seeking euthanasia even when the injury was not caused by the dog, such as a broken nose that occured when a woman who was leaning down to let a dog white who she was unfamiliar, lost her balance.
AAC’s Policy:
- AAC now pursues euthanasia in every alleged SBI case, disregarding individual circumstances, mitigating circumstances, or possible alternative outcomes.
- This policy has been quietly implemented by has been confirmed by City Prosecutors multiple times in open court.
Procedural and Due Process Issues:
- Notices of hearings sent to owners mere days before, are generic and fail to specify the nature of the matter or that euthanasia is the remedy sought, leaving owners unprepared and often totally unaware of the gravity of the proceedings.
- Many owners face full trials of the facts which require the presentation or objection to evidence and cross examining witnesses - all without legal representation.
- The process disproportionately negatively impacts those who are disabled, non-English speakers, or unable to afford legal counsel, raising concerns about Constitutional violations.
- The City has also recently killed a dog during the pendency of an appeal, which could amount to deprivation of property under federal law.
The Case of Ginger:
Ginger, an 8-year-old emotional support dog, is the most recent victim of this flawed process. Ginger belonged to a local man who suffers from a cognitive disability. Two months after a woman alleged she was bit by a leashed dog while out on a run, Ginger was seized by AAC. Shortly after Ginger's seizure, an administrative hearing was set. Although the notice sent to Ginger’s owner implied his appearance at the hearing would be informal, upon arrival he came to understand that he would be asked to engage in full trial of the facts. Further, the City Attorney informed Ginger’s owner that the City sought a drastic order: euthanizing Ginger based on the claim that she had caused an SBI. Ginger’s owner had no recollection of the incident but nevertheless had come prepared to agree to muzzle Ginger and to procure insurance for her. However, the City Attorney expressed there was no "settlement" of this matter. Euthanasia was the only goal. The legal proceedings were confusing and overwhelming for Ginger's owner, unprepared for what would amount to a life-or-death trial. Thankfully, the judge granted a continuance, recognizing his need for legal counsel.
Ultimately, due to health concerns, Ginger’s owner was unable attend the rescheduled hearing to defend Ginger’s life and made the difficult decision to surrender Ginger to Layla’s Heart Ranch & Rescue, who agreed to provide Ginger sanctuary. The judge, however, ordered Ginger’s euthanasia without permitting Layla’s Heart Ranch & Rescue’s to testify or considering their offer to care for Ginger.
Last week, Layla’s Heart Ranch & Rescue, as Ginger's lawful owner, filed an appeal. For now, Ginger is legally safe from euthanasia during the appeal, which could take months. During this time, Ginger sits in isolation at AAC with no walks, potty breaks, or human interaction - likely a violation of the relevant statute which mandates dogs be kept in humane conditions. We need to raise $20,000 to cover the cost of this legal fight. While this may seem like a significant amount, this case represents more than just saving one dog’s life. It is a call to reform a broken system that endangers all dog owners and their pets in the City of Austin.
Once we reach our fundraising goal, any remaining funds will be placed in a HY savings account to support future legal challenges for community members facing similar issues. I will provide regular updates and transparent accounting to keep donors informed.
I am rolling over the remaining balance from the initial fundraiser we started for Ginger's owner as follows:
Total Donations $ 6,155.00
GFM Transaction Fees $ (217.12)
Initial Legal Fees 8/2/24 $ (3,500.00)
Appeal Bond 8/8/24 $ (750.00)
BALANCE: $1,687.88
Thank you in advance for your compassion and generosity. Your support is crucial in this fight for justice and the humans, fair, and transparent system we all deserve.
The prior fundraiser with all updates and receipts can be found at: https://gofund.me/9baf6a41
Organizer
Heather M
Organizer
Austin, TX