Login to Change.org
Use Facebook to connect with friends and mobilize your social network.
Create an Account
Kino is a Siberian huskey belonging to Craig V. of Independence, Missouri. Craig is a paraplegic. Approximately two months ago, Craigs social worker summoned an ambulance to transport Craig to the hospital during a medical crisis. Initially Craig refused treatment because he had no one to care for Kino and refused to allow him to go to the animal shelter. The worker assured Craig that she'd made arrangements for Kino's care. Craig was taken to the hospital under the assumption that Kino was going to be cared for at the shelter until his release from the hospital. In other words, he was not told the truth. Kino was subsequently adopted out by the Independence Animal Shelter after being held for 11 days. A note was placed on Craig's door to notify him of the adoption, even tho the shelter had been made aware they were picking the dog up because the owner was being hospitalized. Craig's sister insists she made repeated phone calls to the shelter during this time but the calls were answered only by a machine. She says she left numerous messages, none of which were returned. On day 11, Craigs sister reached a live person at the shelter. She was told that Kino remained at the shelter, but adoption proceedings had begun and the new family would be picking Kino up the following day. Despite her request for the shelter to discontinue the adoption and allow her to pick Kino up, they went thru with the adoption. When she asked why none of her calls were returned she says they told her that they did try to call her, but whomever had taken her number down had trasnposed numbers, making it impossible for them to reach her. Despite having originally being summoned by the social worker who states that she provided her business card to the shelter employees, the shleter insisists they rightfully adopted Kino out after having no way to contact Craig to notify him.
Bring Kino Home
Greetings,
Dear Sir,
Kino is a Siberian huskey belonging to Craig V. of Independence, Missouri. Craig is a paraplegic. Approximately two months ago, Craig's social worker summoned an ambulance to transport Craig to the hospital during a medical crisis. Initially Craig refused treatment because he had no one to care for Kino and refused to allow him to go to the animal shelter. The worker assured Craig that she'd made arrangements for Kino's care. Craig was taken to the hospital under the assumption that Kino was going to be cared for at the shelter until his release from the hospital. In other words, he was not told the truth. Kino was subsequently adopted out by the Independence Animal Shelter after being held for 11 days. A note was placed on Craig's door to notify him of the adoption, even tho the shelter had been made aware they were picking the dog up because the owner was being hospitalized. Craig's sister insists she made repeated phone calls to the shelter during this time but the calls were answered only by a machine. She says she left numerous messages, none of which were returned. On day 11, Craigs sister reached a live person at the shelter. She was told that Kino remained at the shelter, but adoption proceedings had begun and the new family would be picking Kino up the following day. Despite her request for the shelter to discontinue the adoption and allow her to pick Kino up, they went thru with the adoption. When she asked why none of her calls were returned she says they told her that they did try to call her, but whomever had taken her number down had transposed numbers, making it impossible for them to reach her. Despite originally being summoned by the social worker who states that she provided her business card to the shelter employees, the shelter insists they rightfully adopted Kino out after having no way to contact Craig to notify him. Our research into the matter indicates that Kino has been "moved" at least 5 times since he was taken from his home of four years with Craig. The original adoptive family or individual almost immediately gave Kino to someone else, who then gave Kino to another person. We believe Kino was then moved one more time before being "repossessed" by the original adopter. Clearly the right thing to do is reverse the adoption, demand the return of Kino to the shelter by the adoptive family and then for the shelter to reunite Kino with Craig. The actions the adopter has taken prove without doubt that they are not keeping Kino due to a loving bond developed, but simply because they CAN. This is not right and YOU can make it right.
[Your name]