Is this standard practice? Do all shelters behave like this? Do all adopters at Sydney Dogs & Cats Home receive additional waivers like this one?

CONCERNS RAISED DURING CALL RE: ROOFUS’S ADOPTION

When the shelter coordinator manager called to discuss the carer’s adoption of Roofus, the carer learned that Roofus wasn’t vaccinated — due to his anxiety preventing a basic vet check – and that they weren’t sure if he was desexed but would arrange it before finalising adoption. The shelter coordinator also said Roofus would greatly benefit from behavioural therapy and suggested an ex-colleague’s business once adoption was complete.

On that call, the carer:

• Questioned how anxiety could be used as a reason for withholding medical care
• Questioned why his anxiety wasn’t treated so he could attend a basic vet check
• Asked how it was possible they didn’t know if he was desexed, given he’s a short-haired staffy
• Asked how they could medicate him without having any medical notes or background information
• Asked why vaccination or desexing records weren’t considered relevant medical notes
• Asked how he could be “too anxious” for a vet visit but not too anxious to be shuffled between foster homes
• Asked why they suggested behavioural therapy as first-line treatment rather than appropriate medication
• Asked why they considered his anxiety serious enough for urgent therapy, yet didn’t provide it while he was still at the shelter.

For transparency: here is the first adoption exchange between the carer and SDCH (before the shelter manager stepped in) 

WEBSITE MESSAGING SCRUBBED AFTER CARER’S CRITIQUE OF MISMATCH BETWEEN ADVERTISING CLAIMS AND LIVED REALITY

In the email exchange, the carer pointed out that the shelter’s website promised all animals receive “a full medical and behavioural assessment” to “treat any health conditions, manage behaviours and match them to the right home.” This was not reflected in Roofus’s case. After the carer’s critique, these claims disappeared from the website – though this archived press release mirrors the same claims 

SHELTER’S PUSH FOR ADOPTION STOPPED AFTER THE CARER RAISED CONCERNS, DESPITE THE CARER’S UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO ADOPTING ROOFUS

The shelter was initially urgent and persistent about pushing the adoption. That urgency stopped once the carer raised serious concerns about the questionable business practices, the questionable waiver, the lack of informed consent, the lack of medical records, and the lack of medical care.

SOME CONCERNS WITH THIS WAIVER’S CONTENTS

• Waiver is back-dated to before the first interaction with the shelter
• Breed listed doesn’t match other documents, raising concerns about accuracy
• Waiver states adopter was informed of issues — but they weren’t
• Appears to shift responsibility for both known and unknown risks, including ones SDCH failed to detect or disclose
• Listed conditions don’t reflect the full medical picture
• Suggests anxiety was “situational,” despite the vet later acknowledging he required proper medication and assessment (during the only direct conversation between the vet & carer, after Roofus's adverse reaction to dispensed medication which didn't have a prescribing vet name)

For archival purposes: here is Roofus’s shelter profile (unusually removed from the SDCH website after the seizure, despite other adopted/available/"in foster care" animals remaining on the website), where his breed is listed differently

SOME CONCERNS WITH THE SHELTER’S PRACTICES RELATING TO THIS WAIVER

• Why was a backdated waiver — with inaccurate and incomplete health notes that retroactively shift responsibility for undisclosed risks — provided with the adoption form? How is it legal to provide a backdated waiver with information that was not actually disclosed?
• Why was the backdated waiver issued only after the foster carer declared intention to adopt, instead of being disclosed at the outset?
• Why did the waiver reflect only some matters discussed with the shelter team, but exclude information later confirmed by the treating vet?
• Why was there such an urgency and persistence to get the carer to confirm Roofus’s adoption when the carer first signalled interest (which happened within a few days of having Roofus) – but then a one-week delay between their formal intention to adopt and receiving the adoption form, which included the additional backdated waiver?
• Is it standard practice to delay sending the adoption form to an adopter with “first priority” for a week?
• Why did the shelter manager state she was there to “provide Roofus and the carer with the support they needed” to ensure a successful transition to adoption, yet her actions have only furthered harm to him?
• Was this backdated waiver (with inaccurate/incomplete information) a one-off, or is it standard protocol?
• Who signs off on the contents of any additional, backdated waiver with inaccurate/incomplete information?
• Why was the carer told Roofus was “on hold” for them and that they had first priority as his foster carer, but after raising concerns about the shelter’s practices, he was seized?
• Why has the carer still not received a reply about the additional waiver issued alongside the adoption contract?

See here for the rest of a non-comprehensive list of unanswered questions.

---

WE ARE AWARE THAT ROOFUS SUPPORTERS ARE RECEIVING DEFAMATORY ATTACKS. THIS ILLEGAL AND HOSTILE BEHAVIOUR IS INCREDIBLY UPSETTING, ESPECIALLY AGAINST THE BACKDROP OF TARGETED POSTER REMOVALS AND THE SHELTER’S CONTINUED SILENCE. PLEASE PRIORITISE YOUR SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.

If you are feeling distressed, please don’t suffer in silence – you are not alone.

Here are some free services available 24/7 Australia-wide.

• Lifeline (13 11 14)
• Beyond Blue (1300 22 4636)

If you are in immediate danger, call 000.

If you don’t yet have a Mental Health Care Plan with subsidised therapy sessions, your GP can help set one up.

If you need legal support, you can access free community legal services.

If you are worried about someone else or supporting someone affected (who is not in immediate danger), the Suicide Call Back Service (1300 659 467) is available 24/7. It might not be a bad idea to check in on those you care about – after all, who doesn’t like to be reminded that they matter?