WHY DID ROOFUS NEED TO ATTEND THIS “VET CONSULT” SO URGENTLY THAT HE WOULD BE COLLECTED BY STAFF, IF NOT BROUGHT IN IMMEDIATELY?
Why was Roofus too anxious to attend vet visits when...
- In the shelter
- In acute pain
- Due for vaccinations
- Behavioural assessments were first proposed
But not on this specific day?
These decisions were said to align with the Sydney Dogs & Cats Home Fear Free policy, which requires Roofus to fully decompress before assessments can occur. Yet on that day, despite clear progress and reduced symptoms, since introducing a fresh-cooked hypoallergenic diet and weaning off the questionably dispensed medications, the visit was declared urgent and escalated into surrendering Roofus to SDCH’s in-shelter hospital.
Does sending shelter staff to take Roofus from his carer to the vet seem insensitive, considering their staff’s statements that Roofus “was scared of car rides” and “too anxious for a vet consult”?
Why did this vet consult become urgent after the carer raised risky prescribing practices after Roofus’s adverse reaction to the shelter’s dispensed medication (with no prescribing vet on the label, or available to discuss)?
WHY WERE THERE NO REASONS PROVIDED FOR THE “URGENT” IN-PERSON VET CONSULT?
The carer was given minimal notice to bring in Roofus and accompany him for the “consult” on that Monday morning. Unfortunately, the RSPCA failed Roofus by providing false statements and not taking a record of the incident, resulting in the carer bringing in Roofus.
Why didn’t the shelter give advanced warning when they were working the days before the seizure?
Why was the shelter evasive in providing specifics?
For transparency, here is the full (redacted) SMS exchange with the shelter manager, who is not a medical professional for animals or humans.
WHY WAS THE “CONSULT” HELD WHILE THE CLINIC WAS CLOSED?
For personal safety reasons, the carer had to call a support person to witness the “consult”. Considering this was happening on a Monday without any notice, this isn’t a small ask for someone to drop everything at work to attend the urgent “consult”. The support person arrived shortly after the carer.
Did the shelter consider how the carer would feel being alone in a room without windows, within the shelter, while they were closed to the public?
WHAT REASONS WERE GIVEN FOR THE SEIZURE, AT THAT VISIT?
1) He “needed behavioural support”
The shelter previously stated behavioural assessments could not be completed until he had decompressed, and said that he still wasn’t decompressed. The shelter previously suggested that Roofus attend an ex-colleague’s business for behavioral therapy after adoption was completed... yet suddenly they have in-house capability to treat Roofus's "behaviours"?
Granted, the shelter’s website did promise all animals receive “a full medical and behavioural assessment” to “treat any health conditions, manage behaviours and match them to the right home.” (After the carer’s critique of the mismatch between advertised claims and reality, these claims disappeared from the website – though this archived press release mirrors the same claims.)
2) His “hypervigilance”
That same hypervigilance had previously been cited as a reason not to bring him in for a standard vet consult.
3) His “behaviour”
Despite the carer continually documenting medical improvements, and the vet declaring in that visit that escalating anxiety symptoms were related to the adverse reaction to the dispensed medication, the shelter manager, who is not a medical professional for animals or humans, declared his behaviour to be “escalating" and gave the example that Roofus growled at her and the treating vet. Throughout the carer’s time with Roofus, he has only ever growled at the shelter manager and the treating vet, despite having met many people on their decompression walks and receiving visitors in their home. Multiple individuals can attest to Roofus’s temperament, progress, and his specific anxiety triggers. There is clear documented evidence contrary to the shelter’s new narrative about his behaviour.
LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR DELAYED CARE
During the “consult”, the carer was told by the shelter that no medical concerns had been raised by previous carers.
The carer clarified:
- That they had raised multiple concerns throughout their time with Roofus, starting from when they first received him, and that those concerns were repeatedly minimised or attributed to residual “shelter stress.”
- That it is not the foster carer's responsibility to take over the duty of care from the shelter, and that the shelter didn't provide any relevant information (even when asked explicity for it) that would be necessary for the foster carer to ensure proper continuity of care
- That there were no follow-ups from the shelter regarding the welfare of Roofus, and all medical concerns that they had flagged immediately and continuously were minimised by the shelter coordinator, even though they were later confirmed to be concerns by the vet.
The carer informed the shelter manager that Roofus’ current presentation is a direct consequence of the lack of early intervention and delayed care stemming from the systems failures discussed with the shelter – and that their own vet and shelter team acknowledged that critical information was not shared across teams, medical concerns were missed, and foster carers were not given information.
CONCERNS DUE TO HISTORICAL LACK OF CARE
Based on the historical lack of care, the carer was concerned about what would happen to Roofus in the shelter.
LACK OF TRANSPARENCY
The carer was not told in advance that the appointment would result in:
- Roofus being admitted into the shelter's care for an undefined period
- Proposed sedation for a series of unspecified tests
- Behavioural assessments on indeterminate duration which required a no-visitation policy for “test accuracy”
When the carer asked for details about these assessments, expected duration, or treatment plans, no clear answers were provided.
When the carer asked for an explanation for why Roofus needed to stay overnight in the shelter environment, considering a shelter coordinator had previously noted Roofus’s night-time anxiety as originating from being left in the shelter overnight (they detailed that the facility was unstaffed after 5pm with the lights turned off), no clear answers were provided.
How will Roofus get his night-time medication dose?
What type of behavioural therapy requires months of full-day, overnight in-hospital treatment, where it wouldn’t be better to be able to go home at night, and couldn’t have any interaction with the carer due to the impact on the test results?
Why bring him back to the shelter environment when the shelter’s own staff have attributed many of his medical conditions to “shelter stress”?
Should shelters be transparent or operate in the shadows?
NO CONSENT REQUIRED
When the carer raised concerns about Roofus’ trauma history and need for stability, they were told their consent was not required due to the shelter’s legal ownership of him. The carer noted that they would have had legal ownership of him had their adoption process not been stalled after raising questions about the questionable waiver provided alongside the adoption paperwork, and that they had consistently stated their intent to adopt Roofus and had continually advocated for his care and well-being.
The carer reminded the shelter manager that animal ownership laws do not supersede animal cruelty laws. Animal ownership doesn’t mean that a base level of animal welfare can be ignored.
The shelter manager simply repeated that they owned Roofus and didn’t need consent for anything.
PROMISED UPDATES NOT PROVIDED
After several hours in this “consult”, which didn’t involve any actual examination or review of Roofus, and very robust and creative question dodging by the shelter manager, the carer removed Roofus’s harness (the shelter manager thought Roofus would react to them if they tried to do it) as the shelter manager reassured the carer and their support person that they would take care of him and provide daily welfare updates.
The promised daily welfare updates didn’t happen.
--
At what point does it move from “neglect” to harm?
Was welfare prioritised in this “urgent in-person vet consult”?
Is this how volunteers should be treated? Is this how anyone should be treated?
What did the carer do to deserve this? Ask for Roofus’s medical notes and answers for why he didn’t receive the medical care he needed?
What did Roofus do to deserve this?
Is Roofus an isolated case?
Is this behaviour from the shelter consistent with what we expect of animal welfare charities?
--
REMINDER #1 TO ROOFUS SUPPORTERS: TIME PRESSURE WITHOUT A LOGICAL REASON = PAUSE.
Any demand under artificial time pressure is a nervous system hijack. Don't wait until you're in a closed room to call for support. This could've ended very differently.
REMINDER #2 TO ROOFUS SUPPORTERS: IF SOMEONE TRIES TO KEEP THINGS “OFF RECORD”, MAKE A RECORD YOURSELF.
Write contemporaneous notes the same day and preserve them. Your note becomes the paper trail they can’t erase.
Bring a support person. Your support person becomes the witness statement they don't want to see.
REMINDER #3 TO ROOFUS SUPPORTERS: PLEASE PRIORITISE YOUR SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELL-BEING.
We are aware that Roofus supporters have received defamatory attacks and that posters are being removed or defaced. The defamatory attacks are hostile and illegal, especially inappropriate considering our only demand is transparency. It is unusual that anyone would pull posters or cross out QR codes – but we understand that the posters are exceptionally high quality/incredibly multi-purpose, and that it is tempting to leave a little love mark. Yes, they function well as paint shields, whiteboards, and general decor – we just ask that animal lovers share his story so he doesn’t disappear into the shadows. Download printable posters here if you know a good spot for Roofus's poster >
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?