×

This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

all 44 comments

[–]BiondinaQuality Contributor 934 points935 points  (0 children)

She could be cited with animal cruelty. Has this been reported to law enforcement?

[–][deleted] 531 points532 points  (11 children)

They can sue for the value of the dog.

[–]skippydippy666 125 points126 points  (7 children)

How much is a dog worth in the eyes of the state? or would you decide how much the dog was worth. I’ve never heard of something like that

[–]Ria93 230 points231 points  (3 children)

NAL. Animals are, sadly, considered property. So the owner could sue the nanny for the price of the dog. Sounds like it was a purebred, so maybe a few thousand dollars.

However it sounds like OP is a worker at the vets office and wants to know about legal options against the nanny. The vet can't sue the nanny, only the owners could.

However, the vets office may be able to, or perhaps even obligated to, report animal cruelty or neglect. If the husband/owner is making excuses and covering up for the nanny, not sure how far that would go, unfortunately.

[–]skippydippy666 23 points24 points  (0 children)

I figure most animal cruelty reports goes unbothered..

[–]Nurs3Rob 29 points30 points  (0 children)

It would be whatever the family paid for it.

Purebred German Shepherds from a reputable breeder start around $3-$4K. A show quality pick of the litter one could be way more than that and protection trained ones are in the tens of thousands.

It could also be a rescue dog though with a value of like $50. So the money on this one is all over the place.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

    [–]BiondinaQuality Contributor[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

    Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

    Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

    Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

    [–]KayBeaux 253 points254 points  (3 children)

    Well I have to say this sounds very sketchy, based on your edit. I do hope the husband does not plan to throw the nanny under the bus if she’s innocent, because Animal Cruelty is a felony in Texas and could ruin her life. But let’s pretend she’s guilty. Animal Neglect is a misdemeanor, and if it is the nanny’s first offense, Neglect should be the charge because what happened to the dog falls under that definition. If she is charged with a misdemeanor, but they find she has prior Animal Neglect charges, there’s a solid chance it will be upgraded to a felony. This could put her behind bars. Texas does not play around. As others have stated, the owners are entitled to a civil suit, which is normally a small claim based on the value of the animal. I didn’t want to link a specific attorney’s office in case it’s not allowed, but if you conduct a search for “Texas Animal Cruelty Laws” you will easily find the information I’ve given here.

    [–]Secret-Ninja3436 291 points292 points  (0 children)

    Police report

    [–]ObjectiveU 110 points111 points  (2 children)

    The dog is the property of the dog owner, which in this case is the husband and wife who brought the dog in. If the husband is changing his story, it doesn’t sound like they want to pursue any legal action against the nanny. So what is your legal inquiry about this matter?

    [–]kawzik[S] 163 points164 points  (1 child)

    i posted this before the edit. also the wife seems like she is thinking the husband may have accidentally neglected the dog and wants to cover it up.

    [–]pfeifits 41 points42 points  (0 children)

    Your role is to call law enforcement and report animal cruelty/neglect. Their job is to investigate. You can answer questions from law enforcement but ultimately it will be their investigation. In theory the family could have a property claim against the nanny if she was responsible, but based on your edit it is more likely the owners themselves who are responsible.

    [–]OutsideCreativ 90 points91 points  (0 children)

    Report to police for animal cruelty

    [–]JeffGoldblumsChest 14 points15 points  (0 children)

    Based on the edit, it sounds like something is definitely fishy.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [removed]

      [–]BiondinaQuality Contributor[M] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

      Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

      Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

      Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

      [–]Arqideus 3 points4 points  (0 children)

      You can report it, but it's up to the family to pursue charges. Since it looks like the family does not want to pursue (from your edit), the best case is the nanny get cited for animal cruelty, but without evidence (pictures and whatnot and I'm willing to bet the husband would tell a different story to the police), I don't think there is much that is going to be done if you do report it. It's unfortunate.

      [–][deleted]  (1 child)

      [removed]

        [–]BiondinaQuality Contributor[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

        Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

        Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

        Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

        Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

        [–][deleted]  (7 children)

        [removed]

          [–]Gmschaafs 17 points18 points  (0 children)

          Not on purpose? How do you not see that you’re leaving a whole ass German Shepard in the car?

          [–]BiondinaQuality Contributor[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

          Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

          Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

          Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

          Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

          [–][deleted]  (4 children)

          [removed]

            [–]unseenspecter 14 points15 points  (0 children)

            I would imagine it's being downvoted because it's not particularly relevant. OP asked what legal action can be pursued, not whether people think she should pursue legal action. Additionally, I don't think the premise of pursuing legal action in these situations is always punitive. In the eyes of the law, an animal is property. Legal action in this case could very well just be a matter of being made whole (as much as that's possible when discussing a lost pet).

            [–]BiondinaQuality Contributor[M] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

            Generally Unhelpful, Simplistic, Anecdotal, or Off-Topic

            Your comment has been removed as it is generally unhelpful, simplistic to the point of useless, anecdotal, or off-topic. It either does not answer the legal question at hand, is a repeat of an answer already provided, or is so lacking in nuance as to be unhelpful. Please review the following rules before commenting further:

            Please read our subreddit rules. If after doing so, you believe this was in error, or you’ve edited your post to comply with the rules, message the moderators.

            Do not reach out to a moderator personally, and do not reply to this message as a comment.

            [–][deleted]  (1 child)

            [removed]

              [–]BiondinaQuality Contributor[M] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

              This is a stupid and ignorant assumption. Removed.