20 Comments

“I would worry if I were a social worker,”

I would worry if I would have a dog from a dogpound, I used to have a dog that was abused by the previous owners, it took several years before she trusted me and didn’t duck when I would make an unexpected move.

Hypothetical:
You get investigated for animal abuse, you give a stern look at your kid and the official reports you for possible child abuse, just to make sure he/she wouldn’t be civilly accountable?

I’ll agree on this one. Social workers should not be doing animal control work.

Mandated reporting has its unintended consequences, just like any government action.

i also agree social workers who hjave no had the proper training to be animal police should not be animal police

They are not our making arrests, Gbear. Just reporting what they saw for further investigation. Personally, I think taking small steps to make sure we are treating oru animals well is a good think and a mark of an enlightened society.

Ron. I will re-publish part of your quote so that you understand which part of your comment makes me wonder: I think taking small steps to make sure we are treating oru[sic] animals well is a good think[sic] and a mark of an enlightened society. I could probably fill a few pages on this. But, so we’re clear, a mark of an enlightened society is one in which a government employee passes judgment on how the public treats animals or how a civilization treats its animals and in doing so treats them humanely is said mark? Presumably it is the second choice. And in some if not many respects, I agree. But, anointing a government employee to such a position, or shall I say, “watchdog”(sorry) is hardly a sign of advancement. Letting your neighbor know that he’s out of line and had better shape up or else, now this is the mark of an enlightened society. I like steak. I really like steak made from cows whose feet never touch the ground and spend their entire lives being massaged with stout. I can’t always buy the variety I prefer, given its price tag. But my preference of this particular variety hardly has implications on our society (or Japan’s).

Todd, forgive the typos. I’m firing out my comments pretty quickly and don’t look back at them.

Of the two possiblities you lay out, I think one is indicia of the other. What a govt employee thinks is a lens towards what is. What constitutes animal abuse has, I’m sure, gray area. But most is pretty clear cut.

I’m assuming these people are not making citizen’s arrests. Instead, I assume they are seeing something that does not look right and reporting it to someone. Largely, I think animal abuse is fairly easy to spot and I suspect the person who believes they see abuse will be cross examined a bit to make sure it sounds credible. I see the result being a chilling effect on animal abuse with little Big Brother downside.

It is funny, I read this blog because I think most of the opinion is well written even thought I disagree with it. I like well written, well reasoned thoughts even if I don’t share the final analysis. (Same goes with the Drug and Device Law Blog.) But the one thing I share with most people with of the political bent of many of the readers of Overlawyered and Point of Law is I support the President with his Patriot Act. I think we need to give police and the feds more powers to find the bad guys, not less. I don’t care if the FBI is listening in on my phone calls if it helps the big picture. But anytime I voice these kind of thoughts on conservative blogs, everyone seems to disagree. Maybe it is a libertarian thing, I don’t know. But I find this interesting.

Thanks for your response to my comment. Blogs like this one and the dialogue that gets created is what is so darn cool about the Internet.

Who would bring the lawsuit? The animal? Either way, let’s make the language clear that there is no civil liability.

Walter Olson, said the bill’s language is vague enough to allow for negligence lawsuits against social workers who see a mistreated pet but do not recognize signs of animal abuse. “I would worry if I were a social worker,” he said.

I’m not sure how the interview came out that way. I meant that if I were a social worker I would worry about the misdemeanor charges that could be filed under the law. Civil liability is a more remote possibility (though not inconceivable if the mistreated animal belonged to a third party); at any rate it wasn’t on my mind when talking to the reporter.

Let’s cut to reality. Many of these social workers have a difficult enough time doing their job, identifying and protecting at risk children. Are social workers in NY at risk for similar charges if they fail to report abuse of a child? If not then someone is saying that the animals take precedence over the children. Who would say such a thing? Only _ _ _ _.

Instead, I assume they are seeing something that does not look right and reporting it to someone.

The problem is, of course, that you are asking people to discern something and form an expert opinion on it without being an expert. The consequences of being wrong could be horrific for the social worker, the animal worker, and the person being “interviewed.”

Largely, I think animal abuse is fairly easy to spot and I suspect the person who believes they see abuse will be cross examined a bit to make sure it sounds credible.

Ron, with all due respect, we as a country cannot decide what constitutes child abuse much less animal abuse. There are those who think that spanking is child abuse. If we cannot decide on what we are trying to prevent (child abuse) then how can we decide what constitutes the supposed indicator of child abuse?

I suspect the person who believes they see abuse will be cross examined a bit to make sure it sounds credible.

So the person has to answer additional questions, or answer to another party based on the observations of an untrained government employee on something that we cannot define.

This is a disaster waiting to happen.

Just a side note from the cited article:
“Assemblywoman Deborah Glick, who is sponsoring the state bill, which is stalled in committee amid resistance from social services providers, said yesterday that legal accountability is necessary to ensure that more cases of child and animal abuse are reported.”

Why is is that representatives and other governmental officials always seem to demand “accountability” from others, and never take responsibilty for their own actions?

Animals are property; I see no reason to protect them. If animals want rights, they should just ask.

Regardless, child-protection workers clearly have a main function – protecting children. It seems that their focus should be on that job, and if they manage to totally eradicate child abuse, then maybe they can move on to lesser tasks.

This reminds me of a sign that used to hang in a pizza chain many years back:

“We have a deal with the bank: They don’t make pizza, and we don’t take checks.”

Methinks the NY fool–er, politician–who’s trying to get this thing passed forgot that simple thought. Are animal-control officers also going to be looking for “signs” of child abuse, too?

Melvin H. From the linked article: “[…] which would require any official investigating allegations of child abuse to report suspected animal abuse and any official investigating allegations of animal abuse to report suspected child abuse[…]”

So the answer on your question is: Yes.

And I find it much more disturbing than the other way around. As I said before, I used to have a dog that was abused by the previous owner, the dog reacted like I was the one that abused her. In fact she was afraid of all males. With a bill like this; i wouldn’t want to know what all could have gone wrong.

I read this website regularly and have never commented, but I felt this situation deserved one. Full disclosure: I am a former vet tech, animal shelter volunteer, and “mom” to many abandoned/formerly abused animals (7 total). I abhor the mistreatment of animals.
HOWEVER, nothing stops a social worker from reporting possible abuse to the animal control authorities as a concerned citizen. Legislating it just creates more trouble. I have never understood why people think adding more requirements/regulations solves a problem. It all comes from education, pathos, and morality. This stupid idea just creates more opportunity for predatory attorneys to sue agencies for “not performing their jobs” up to “standard”!

If animals want rights, they should just ask.

If children want rights, they should just ask?

Jkoerner you are certainly entitled to an opinion. Most people in these comments disagree with me but I think you are in the minority if your thoughts are “who cares?” I’m not sure quite what it feels like to suffer as an animal. I’m just not sure because, as you point out, they can’t tell us. So given my doubt, I would like to err on the side of protecting what might just be awful suffering.

I’m going to assume you are not evil so you must have a strong believe that animal suffering does not put the creatures in distress in any way that approximates human pain and suffering. But, remember, before you are so sure that if aliens come down here and they are as many times smarter than me than you are to a dog, their being so smart is not going to decrease my pain any if they allow me to suffer.

Right on, Katy. Good common sense. Your comments would fit perfectly in response to the Los Angeles ban on fast food restaurants in poor sections of town.

Our government,aided by an inept big media and some plaintiff attornies looking out for the “little guy”, more and more legislate on what “sounds good” as opposed to well conducted, factual research. I mean, who would not be for protecting animals from abuse.

KoKo: I think the idea that children (as people or “persons”) have rights has been codified in some law, perhaps viewable in a vault on Pennsylvania Avenue in DC. Though it is worth noting that their rights aren’t always as robust as adults. As best I can recall, the law traces its roots to a British Empiricist named, Locke. He didn’t say much about animals, though. But then again, animals didn’t say much about Locke, either.

gitarcarver has it right:

Ron, with all due respect, we as a country cannot decide what constitutes child abuse much less animal abuse. There are those who think that spanking is child abuse. If we cannot decide on what we are trying to prevent (child abuse) then how can we decide what constitutes the supposed indicator of child abuse?

Don’t forget that some PETA members think that merely having a pet is animal abuse. Whose definition do you want to use?

Lastly, we’ve got FAR more important things to worry about than this. It’s already covered reasonably well. Kat (#15) said it all extremely well.