Bills would make owners of animals seized in KY cruelty cases pay for their care
After animal-control officers checked a report in 2018 that there were so many cats inside a house in southeast Lexington that it was “disgusting,” the case ultimately cost taxpayers more than $100,000.
The reason is that Kentucky has no law requiring the owners of animals seized in cruelty cases to pay for taking care of them while criminal charges are pending.
Shelters have to keep the animals until the case is resolved because they still belong to the person facing charges.
That means bills for food, housing and veterinary care can pile up, especially if there are a large number of animals involved or some need extensive care, or the case stretches on for months.
“Those costs add up quick,” said Todd Blevins, Kentucky state director with the Humane Society of the U.S.
Bills pending in the Kentucky legislature would create a way to get those costs covered, according to supporters.
Under Senate Bill 125 and House Bill 71, agencies that seize animals in alleged cruelty cases could ask a judge to order that the owner pay the costs of caring for them while the case is pending.
Lt. Jai Hamilton, a cruelty investigator for Lexington — Fayette Animal Care and Control, said the 2018 case in Lexington shows the need.
Alerted by a neighbor, animal control officers found 135 cats and a dachshund named Buddy in a house where Thomas Kelly, 67, and his daughter Shannon, 39, lived, according to court records.
Conditions were unsanitary, with animal waste throughout the house and a smell that “fouled the air both inside and outside the residence,” according to the citation.
Officers charged the Kellys with not properly caring for the animals and failing to license them.
The cats had a variety of ailments that required veterinary care, Hamilton said, including intestinal parasites, gum disease and eye problems from infections. Several had to have teeth pulled and eyes removed.
In the year it took to resolve the criminal charges, the cost to Lexington animal control of boarding and treating cats seized in the case came to just over $100,000, Hamilton said.
“That ultimately comes from taxpayer money,” she said.
Judges can order restitution in such cases, but it is not a guarantee, and even in cases where it is ordered the amount often falls far short of the actual costs, Blevins said.
Lexington received no restitution in the case involving the Kellys, Hamilton said.
The father and daughter each pleaded guilty to one charge and received a 90-day sentence probated for one year, according to court records.
SB 125 and HB 71 would set up a process in which the owner of animals seized in a cruelty investigation would have 10 days to decide whether to claim them.
If not, the animals would be forfeited and the agency that took them, or the local shelter housing them, could adopt them out, reducing the costs to care for them.
If the owner claimed the animals, the agency that took them could ask a judge to order that the owner post a bond to cover the estimated cost of their care.
The judge would have to rule that authorities were justified in seizing the animals in order to require a bond. If the judge ruled the seizure was not justified, the animals would be returned to the owner.
In a case in which an owner was later acquitted or the charges were dismissed, any money he or she provided to care for the animals while the case was pending would be returned.
Another option would be for the owner to give up the animals at any point in the court process. The agency holding them could then find other homes for them.
“To me, it’s a no-nonsense bill that should have been in effect a long time ago,” Hamilton said.
Blevins said Kentucky is one of only 12 states in the U.S. without some version of a “cost of care” law.
“This is a tried and true thing across much of the country,” Blevins said.
There is a concern that without such a law, agencies in counties with fewer resources might not pursue an animal-cruelty case because of concerns over the potential costs, Blevins said.
The shelter in Breckinridge County has racked up costs totaling more than $100,000 in a case involving dozens of dogs taken from an alleged puppy mill in 2020, and the case is not over, Blevins said.
Sen. Julie Raque Adams, R-Louisville, and Rep. Kim Banta, R-Fort Mitchell, are the primary sponsors on the two cost-of-care bills in the legislature, but both measures also have other Republican and Democrat co-sponsors.
Fizzy Ramsey, a past president of the Danville-Boyle County Humane Society, said the costs to care for more than 40 horses in a 2020 animal-cruelty investigation in the county totaled nearly $20,000 in just two months.
The humane society was able to raise donations to cover those costs, but could have used the money for other projects if it hadn’t been needed to treat and feed the sick, emaciated horses, Ramsey said.
Many municipal shelters wouldn’t have a non-profit to help them raise money. The Danville-Boyle County Humane Society has been a partner of the county animal control for decades, Ramsey said.
If owners had to pay to feed and care for their animals while a court case is pending, some would likely surrender the animals sooner, allowing shelters to adopt them out more quickly and hold down costs, Ramsey said.
Once the two women charged in Boyle County case gave up the horses, the shelter was able to find other homes for them quickly, Ramsey said.
Supporters said a cost of care rules like those outlined in SB 125 and HB 71 said they only make owners do what they should be doing anyway — paying to take care of their animals.
“Ideally, this will limit length of stay, better allocate taxpayer dollars, improve outcomes for pets, and hold pet owners accountable,” Ramsey said.
This story was originally published February 23, 2022 at 11:37 AM.
