By SANDRA K. REABUCK
EBENSBURG — A Richland Township couple may have run out of options in retrieving a puppy they say was mistakenly placed for adoption through the Humane Society of Cambria County.
On Tuesday, Judge Timothy Creany refused to order the Humane Society to release the name and address of the golden retriever’s new owners to Dr. Trevor and Judy Yardley.
They wanted to contact the new owners to see whether they would return the 4-month-old puppy, named “Casey,” to them.
Judy Yardley, who learned of the judge’s ruling from The Tribune-Democrat, became emotional as she described her love and attachment to the pup.
“It’s a terrible mistake I made, and one I have to pay dearly for ... a terrible mistake. And I will have to live with it,” she said.
Creany, in his two-page ruling, said the Humane Society, as a private, nonprofit, tax-exempt organization, is not subject to the state’s Sunshine laws or the Right to Know Act that potentially would give the public access to their adoption records.
“A change of heart” about the puppy is not legal grounds to throw out the adoption form Judy Yardley signed, the judge said.
Judy Yardley indicated that the couple, who represented themselves, are unlikely to appeal the decision. A ruling on the case by an appellate court could affect pet adoptions across Pennsylvania.
The Humane Society argued that forcing the release of the names could have a chilling effect on adoptions.
“I think we’ve done everything we can,” Judy Yardley said. “I believe the people who have her (puppy) should come forward and give her back.”
She took the dog – one of two owned by the Yardleys – to the pound March 20 because, she told the society, “Husband doesn’t want (it).”
Within hours, she returned to the shelter to get the dog back, only to be told it already had been adopted.
D Black, the society’s director, previously said that the new owners were not interested in giving the pup back and did not want to be identified.
Neither Black nor Michael Stibich, the Humane Society’s attorney, could be reached for comment.
Elsewhere in his ruling, Creany said Judy Yardley had the legal authority to bind both herself and her husband to her action.
It was unfortunate, Creany said, that Trevor Yardley did not convey to his wife that he had reconsidered his directive to her to get rid of the dog.
Creany, a dog owner himself, was sympathetic to Judy Yardley but indicated that was not sufficient for him to rule in the couple’s favor.
“We understand Mrs. Yardley’s testimony that she was frustrated and upset and did not properly read the contract that she signed at the agency, and that she may have had a misunderstanding as to what the agreement was,” the judge said.
“But a court may not reform nor nullify a contract on these grounds – essentially, a change of heart – however supportive the facts might be.”
