Whose best interests will win out? Pablo's? Paula's? Or the Arizona couple's? An Arizona judge will decide soon.
A year and a half later, Hurricane Katrina still brings misery to her victims. Very soon, an Arizona judge will decide who gets Pablo, a small black and white dog, who was rescued in the storm's aftermath. Paula Duming was airlifted from her New Orleans rooftop shortly after Katrina hit . She was not allowed to take her dog companion, who she had named after her father, with her. Luckily, Best Friends picked up Pablo a few days later, along with thousands of other pets left behind. Somehow, against the Best Friends agreement, Pablo was given to an Arizona couple to foster. Later on, the couple adopted him. After searching for three months, Paula located Pablo and, typically, another joyful reunion would have taken place. Except that the Arizona couple refused to give Pablo back. They claimed they had already bonded with him and that they could give him a better home than a displaced Katrina victim could. However, that's not all of the story. It seems their lawyer has said they now may consider giving Pablo back if they are paid $10,000. Best Friends is supporting Paula and the case will go to court next week. There is always more than one side to an argument, however, the $10,000 "ransom" makes no sense at all to me. I know little about law but I would think that this case should be a little more complicated than just two parties arguing over property. Pablo is not simply "property". He is a living being and his best interests should weigh in. Still, whose best interests will win out? Pablo's? Paula's? Or the foster couple's? Please follow this link and let us know what your opinion is in this dispute. Also read about a Katrina Dog Hero.
