Court: “Shelters” are abandoning cats & kittens

San Diego Humane Society community cat program restricted by court

AI-generated image of an animal control officer re-abandoning healthy kittens in a parking lot.

In a long-awaited ruling, the San Diego Superior Court determined that the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS) acted unlawfully for years in running its so-called community cat program. As applied to many of the friendly cats and kittens SDHS turned its back on by refusing to provide shelter care to and instead released on the street, it was a scheme that the Court found to violate state anti-cruelty laws. The Court entered a permanent injunction prohibiting SDHS from continuing to abandon these cats and kittens. The ruling does not prohibit SDHS from releasing feral and certain other cats.

Like many “shelters” in California and throughout the nation, the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS), which oversees animal control for San Diego and nearly a dozen other cities in the county, embraced Human Animal Support Services (HASS), a program peddled by groups such as Best Friends, Austin Pets Alive, and Kristen Hassen, a “shelter” consultant.

Under HASS, euphemistically referred to as “community sheltering,” SDHS stopped taking in healthy strays, including kittens, instructing people to care for them on their own, release them, or leave them on the sidewalk. If the finder refused and brought the cat in, SDHS would release the cats themselves. Care, reclaim, and adoption were not a ghost of a thought for anyone at SDHS, nor considered essential functions for a humane society. HASS ignores one of the primary purposes of a shelter or humane society: providing refuge for lost animals and a place where their families can go to find them. It not only has resulted in animals dying, but it divests Californians of their ability to reclaim lost cats and for those cats to find new homes if no one comes forward.

The SDHS’s embrace of HASS also puts the onus on residents to do the job they already pay SDHS to do through their tax dollars. But HASS allows the SDHS — and other pounds that have likewise embraced it — to raise more money — without having to spend that money caring for those animals — by pretending they are doing a better job than they are, while rendering suffering and dying on the streets invisible. In short, HASS puts cats in harm’s way and ignores their right to rescue.

In 2021, rescuers and shelter reform advocates sued.

Plaintiffs argued that releasing cats and kittens who are social with people (“friendly”) was illegal. By contrast, SDHS asserted that it had no obligation to care for most cats and kittens and could turn them away or release them under a “community cat program.”

The San Diego Superior Court has finally issued its decision on the case.

It ruled that while a property-structured community cat program is legal, shelters are guilty of abandonment when they release cats that appear to be owned. Specifically, the Court ruled that SDHS’s previous policy of requiring “verifiable proof of ownership” before admitting cats was too narrow and violated California law mandating humane care and prohibiting abandonment: “The court finds that when read together, Civil Code Section 1816(c) and Penal Code Section 597s require SDHS to admit into its shelters cats with sufficient indications of ownership, whether current or recently past.” This includes the sterilized cats and cats with unregistered microchips SDHS previously turned away or released on the street.

The Court also ruled that kittens under 12 weeks old and social kittens aged 12 weeks to six months must be admitted into the shelter. Unfortunately, the Court, assuming that SDHS can be trusted to act in good faith when making decisions that impact animal welfare, mistakenly allowed SDHS discretion in administering the program and even permitted future revisions to the policy. However, as anyone familiar with the dysfunction of this movement knows only too well, giving “shelters” like SDHS discretion is a recipe for harm. For example, determining whether a kitten must be admitted turns on how old and how social the kitten is. The answers may not be clear-cut, especially when made by executives who would rather hoard money than spend it on animals or pound staff who are motivated to dump cats on the street so they do not have to care for them, clean their cages, or find them homes. That said, the Court ordered SDHS not to make changes that narrow ownership criteria or reduce protections for kittens.

The case is Pet Assistance Foundation, et al. v. San Diego Humane Society, Case No. 37-2021-00007375-CU-MC-CTL. The ruling can be found here.

Here’s a more detailed analysis:

In 2021, four plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the San Diego Humane Society and its chief executive officer. Following pretrial motions, only two plaintiffs (Pet Assistance Foundation and Terence Higgins) and one defendant (SDHS) remained. Several of the initial claims were dismissed, and the trial centered on a single issue.

The lawsuit alleged that the SDHS violated California laws by returning “friendly,” “social,” or “adoptable” cats to outdoor environments rather than admitting them to shelters. The plaintiffs argued that this constituted unlawful abandonment under California Civil Code §1816(c) and Penal Code §597s.

By contrast, SDHS argued that only those cats with a verifiable owner would be admitted into the shelter and that all other healthy cats, including friendly ones, would be processed through the community cat program. Specifically, SDHS required “verifiable proof of ownership” (e.g., a collar and tag) before admitting cats into the shelter. It did not consider a sterilized cat or a cat with a microchip (unregistered) proof of ownership, and these cats, along with kittens, were routinely turned away from the shelter or released on the street.

SDHS also told the Court that it will be forced to kill cats if required to care for them, but this is misleading. It can become an “open admission” No Kill shelter by comprehensively implementing the No Kill Equation. The No Kill Equation’s success at eliminating the killing of healthy and treatable animals means the choice need not be to leave them on the street where they face a myriad of potential harms or to bring them into the shelter where they risk being killed. This is especially true in San Diego, as SDHS raises over $65 million annually and has $126 million in assets. Other communities have done it with higher per capita intake rates and lower revenues. Killing at SDHS is a choice. And yet when it comes to implementing alternatives to killing, SDHS has not only failed to do so, but fought legislation that would compel them to.

For example, California legislation would have required “shelters” like SDHS to notify rescuers 72 hours before killing an animal. SDHS was one of the organizations that successfully lobbied to defeat the bill. In addition, SDHS opposed other legislation to give rescuers notice of animals facing death at multiple “shelters” without the rescuers having to travel to each one, giving them time to arrange foster care and accept custody of animals before they are killed. It asked the California Supreme Court to give it the power to kill “adoptable and treatable” dogs — and, by extension, cats — despite rescuers ready, willing, and able to save them. And it kills cats who have been admitted but turn out to be “feral.”

The trial lasted roughly two weeks, from July to October 2024.

Factual and Legal Findings

The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ assertion that sociability alone determines ownership or abandonment status. It also denied the plaintiffs’ broader request to prohibit SDHS from releasing any “friendly, domesticated cats” outdoors (unless returned to a registered caretaker).

The Court, however, also concluded that SDHS’s policy of requiring strict “verifiable proof of ownership” was too narrow and violated California law. Specifically, it found that “shelters,” like SDHS, are guilty of abandonment if they release, rather than admit, friendly cats with indications of ownership.

These indicators include:

• Sterilization (without an ear-tip);

• Microchip (even if unregistered);

• Wearing a collar, clothing, or accessories;

• Signs of recent medical treatment; or,

• Abandonment witnessed or credibly described by a finder.

The Court also ruled that kittens under 12 weeks old and social kittens aged 12 weeks to six months must be admitted into the shelter. And it imposed a permanent injunction prohibiting SDHS from instituting changes to the program that narrow ownership criteria or reduce protections for kittens.

Implications

Yet again, a California Court has determined that public “shelters” will violate laws that protect animals if left unchallenged. Unfortunately, it still rendered a ruling that reflects some continued trust in those “shelters” to do the right thing, despite their track record of failing to do so.

While the ruling supports the legality of community cat programs, even if those cats are social with people (“friendly”), it requires them to comply with state laws regarding abandonment and animal care. Animal shelters must admit cats that exhibit signs of prior ownership, even if the ownership is not definitively verified. Otherwise, those shelters are guilty of abandonment.

Specifically, a shelter cannot release friendly, sterilized cats, cats with microchips, cats with signs of recent medical treatment, cats with collars or other accessories, when finders indicate that they saw someone abandon the cat or have credible knowledge that the cat was abandoned, or young kittens.

Unfortunately, shelters have discretion to determine which kittens must be admitted. They can also continue to kill them after admission, and it would be unsurprising to find that this is what SDHS and others choose to do.