Story and photos by Larry Vogel
Rose Adams was back in court Wednesday to hear the judge’s decision on bond requirements and disposition of 14 dogs seized earlier this month at her home.
Acting as her own attorney, Adams argued repeatedly with Edmonds Municipal Court Judge Douglas Fair as he sorted out the facts in the case to determine if Adams should post bond to cover costs of veterinary care and board for the seized animals.
Adams stated that she has no ownership or other interests in nine of the 14 dogs seized from her home. The two animals for which she is charged with animal cruelty, pit bull mixes identified as Sadie and Brownie, are among these nine. Five of the animals are legally licensed to Adams, but remain at a local shelter with the others. She argued strongly for their return, interrupting Judge Fair on numerous occasions to re-state this.
Judge Fair pointed out that because Sadie and Brownie figure in the two animal cruelty charges against Adams, the law specifies that she has a de facto interest in both. But should she not post bond in a timely manner, she automatically relinquishes this interest.
He ruled that if Adams does not post bond for Sadie and Brownie by 4:30 p.m. this Thursday, May 30, these animals would be released to the City of Edmonds. At this time they would be eligible for adoption along with the other seven dogs to which Adams has no interest. Adams stated clearly that she does not plan to post bond.
Wednesday’s court proceedings did not address the disposition of the five dogs Adams wants returned, and Judge Fair left this question open. Adams remained emphatic that she will continue to fight for return of these animals.
A group of approximately 30 protestors were in the courtroom. Quieter and more subdued than at last week’s arraignment, they sat in silence during the proceedings. Naomi Phillips, speaking for the group, expressed their disappointment that some of the dogs might still be returned to Adams.
“I’m appalled by the ruling,” she said. “The terrible conditions that all the animals were living in should have been part of the case, and should provide sufficient reason to prevent Rose Adams from ever owning animals again.”