Judge’s Ruling Spares Dog From Death Sentence

SANTA ANA — A Yorba Linda family’s all-out legal battle to save their dog named Boo ended in victory Thursday as a judge barred animal control from destroying the bull mastiff, impounded after attacking a 7-year-old boy.

“We’re ecstatic, shocked, tired, everything,” said Stephen Williams, who put his house up for sale and ran up $10,000 in legal costs.

Before Boo can leave the county shelter, however, Superior Court Judge Tully H. Seymour said county animal officials must come up with a plan to control the 140-pound animal. He suggested such measures as a specially designed backyard and extensive training for both animal and owners.

The judge said the “unfortunate” attack highlights the importance of proper training for owners of large, powerful dogs.

“It is apparent to the court that the Williams are willing to go to great lengths and to spend significant resources to ensure that their dog does not harm anyone in the future,” Seymour wrote in his ruling.

Zach Anderson Sr., whose son, Zach Jr., was injured by Boo, said he was shocked and disappointed by the judge’s decision.

“We can’t understand how anybody would want to keep a dog that is capable of attacking like that,” said Anderson, who still has a pending personal injury lawsuit against the Williams family. “Hopefully, they’ll get their dog and move now.”

The emotionally charged case marks the first time a family has filed a lawsuit challenging a decision by Orange County Animal Control to destroy an animal that has been declared vicious, according to attorneys and county officials.

Animal Control Director Judy Maitlen said she was relieved the case was resolved.

“We’re satisfied we made a measured and appropriate recommendation, “ she said. “At this point in time the judge obviously felt otherwise. We simply will abide by what he said and will do the best we can to protect health and safety.”

*

Boo has been sitting at the county pound in Orange awaiting his fate since officials learned of the Dec. 26 attack at the Williamses’ Yorba Linda home, which left Zach Anderson with scrapes and punctures over 40% of his back and with head wounds requiring 60 stitches and 30 staples.

The Williamses’ attorney, Michael Rotsten, argued that the county’s vicious dog ordinance is vague and gives officials too much discretion in deciding which animals should be destroyed.

The family said Boo had never attacked anyone before, and was reacting to a perceived stranger in his territory.

Animal control officials, in two separate administrative hearings, decided that destroying Boo was the only reasonable alternative to protect the public. Maitlen described the boy’s injuries as the most serious she has seen in an unprovoked dog attack.

The boy, who has since recovered, lives next door to the Williams family. He had been invited to the Williamses’ home, had entered a patio area and was walking toward a back door when the dog pounced on him, an attack that lasted no longer than 20 seconds, authorities said. Zach was accompanied by the Williamses’ 12-year-old son and a cousin of the 12-year-old.

Rotsten said he hopes the judge’s decision will show others they can challenge government decisions he believes are too often based only on “expediency.”

“The bottom line is that most people kowtow to the will of government employees,” he said. “And when animal control comes and says, ‘We think your animal should be destroyed,’ most everyone goes and puts their tails between their legs and go along with it.”

*

Jane Garrison, acting president of Orange County People for Animals, said the decision is a boost to responsible pet owners.

“These are responsible people who are willing to take whatever action there is to make sure this doesn’t happen again,” she said.

Maitlen said she didn’t expect a flood of court challenges because animal control officials rarely order the destruction of animals over an owner’s objections.

In Boo’s case, Judge Seymour said the order to destroy Boo was “not supported by the evidence and constituted a clear abuse of discretion.”

The judge cited a “strong implication” from dog trainers and others that Boo acted as he did to protect his family from a perceived stranger.

“There was a great deal of evidence that indicated the dog was of good disposition and had no prior difficulties with children or other persons coming onto the Williams’ property,” the judge wrote in the four-page decision issued Thursday. “In other words, the unfortunate incident involving Zachary Anderson, Jr., was completely out of character with the dog’s past history as a sociable family pet.”

The judge ordered animal control officials to develop a plan within 30 days to control Boo upon his release. He recommended that an expert be enlisted to work with animal control and the family in developing the plan. The family has previously proposed a number of measures, such as sending Boo to live with a trainer for schooling.

Stephen Williams said he still plans on moving from the neighborhood, and hopes Boo’s case sparks more awareness about training and animal control procedures.

“Nobody is happy this happened,” he said. “But if there’s something to be gained from it, let’s gain from it.”