 |
| Wanda Oughton |
Municipal Court Judge Philip Maenza ordered Oughton to pay more than $2,000 in fines for the one civil and one criminal charge of animal cruelty to which she admitted. Oughton also must pay $32,000 to the township for the animals' care as part of a plea agreement between her attorney, Lawrence J. Fox, and Chester Township Municipal Prosecutor Brian Mason.
Wanda Oughton wanted to provide a haven for about 150 cats at her Chester Township home, but a municipal court judge ruled she must pay more than $35,000 in fines after she pleaded guilty to animal cruelty charges last night.
New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals officials removed the cats from Oughton's Farm Road home from March 26 to mid-April. They have been under the care of township officials and volunteers since then. Oughton also agreed to pay $1,225 in restitution to the SPCA for its investigation, search warrant execution and cat removal.
Wearing a black pants suit and clutching her handbag, the 62-year-old Oughton, a widow, sat next to her grown son moments before the hearing. She said very little during the session.
"It was horrible," Oughton responded when the judge suggested the ordeal of the past several months must have been difficult for her.
Oughton paid $10,000 to the township last night, and the judge ruled she may pay the remainder over three years. The debt is secured by a mortgage note against her property.
Township Mayor William Cogger said officials had been considering filing a lawsuit against Oughton to reclaim the expenses, which have cost taxpayers $55,000.
Oughton also pleaded guilty to two township zoning violations for having two abandoned vehicles on her property, and one board of health violation for having excess debris inside and outside her home. She must pay $399 in fines for those violations, officials said.
Forty-four animal cruelty summonses issued to Oughton were dismissed, as well as two summonses issued to her daughter, Maenza ruled.
Oughton initially was served with 186 counts of animal cruelty.
"This has been a very difficult time for Mrs. Oughton and her family," Fox told the judge last night. "This problem arose out of Mrs. Oughton's love for these animals."
 |
| A group of four adult cats, which are part of about 200 cats that were removed from a $1 million home in Chester, huddle together in a corner of a pen at the former Seeing Eye facility in Mendham. |
The attorney added that Oughton, who he said has worked locally in retail sales, had paid thousands of dollars for the felines' care. After the cats were removed, SPCA officials said they had not been spayed or neutered. Some of the cats actually were pregnant, and the total number of felines associated with Oughton rose to 211, officials said.
When authorities removed the cats, officials have said, they found large bags of cat food dumped on the floor of a bathroom, where the cats also used a feces-filled tub as a litter box.
Fox maintained the cats were "never poorly treated."
"It just got out of hand. She understands that now," he said. "She took them into her home and into her heart."
Fox said Oughton has cleaned her home. He said the township's board of health recently approved the house for habitation.
The judge also ruled township officials will conduct periodic searches at Oughton's home to make certain she is housing no more than six cats.
Addressing the issue of hoarding, the township council Tuesday introduced a ordinance that would require residents housing more than six cats to apply for a waiver, Cogger said. He added failure to apply for the waiver could lead to fines of up to $100.
 |
| Sweetie, a rescued cat with her one surviving kitten one of 90 cats that once lived in Wanda Oughton’s Farm Road home. Cats now number over 140 since many had kittens. They are housed at a former Seeing Eye facility in Mendham Twp |
Some said the law will fall short of its goal, however.
"It's not going to stop people like her," said Rick Yocum, an SPCA captain. "They think they're saving animals and don't care about local laws."
(Star Ledger - July 10, 2009)
this is not about cruelty this is about a mental health issue. People that hoard anything and live in such conditions are doing it because of suffering some trauma or loss. If we are to prevent this from happening, communities must see the warning signs and try and help the individual or family early on. The children also in crisis living within that should have had help from school, family, church or friends. Community outreach to help people is just as important as the outreach to help the animals.
ReplyDeletethis is not about cruelty this is about a mental health issue. People that hoard anything and live in such conditions are doing it because of suffering some trauma or loss. If we are to prevent this from happening, communities must see the warning signs and try and help the individual or family early on. The children also in crisis living within that should have had help from school, family, church or friends. Community outreach to help people is just as important as the outreach to help the animals.
ReplyDeleteThe most commonly seen types of hoarders:
DeleteOverwhelmed owners are the ones who've suffered some sort of trauma/change in life - sudden death of loved one, medical crisis, financial crisis. These are the ones who rarely need prosecution. If discovered, they're almost relieved to have someone able to make a decision for them. They're typically open to mental health counseling.
Exploiters tend to have sociopathic or personality disorders and have little empathy for people or harm to animals. Prosecution is typically needed b/c they will refuse offers of help, believing that they know what they're doing and due to their pathology will actively evade laws, hide animals, etc. Mental health counseling will be rejected unless forced upon them by the courts.
Rescue Hoarders feel they are on a mission to save animals which creates compulsive behavior to keep acquiring animals. Many are vehemently "no kill" and will stuff barns and houses full of animals because they quickly find out that they aren't any more successful than the local shelter in trying to find homes for so many unwanted pets. But they continue to take in more animals because they can't stand the idea of that animal being euthanized - even if it means animals are living in overcrowded conditions, choking on ammonia, suffering untreated medical ailments, etc. Prosecution is sometimes needed if the person refuses help to reduce the number of animals in order to improve conditions. The person may or may not be open to obtaining mental health counseling and you'll typically only be successful if the person ends up being prosecuted (as they don't think there's anything wrong with "saving" animals).