AIBU to nag my friend to give her pets away?

[RoseMask]

Ok, so back story quickly. . My friend has 4 DD's ranging from 2-10. She is a good mum, not denying she is there for her kids as much as she can be. But I feel their lives are kinda ruined by her obsession with pets. I'm all up for having animals, of course I am, but this obsession I feel is affecting the kids. Their back garden is now just a dog run. Everything evolves around the animals, money etc. says she cant buy them clothes but can buy a £45 dog house that day kids don't have the best clothes, or the best shoes. They sleep in beds where the dogs have been sleeping or the cats. There is hair everywhere in the food, on the cooker, on the sinks. The smell of dog poo is beyond a joke in their house if their back windows are open. In total there are 13 'furry-ish animals' I hate going round there because they are just everywhere. Literally. Every room you go into, and its not like they are laid back type of animals. I just feel bad saying to her that there are to many, and that the kids should come before the animals. That even though she loves the animals, the kids don't, and when she has a sh*t fit, its always about the animals and I feel she isn't coping well with all of them but makes out she is, if that makes sense? I know the kids don't like them, because they have told me outright. Some of the pets she has, I was like WTF?! Why? She thinks I'm being ridiculous and that they are her pets, she would never get rid of them but sometimes I just question how many are to many? Especially when the kids have to help out with them when they don't want to. I think what annoys me the most, is that because she is on benefits, every penny for the children goes onto these animals. Nearly £1500 of that on a dog. But the kids don't get much! God, I sound awful moaning don't I? But I just feel for the kids sake, surely this is to much for them? Lost count how many times one dog has poo'd on the kids bed. Or how many of the kids quilts have turned into dog beds. Or how many toys have been destroyed in the process. But sometimes I feel IABU!! Because it is her life, and her money and her house, but I just Arrgghh!
I know my friends sister goes round alot, and she has said that she doesn't understand why her sister wants all the animals, but is worried to say anything because her sister gets on the defensive and I know that the sister does have my friends DD's alot for her. So doesn't want any problems to stop that from happening. But surely if the sister can see theres a problem, then it isn't just me? I just hate going on Facebook and seeing my friend upload a new picture of another pet she has.

I very much doubt the dog feels superior to the child

It probably shat on the bed because it was stressed and had no where clean to poo.

I suspect you are right, Giles - it doesn't sound as if anyone's needs, be they animal or child, are being met in that house.

A few responses...

At no time did I say it was a good situation. I pointed out how difficult it is to care for birds, and suggested that BOTH services should be contacted.

Yes, I do try and see the best in people rather than condemn them without having full facts.
It sounds bad enough for the poor woman (who sounds easily identified) as it is, without being slaughtered for imaginary ill-treatment.

I am offended by the nasty attitude (in some cases) to someone who very likely has a mental health problem, and is probably coping the best she can. Nobody CHOOSES to be ill, and I would hope that this lady is given help for the problem without being looked down on or judged for her lifestyle.

With the best will in the world it is simply not possible to feed thirteen animals on basic benefit money so I think either the lady must have an income that the OP doesn't know about, because she didnt say that the animals or children were starved, and they would be, if there was only basic dole money, wouldn't they?
It simply wouldn't be enough for the food, let alone the other things.

It is also very unlikely that the family are fed on forty pounds a week, and I suspect there has been exaggeration somewhere, but it is possible. Just.
An awful lot of people lie about their finances for various reasons.
I am glad it will be checked out.

It is perfectly safe for animals to be on the beds. It has nothing to do with neglect. Many people prefer it.
It is perfectly safe for hair to be everywhere. (she could be cleaning continuously and it would still be hairy and smelly) It Has nothing to do with neglect.

I am offended by the brutal suggestion that she "get rid" of the animals. Pets are not disposable possessions, and it should be a last resort (in this case I think it is inevitable that some will go, sadly)

"Pets at home" sell a huge selection of flea and worming treatments with vets available for advice. So do vets.

SOMETIMES (i have no idea about this case) people on benefits with no pets will register their friend's animals with the PDSA as if they were theirs. I think you are allowed maybe three per house? (i cant remember) so even when it appears that they have no vet backup, they are having PDSA treatment. (It is a horrible thing to do in my opinion, but very common)

With thirteen pets somebody will be needing the vets for something pretty well all the time. I am glad it will be checked out, but there is no legal requirement to be registered.
SOMETIMES people say they have no money but have an undeclared job or business.

I am not an animal hoarder in a filthy house, and it is nasty to suggest so.
I have two tiny dogs and two cats in a large house, and all are insured to the hilt and have whatever they need.
I am involved with the local shelter,(so we have occasional "guests") and because of this I often come across people in the situation described by the op.
I hope this lady is treated sensitively and is given ongoing help. (including practical) It sounds as if despite the difficult situation the children are well loved so I am sure things will improve with advice and support.

Gentle

No pets aren't disposable.
But people who take them.on have a responsibility to provide a clean safe home and pay for treatment etc. Even if it means they aren't the ones providing it. She should never have got them.in the first place. If she loved them she would give them to someone who can provide them with such a home.

She can't cope. They need re homing. Simple.

Giles, I fully agree. But she will need ongoing help and understanding, rather than removing all the animals. I think she will be able to keep some with support.
Like alcohol and drugs, pet hoarding can be beyond control. It is not a conscious decision but a compulsion.

I am offended by the brutal suggestion that she "get rid" of the animals. Pets are not disposable possessions, and it should be a last resort (in this case I think it is inevitable that some will go, sadly)

As someone who has spent three quarters of my life working for animal welfare charities and mopping up the messes made by people like the OPs friend, I am not in the least offended by the "get rid" of the animals posts. It is ultimately what is needed. For the animals own welfare, as well as the children.

Your "last resort" statement is just wishful thinking. An elderly woman with a broken leg who can't walk her Yorkshire terrier because of her plaster cast, with temporary help and assistance she can be aided to keep her dog, so rehoming would be last resort in a case like that. In a case like this in the OP it's a whole other ball game. 13 or 14 pets (including 5 or 6 dogs) is too much for 99.9% of the population to cope with and afford. For a single mother of 4 on benefits it's impossible. We should absolutely not be looking for ways to aid her keep her pets. One or two, fair enough. But the rest have to be removed, either voluntarily or forcefully.

Gentle she might not be able to genuinely afford them, loans, credit that sort of thing. She is not providing a safe clean home for her chikdren, yes services need to be involved, either to help her or if not remove the children from her. It's obvious she puts them above her children. Op has said, given the choice she would choose her animals.

Gentle it is obvious she cannot cope with those animals and her chikdren, most likely some of them woukd need to go so tgat she can prove to SS that she is capable of putting her kids needs first!

What shocks me most is the OP's assertion that the woman is a good mum, what yardstick does she use to measure parenting skills

Why would she want all those pets, are they status symbols for her in the way that large powerful dogs are for some people?

I know suzanne, this woman allows her children to live in filth, outs her pets above the needs of her chikdren, children go with less to provide for these unnecessary pets, she is not a good mum at all. Op has said she would choose her pets over her children, there you go!

Aeroflotgirl, I have repeatedly said that the services need to be alerted, and that she clearly needs help but the general tone could be one of support rather than condemnation.
With all addictions, gambling, alcohol, drugs, spending etc the children seldom come first, and pet hoarding is the same. (This is why it could be a child protection issue)
My point was that if it is not possible to feed that amount of animals on basic benefit (and it isnt) yet she does, there MUST be another income. I hope your suggestion of loans etc isnt the case, but it could explain it. How awful!

I have already said I think it is inevitable that some (a lot) will have to go, but I have never heard of a case where the whole lot goes, except in cruelty cases. I suppose it is a case of what can be managed, and what back-up is available.

Maryhem, I do realise that animals often have to be rehomed for their own good, but the phrase "get rid" sounds awfully callous. (maybe I over-reacted to it? I apologise.)
sending the pets away will be deeply upsetting for the whole family, even when it cant be helped.
I wish there was a way to stop people casually acquiring pets that cant be cared for for ever.

Yes, gentlehoney - it is perfectly safe for pets to be on the bed - our two dogs come for a cuddle most nights - but it is not acceptable for pets to be on the children's beds if the children don't want them on there!

My house has dog hair on the floor - I am no domestic goddess - but there are NO animal or bird faeces in my house, and the garden is cleared regularly. We can open our windows without smelling dog poo. My children have clean beds to sleep in.

I do agree that this woman needs to be handled kindly, especially if she does have a hoarding disorder, but there are children AND animals, whose needs are not being properly met, at best - at worst, they are all being neglected - and their needs have to be as important as this woman's needs.

Cross-posted, gentlehoney - sorry.

"What shocks me most is the OP's assertion that the woman is a good mum, what yardstick does she use to measure parenting skills"

She probably sees beyond her illness. I think we should all try to. The OP has ensured that this lady and her family will get the help they deserve so she can continue to be a good mother.

Yes it will be upsetting. No doubt about it. BUT those animals are living in filth and pooing everywhere is a sign of distress. Distressed animals can act out if character. They could turn at any moment. Then forget about a new home they will be put down.

Any help this woman receives it needs to be with the animals already gone.

I'm wondering why the animals are allowed to take precedence?
A farmer might put his livestock above his children, we can argue that to do so would be cruel but you could also argue that his livelihood depends on the wellbeing of the livestock.

What does benefit does she gain from having all these pets that makes them worth the cost (financial and otherwise) to the whole family.

She appears irrational to outsiders but I presume she has some internal logic...what she is doing makes sense and adds up according to her internal accounting system ?

Well done for phoning SS.

someone who very likely has a mental health problem

I see child neglect cases depressingly regularly in my job. Very few of the parents have mental health issues, they just can't be bothered to look after their children properly or have other priorities (eg. drugs, alcohol, their new boyfriend)

Suggesting that neglectful parents must have MH issues is naive

Maybe, Giles. I hope not. The RSPCA will assess them because of the dog-dirt problem.

My main concern is that they are let out on their own by the canal. I hope the OP remembers to mention it.

trufflehunterthebadger, as far as I am aware child neglect is strongly linked to mental health problems.
Wouldn't you class addiction as such? It usually goes hand in hand with other problems.

Yes gentle, it could be loans, a lot of less well off people get into debt, and as op has said, she spends around £40 a week to feed her family, and buys a £45 dog house for the dog, and a £1500 dog. She would be be on benefits if she was well off, and she would not feed the children on so little. Yes of course she needs support, and primarily those children need to be looked after properly.

I meant, she would not be on benefits.

She might, or she might not have a MH problem. I think she has to hoard all those animals, that is an obessive behaviour.

"She might, or she might not have a MH problem. I think she has to hoard all those animals, that is an obessive behaviour."

I think so too, Aeroflot. It wouldn't make sense otherwise. The poor woman must be run ragged trying to care for them all.