Bitter Feud Over Family Dog Heads to N.Y. Court
Email
A bitter custody battle over Golden-doodle Lucy Margaret Healy has instigated a family feud. (Credit: Jesse Ward)
A bitter family feud between three women has erupted in New York over the ownership of a 3-year-old goldendoodle named Lucy.
Margaret Healy of Brooklyn, N.Y., claims that she is the dog’s rightful owner, since she has been its sole caregiver for the two years since the dog was given to her in the fallout from her brother’s divorce. The brother’s ex-wife and daughter, however, disagree.
According to court documents, Lucy and another dog began living with Healy two years ago, when her brother, Jim O’Hanlon, and his wife, Susan McCarthy, began divorce proceedings. McCarthy and the couple’s daughter, Slaney O’Hanlon, moved out of the family home, leaving two dogs behind. Slaney O’Hanlon went off to boarding school in Baltimore, and her father, unable to take care of the dogs, asked his sister to help.
Slaney O’Hanlon, now 18, claims that the arrangement was temporary while she was away at school, and now that she’s graduated and back in New York, she wants the dog returned.
Healy, meanwhile, filed for licenses for the dogs, provided for them daily, and took them to regular check-ups at the veterinarian, according to her attorney, Michael Devereaux. The elder dog was diagnosed with cancer and eventually died, leaving Lucy alone with Healy and her husband.
In September, 2011, McCarthy left a voicemail on Healy’s phone, saying she had “just been informed that my dog died this morning, my duaghter’s dog. I want to know why the two of you did not let us know that this dog was sick. You have no f***ing heart,” she said.
McCarthy calls Healy another expletive and wonders how she can sleep at night since she had taken the dog from Slaney.
Healy filed a complaint with police, but later that day, McCarthy and Slaney O’Hanlon came to the Healy’s apartment building and demanded the dog back.
According to Healy’s attorney, the women accosted and threatened Healy, then chased her in her car all the way to a police station. In a police report, Healy wrote that she had “never been so scared in my life.”
Stanley Alter, attorney for McCarthy, said the dog is rightfully Slaney’s and the truth will come out in court. Lucy, who he says was given to Slaney as a Christmas gift one year, has a microchip implanted under her skin identifying Slaney as her rightful owner.
Healy is seeking to be declared the rightful owner of Lucy and asking for damages from her former sister-in-law and niece for harassment.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Lawd o’ mercy, will it never end? How bout adopting a homeless person? They could probably use your help more, and you won’t have to fight over him. Let the snootie one have the Goldiedoodie with the microchip…you don’t want that thing tracking the mothership to your house anyway.
Posted by: thatwasobvious | October 6, 2011, 4:30 pm 4:30 pm
Wackadoos! This dog belongs to the woman who has been caring for it for the past two years. How much interest did the ex-wife and her daughter show in this dog during that time period? Did they regularly visit? Provide money for food and care? Pay the veterinary bills? Of course not. But why isn’t her brother getting involved and straightening this out? I’ll bet he doesn’t want to be the bad guy — he knows his sister is right but doesn’t want to go against his daughter.
Posted by: Una Clamcake | October 6, 2011, 4:44 pm 4:44 pm
Give the dog back- with a $25 per day kennel fee.
Posted by: GetAGrip007 | October 6, 2011, 4:45 pm 4:45 pm
Well, I hope the woman gets to keep the dog which over the past few years has become hers! What a wonderful person you are to take in two dogs, and care for them!!
Posted by: Bri | October 6, 2011, 5:04 pm 5:04 pm
Seriously? I wish I could take back the 2 minutes of my life I spent on reading about rich people and their damn dogs.
Posted by: sonotworthy | October 6, 2011, 6:00 pm 6:00 pm
She has spent the time and money on the dog. Unless they’ve been fighting for the digg for all two years I call abandonment. Slaney sounds like she enjoyed having someone to care for her dog for free but now wants it back. Sonotworthy, dogs aren’t just for “rich people.” I have a dog and I’m not “rich.”
Posted by: Saith | October 6, 2011, 7:01 pm 7:01 pm
I agree with another poster, charge her boarding fees. $25 x 730 days = $18,250 plus add any vet bills to it. As soon as they can come up with that, they can have the dog. Just what would they have done if the dogs had been turned over to the pound because the mother and daughter abandoned them? There wouldn’t have been any “take backs” then either.
Posted by: CommonSense | October 6, 2011, 7:55 pm 7:55 pm
I agree with everyone else. It costs a lot of money to maintain a dog. It is like having another mouth to feed in your house. Vet bills, food bills, walking, and poop clean-up. And, where was the ex-wife for the last two years when her daughter was in boarding school? Why didn’t she take the dog when she moved out? If you wanted the dog, you should have taken the dog then!! The sister owns the dog now, you snooze you lose!!
Posted by: Amy A. | October 6, 2011, 8:10 pm 8:10 pm
I read about this in the New York Daily News and New York Post, this is childish and I hope both sides lose.
Posted by: Joe | October 6, 2011, 8:18 pm 8:18 pm
I agree, give them a bill for kennel fees, but you guys are cheap at $25.00 a day. Where I live a dog this size is charged $37.50 a day, plus you have to reimburse any vet bills and other upkeep, so I would say charge them $27,375 plus all vet bills, transportation costs to take dog to vet, grooming costs, so I would say an even $30,000 should cover it. I feel that the person who has taken care of the dog for the last 2 years is the rightful owner and like others have said, the microchip doesn’t mean a thing because one of my dogs have one from her previous owner. The two that want the dog back are only doing it to be spiteful, that’s all because if they really cared about the dog, they would have visited with her before this.
Posted by: MeMickie | October 6, 2011, 8:20 pm 8:20 pm
they abanoned the dog which constitutes neglect. The dog now belongs to the sister. Hope the authorities rule accordingly.
Posted by: Donna | October 6, 2011, 8:48 pm 8:48 pm
What a precious dog! I hope Lucy finds a home where she is loved and taken care of.
Posted by: emer keyes | October 6, 2011, 9:21 pm 9:21 pm
the dog belongs to the woman who was caring for it. The mother and daughter moved out and leeft the dog behind. The daughter goes off to college and abandons the dog. I hope Healy keeps the dog.
Posted by: kim | October 6, 2011, 9:37 pm 9:37 pm
It’s never about the money is it?? It’s just stupid,people yech!
Posted by: allazay | October 6, 2011, 9:41 pm 9:41 pm
I hope the one who paid for all the dog’s expenses, get the dogs and the others, learn their lesson. If you want a dog, you must be as responsible to them as you would, if you had kids. They all should have talked about the dog and help with the expenses, if they wanted to keep being the dog’s owner.
Posted by: Sandra Cr | October 6, 2011, 10:01 pm 10:01 pm
If I was Lucy, I would want to stay where I am, secure, warm, well cared for and loved. Who cares what the Humans want!
Posted by: Buddy (Houdini) Waco | October 7, 2011, 1:59 am 1:59 am
Healy clearly owns the dog, the other people abandoned her!
Posted by: Celestial | October 7, 2011, 3:56 am 3:56 am
the mother and daughter left the dog. if they loved the dog they would have made every effort to take the dog with them. The mother has a foul mouth, and how does SHE sleep at night? They dont deserve the dog
Posted by: dot frank | October 24, 2011, 10:02 pm 10:02 pm