Dog Returned to Owner after Abuse
Oxford, Ohio

Rescuers work to surgically remove the chain from inside China's neck.

OXFORD, Ohio -- A man who was convicted of animal cruelty will be allowed to get his dog back, but he must follow a list of conditions
to care for the animal.
 
Otis Clark, of Somerville, pleaded no contest last month to charges related to the abuse of his 2-year-old dog, China, and he petitioned to get it back. The dog was found with a chain so deeply imbedded in its neck, it required surgery to remove it.
 
"(The wound) was so infected, it cleared the office out," said Jim Wolfe, a volunteer at the animal shelter. "(The smell) was terrible."  Judge Robert Lyons allowed Clark to care for the dog, provided that it is licensed and is not tied up.

In the court order, Clark is ordered to read a book on how to care for dogs, to take his dog to a vet, to not to tie up his dog, and to reimburse the Humane Society for costs it incurred. In further insult to the Butler County Dog Wardens, Judge Lyons ordered that the probation department monitor the care of the dog, rather than the Dog Wardens.

Otis Clark, China's owner & abuser

Read more about China at: http://www.animalfriendshs.org/news/20070806_1.asp

 
China Support Rally
Date:
Thursday, August 16
Time:
Noon-2:00pm
Location:
Butler County Area 1 Court
118 High Street, Oxford
Organized by Bill Robinson, volunteer (513) 737-1093.
 
 
Write letters regarding Judge Robert Lyons decision to return the abused dog to her abuser:
 
Judge Robert Lyons (Elected Official)
118 High St.
Oxford, OH 45056
Phone: (513) 523-4748

Oxford protest aimed at drawing
attention to dog abuse case
By Ryan Gauthier, Staff Writer

More than 100 protesters. A dozen dogs. One large stuffed lion.

The crowd that gathered outside of the Oxford Courthouse today was a bit of a mixed bag. Event organizer William Robinson said he was disgusted by Judge Lyons' ruling to return abused dog China to Otis Clark, her owner, noting that most animal abusers are also violent toward their wives and children.

Amid chants of "Throw out the judge" and "Chains are for bikes, not for animals," Lyons addressed the crowd at 1 p.m., reading from a press release he had issued earlier in the day. He told protesters that although the law allowed him to forfeit the dog, he chose not to for several reasons.

"Mr. Clark was not charged with beating or intentionally harming the dog," Lyons said. "His crime was one of neglect. The dog was a family pet and, if the dog was forfeited, I could not prevent the family from acquiring another pet."

Under Lyons' ruling, Clark is subject to random home visits by the probation department as well as required veterinary visits every 90 days. Clark was ordered to license the dog, read a book on dog care, make full restitution to the Humane Society and is forbidden from tying the dog up.

"If Mr. Clark does not care for the dog properly ... the dog will then be forfeited and Mr. Clark would be subject to incarceration," Lyons said. "There is a real incentive for Mr. Clark to properly care for the dog."

"I hope this protest will bring attention to animal cruelty, get laws changed so that animals can no longer be chained out and get judges to pay attention to what is going on out there," Robinson said.

Robinson said he was concerned about the case weeks before it showed up in courts and felt he needed to plan a rally. He counted 105 protesters at one point, but said "they've been coming and going, so who knows."

Dean Vickers, Ohio state director for the Humane Society, was pleased with the large turnout.

"It's great that they were able to pull something together like this," Vickers said.

"A group like this says that people are interested in animal welfare, which is a very good thing. A lot of larger communities wouldn't have this at all."

Vickers said that while he agreed with Lyons that Clark was no monster, he feels that Clark wasn't caring for the dog in the way she should've been cared for. He applauded Lyons' decision to have Clark read the book, but said the dog should have a new life with a different family.

"Have him read the book, take a test and then maybe somewhere down the road think about adopting a different animal," Vickers said.

Michele Stewart traveled to Oxford from Richmond, Ind. with fellow members of Help the Animals. She said people who abuse their animals should never be allowed to have them back.

"I think a lot of people need to be educated about abuse cases like this," Stewart said. "I wouldn't be surprised if I see this guy's name in the newspaper again for something else down the road."

Denise Harrington, with Adopt-A-Dog in Liberty, Ind., said she felt this was a blatant case of animal neglect and abuse.

"(Clark) admitted he had no intention of giving medical treatment to the dog," Harrington said. "For the judge to allow him this pittance of conditions is absurd. Hopefully we'll bring awareness to residents and then when Lyons comes up for re-election they will think twice about voting for him."

Robinson said he hoped various government officials would take notice of what happened and "step up to help us try to get some laws passed.

"You have to stand up for what you believe in," Robinson said. "I believe that animals should be treated fairly. I'm not against guys who hunt or guys who fish, but when people begin to mistreat animals I have a problem with that."

Contact this reporter at (513) 523-4139, ext. 86102, or at rgauthier@coxohio.com.

----
Oxford OH Press Thursday, August 16, 2007
Complete text of Judge Robert Lyons' statement

Butler County Area I Court
118 W. High Street
Oxford, Oh 45056
Judge Robert H. Lyons

My decision to return the dog to Mr. Clark has been greatly criticized. I do not expect anything I say will change the minds of those that are critical. I would, however, like to address the complaints.

There have been allegations of activities involving this case taking place behind closed doors. I was not involved in anything involving this case that took place behind closed doors. The first time I learned of the specific allegations of the case was on July 12, the date the matter was scheduled for trial. The case was scheduled for trial at 3 p.m. on July 12.

Earlier that afternoon the assistant prosecutor and Mr. Clark's defense attorney advised me that Mr. Clark was withdrawing his plea of "not guilty" and entering a plea of "no contest" to all of the charges. The assistant prosecutor and the defense attorney stipulated that I was to rely on a statement of facts submitted as a joint exhibit.

Mr. Clark, his attorney, and the assistant prosecutor were all present prior to 3 p.m. Since the trial would no longer be necessary, the case was called early and Mr. Clark entered a "no contest" plea.

I took the matter under advisement and indicated that I would render a decision on or before Aug. 9.

While the facts were not in dispute, the issues of the law were somewhat complex and research was needed prior to making a decision. Realizing that I would be on vacation on the week of Aug. 9, the matter was scheduled for Aug. 2 at 1 p.m. for decision.

On Aug. 2 I found Mr. Clark guilty of all charges. This was done in open court on the record. I also prepared and filed a written decision.

There have been allegations of multiple continuances. The first and only trial setting was July 12. The trial date was not continued.

There were also allegations of my suddenly leaving town to avoid this situation. On Aug. 3, I went on vacation with my wife, four children, and my parents. The airline flights had been scheduled since June 5 of this year.

As to the decision to return the dog to Mr. Clark, this decision was not easy; and not made without great consideration. This Court has always been devoted to educating and rehabilitating offenders to avoid recidivism.

The law in Ohio is clear that the overriding purpose of misdemeanor sentencing is to protect the public from future crime by the offender and to punish the offender. To achieve these purposes, the sentencing court shall consider the impact on the victim and the need for changing the offender's behavior, rehabilitating the offender, and making restitution to the victim of the offense, the public, or the victim and the public.

Mr. Clark's actions, or inactions, were inexcusable. In no way do I suggest that they were anything short of despicable and, in no way, do I intend to demean the seriousness of the crime. I had to consider many factors in coming to my decision.

First of all Mr. Clark is a man, not a monster, as many have suggested. In my eight years of being a judge I see the good in people as well as the bad. Mr. Clark works to provide for his family and, to my knowledge, has no prior criminal record other than traffic offenses.

The law allows me to forfeit the dog, but I chose not to for several reasons. I will try to explain some of the reasons for my decision.

Mr. Clark was not charged with beating or intentionally harming the dog. His crime was one of neglect. The dog was a family pet and, if the dog was forfeited, I could not prevent the family from acquiring another pet. By returning the dog, the Court can monitor the care and maintenance of the dog. I made proper care a term of Mr. Clark's community control. Mr. Clark's home is subject to random checks to ensure that the dog is being cared for properly. The dog must also be taken to the vet every 90 days to be checked and the results of the vet check are to be provided to the probation officer.

If Mr. Clark does not care for the dog properly, does not take the dog to the vet as required, and does not pay the restitution to the animal shelter as required, the dog will then be forfeited and Mr. Clark would be subject to incarceration. There is a real incentive for Mr. Clark to properly care for the dog.

Another fact that has been overlooked in this ordeal, and that I felt was important: The dog, whose name is Shadow (dog's original name), is a family pet. There are two little girls who told me that they love their dog very much.

These two little girls came into court on Aug. 2 and brought me letters and drawings of Shadow. I felt that it would be appropriate to try to turn this horrific situation into a learning experience that would benefit Shadow and the children. I did not want to take Shadow away from the family if I felt she could be returned to them safely.

Since Shadow's return, the probation department has made two random visits to the family's home. The dog warden accompanied the probation officer. The reports that I have gotten indicate that Shadow is happy, healthy, and being cared for properly.

Judge Lyons
----
The Cincinnati Enquirer Friday, August 17, 2007
Supporters protest dog's return
Animal-rights activists angry at judge's ruling

BY JANICE MORSE <jmorse@enquirer.com>

OXFORD - Nearly 150 sign-toting people chanted "Justice for China!" as they lined the sidewalks in front of the courthouse here Thursday to protest a judge's decision to return an injured dog to its neglectful owner.

Otis Clark Jr., a 48-year-old Somerville resident, was convicted of animal cruelty after the family dog, China, was found with a chain embedded in its neck.

But on Aug. 2, Judge Robert Lyons returned the white German shepherd-husky mix to Clark after his children wrote letters telling how much they love the dog.

The protesters, some of whom say they plan to launch a recall to throw Lyons out of office, shouted down the judge as he tried to read a prepared statement to the crowd from the courthouse steps.

"This decision was not easy and was not made without great consideration," Lyons wrote. "Mr. Clark's actions, or inactions, were inexcusable. In no way do I suggest that they were anything short of despicable."

Clark was not charged with beating or intentionally harming the dog, so "his crime was one of neglect," he wrote. By returning the dog, the court can monitor its care, Lyons added.

The protesters were dissatisfied with Lyons' explanation.

They said they want Lyons to reconsider the decision; Butler County Prosecutor Robin Piper has said his office is researching whether the decision can be appealed.

Some of Lyons' critics also say they plan to try to oust him from office.

"What the judge failed to think about is the long-term effect of that decision to return the dog to that environment," wrote protester Carol Schnipper in an e-mail after the rally. "Rather than teach the children that there are consequences to be paid for the mistreatment of your animals, the judge has sent the message to these children that you are not penalized with removal of your pet if you neglect and abuse it."

The Oxford resident, who carried a sign reading, "Recall Lyons," said she and her husband are researching how to recall the judge.

Betty McGary of the Butler County Board of Elections said one step in that process would require petition circulators to collect 9,116 signatures from voters in Lyons' district.

Contact Info: Dogs Deserve Better, Inc. • P.O. Box 23 • Tipton, PA 16684 • Toll Free 1.877.636.1408 • 814.941.7447
email: info@dogsdeservebetter.org • Website designed and maintained by Crescent Communications