I saw this episode on Judge Judy yesterday.  (For you folks who don't know,
it's a show where people go in front of a judge on television to have their
disputes resolved.)

This woman was going to be gone on a job assignment for 5 months and needed
someone to live in and care for her dog.  She got a referral from a friend
for a pet-sitter.  The pet-sitter worked at the same hospital she did so she
figured with the recommendation of the friend and the screening process the
hospital made *her* go through, the young woman would fit the bill.  The
agreement was, the sitter would live rent free for 5 months as long as she
took care of the dog and the house.  *No other people* were supposed to stay
there.

All was well at first.  The woman came home a couple of times on weekends
and the place was fine and the dog was happy.  BUT... then the landlord
contacted her.  Said the sitter suddenly had some guy staying there with her
and he wanted the guy OUT.  She communicated this to the sitter.

It came out in the course of the "trial" the sitter had been leaving the dog
out in the back yard all night if she had to work a night shift because the
dog wouldn't be able to relieve itself, blah blah blah.  The plaintiff said
that's silly, the dog is crate-trained, has a big crate and she often left
the dog inside when she worked a 10 hour shift if the weather was bad, etc.
And she *never* left the dog outside all night.

The sitter claimed the landlord called her and said he didn't want *anyone*
staying there.  (That's just stupid; why would he want his property sitting
empty, unprotected, when he knew his tenant was away on a long-term
assignment?)  He just wanted the boyfriend OUT.  Then the sitter admitted
sometimes she spent the night at her boyfriends apartment after getting off
work, ostensibly leaving the dog outside for 24 hours or more.

Anyway, the sitter left.  She rented an apartment but maintained she was
going by there to check on the dog every day and that the dog had plenty of
food, water, a dog house, no problems.

The plaintiff came home to find the dog missing and the house a wreck
(dishes piled in the sink and scummy water and mold in them).  She and her
son were more concerned with the dog, of course.  They called the shelter
and were told yes, there was a Corgie that matched the description of their
dog.  She and her son went to the shelter to retrieve the dog only to find
out it had just been euthanized.  Her son burst into tears.

The sitter claimed she didn't know how the dog got out.  She also said she
didn't leave all the dishes and stuff in the sink until after she came to
check on the dog and found him missing.  Judge Judy ripped her a new one.
Paraphrasing, "No madam, you are not going to tell me you came home, found
the dog missing, didn't bother to try to find the dog, then sat down and
cooked and left dishes in the sink then just left again."

Judge Judy awarded the plaintiff the amount of money the sitter had paid in
rent, since had she upheld her end of the agreement she could have been
living rent-free.  She also awarded her $2000 because, even though there is
no way to put a price on the love of a pet she felt that was fair.

I'm posting this because so many people use pet sitters.  I know Persia
hates being boarded but I feel safe having her at her vet where they know
her (and me) rather than inviting a stranger into my home.  If you do hire a
pet sitter, I'm sure there must be agencies who license and bond such
people, not that I'd feel better about it.  It seems that would be the route
to go unless you trust the person with your life.  I would never take a
recommendation from even a friend and trust them to take care of my pets.
(Years ago I couldn't even trust my oldest brother to come over and walk and
feed my dog when I was away on weekends; I'd come home Sunday afternoon and
find the Sampson with his legs crossed and no food.)  Just my 2 cents.

Jill