Riverside County’s Department of Animal Services on Trial

A sweeping legal case lays bare systemic neglect and mismanagement—but with new leadership and public pressure, it may also offer a path to reform.

Apr 26, 2025

In a case that could redefine public shelter oversight across California, three veteran animal welfare advocates—David Kirk, Lisa Blodgett, and Tiffani LoBue—have filed a Second Amended Petition in Riverside County Superior Court against the Riverside County Department of Animal Services (RCDAS). The lawsuit alleges unlawful euthanasia, systemic neglect, nepotism, and misuse of public funds within one of the state's largest shelter systems.

This latest filing, submitted on April 23, 2025, follows the court’s earlier ruling on the original complaint filed in August 2023, in which the judge found sufficient merit to allow the case to proceed and invited petitioners to bolster their claims with additional evidence and legal clarity.

The petition, now 57 pages long, is brought by attorney Dan C. Bolton of the Walter Clark Legal Group, a law firm specializing in civil litigation and public interest matters. The case seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, along with taxpayer redress for what is described as “a culture of disregard—for animals, for the law, and for the taxpayers.”

At its core, the suit charges Riverside County with systematically violating California’s Hayden Act and other statutory protections for animals in municipal custody. Between 2022 and 2024, RCDAS reportedly euthanized over 24,000 animals, including many described as “healthy, adoptable, or treatable.”

“Dogs and cats in the custody of RCDAS deserve to go out the front door to a new beginning,” the complaint reads, “not the back door with their lives cut short to end up in a landfill or rendering facility.”

*While Riverside County faces accusations of cruelty and secrecy, advocates are demanding a new era of transparency and accountability.*

Anatomy of Alleged Mismanagement

The lawsuit identifies multiple county officials as central to the alleged misconduct, most notably former RCDAS Director Erin Gettis and County Executive Officer Jeff Van Wagenen. It accuses them of gross incompetence, abuse of authority, and the misuse of public funds. According to the petition, Gettis—who holds a degree in architecture and had no prior experience in animal services—was appointed to lead the department largely due to her marriage to Aaron Gettis, the county’s Chief Deputy Counsel at the time.

Despite widespread concerns voiced by shelter staff, volunteers, and members of the public, Gettis was later promoted in 2024 to serve as Executive Director of the Riverside University Health System Medical Center—a position petitioners claim she was equally unqualified to hold. The lawsuit characterizes this appointment as a “corrupt action” and “an ongoing betrayal of public trust.”

The complaint also outlines systemic misuse of behavioral labels to justify euthanasia. It alleges that animals were routinely categorized as “untreatable” or “aggressive” without objective assessments, effectively fast-tracking them for death. One such case involved Penelope, a pregnant dog reportedly scheduled for adoption but euthanized the following day with no documented medical review. Petitioners cite her death as emblematic of a system more invested in rapid disposal than in rehabilitation or rehoming.

A $2.45 Million Lightning Rod

Among the most contentious revelations in the lawsuit is Riverside County’s September 2024 approval of a $2.45 million sole-source consulting contract with Kristen Hassen, a divisive figure whose career spans multiple troubled shelter systems across the U.S. Her firm, Outcome for Pets Consulting, LLC, was retained without competitive bidding or substantive discussion—an act petitioners describe as “an extraordinary waste of taxpayer funds.”

Hassen is widely seen as the public face of The Consortium—an informal alliance of national organizations including Best Friends Animal Society, ASPCA, Petsmart Charities, and others promoting a philosophy of “community sheltering.” As previously documented in Animal Politics, this model deprioritizes spay/neuter, restricts intake, limits public access to animals, and emphasizes optics over actual outcomes. It’s a model critics say has repeatedly failed in places like Fairfax County, Danville, Tucson, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, San Diego, Austin, San Antonio, and El Paso, where it coincided with public safety incidents, eroded shelter transparency, and undermined animal rescue infrastructure.

More recently, Hassen and her affiliates—supported by Best Friends Animal Society—have pivoted to a new strategy: mass interstate animal transport, or what she calls the “Superhighway” model. In this system, animals—often the most adoptable—are shipped out of overcrowded shelters to jurisdictions with purportedly stronger placement networks, though critics note these transfers often strain local resources and displace attention from animals already in need. While transport can be valuable in emergencies, they argue this model is increasingly used to mask systemic dysfunction, avoid hard reforms, and offload accountability.

As noted in an Animal Politics article published April 16, 2025:

“Hassen’s proposed fix? Intake suppression, long-distance transport, flashy adoption drives, and the dismantling of long-standing safety and intake policies. Public services like low-cost sterilization, breed-specific regulations, and behavioral evaluations are abandoned in favor of a marketing campaign that sells transport as progress.”

The warning for Riverside is clear: don’t confuse movement for progress, or transport for transparency. Without reforming the fundamentals—intake management, spay/neuter access, adoption pathways, and public accountability—any system built on obfuscation will collapse under its own weight.

And that’s precisely the risk now unfolding in Riverside. In September 2024, the Board of Supervisors approved the $2.45 million contract with Hassen’s consulting firm in just eight minutes—relying on a sole-source justification that petitioners say was deeply flawed and unsupported by comparative analysis. The suit calls the contract “duplicative, unnecessary, and ideologically driven”—a direct pipeline for importing policies that have failed elsewhere.

In a rare move for a legal filing, the petitioners cite Nathan Winograd, author of Redemption and a leading national advocate for no-kill sheltering:

“Instead of hiring a director who doesn’t know what they’re doing and then spending millions more on a consultant, why not hire someone who is passionate about saving lives and capable of doing the job?”

The Weitzman Factor

In March 2025, facing mounting public outcry and legal scrutiny, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors appointed Mary Martin as the new director of RCDAS. Her résumé is formidable: leadership roles at Maricopa County Animal Care & Control, Santa Fe Animal Shelter, Dallas Animal Services, and Animal Care Centers of New York City.

Martin’s selection followed a nationwide search shaped in part by Dr. Gary Weitzman, President and CEO of the San Diego Humane Society (SDHS), who served on the final interview panel. Supervisor V. Manuel Perez publicly thanked Weitzman for his role and cited his expertise in endorsing Martin’s appointment.

But among animal welfare advocates, Weitzman’s endorsement raised alarm, not confidence. As previously reported in Animal Politics, SDHS under Weitzman has come under intensifying fire for its alignment with Best Friends–style “community sheltering” ideology. In San Diego, this has coincided with a troubling rise in free-roaming dogs and cats, tragic outcomes from animal transports, reduced enforcement of animal control laws, erosion of transparency, and court rulings finding SDHS in violation of its public service obligations.

One longtime SDHS volunteer summed up the prevailing sentiment:

“A Weitzman commendation is hardly a ringing endorsement...”
“Why should Weitzman be vetting anyone when his own house isn’t in order?” another advocate told Animal Politics, citing SDHS' reported violations of public records laws and questionable fiscal practices.

Given the timing, some advocates now view Martin’s hiring as Riverside County’s attempt to answer Winograd’s pointed question—posed in the lawsuit—about why governments persist in hiring unqualified or compromised shelter leadership. In Martin, with her strong municipal shelter background and proven lifesaving record, Riverside may finally have made a course correction.

Martin’s Mandate: Reform or Repetition?

Mary Martin inherits a department in deep disrepair—four shelters, a $34 million budget, and more than 40,000 annual field service calls. Though just weeks into her tenure, she has pledged a new commitment to transparency and community collaboration. “I will listen to everyone,” Martin said in a county press release. “What matters is saving more lives through collaboration.”

Early signs are cautiously promising. Martin has expanded access to spay/neuter services, launched new foster recruitment initiatives, and begun improving public access to shelter data. Yet the true test will not be isolated programs, but whether she can fundamentally rebuild RCDAS’ culture: restoring public trust, enforcing California’s animal welfare laws, and focusing on prevention rather than political optics.

Like virtually every figure in animal welfare leadership, Martin has faced critics in her past posts. But the realities of municipal sheltering rarely allow for perfection—and her record of systemic improvement stands as a matter of record.

Perhaps Martin’s most critical challenge will be to chart an independent course—grounded in transparency, professional standards, and public service—rather than succumbing to the ideology-driven models advanced by Hassen and the Consortium. Resisting that pressure will require political courage, a strong alliance with the Riverside community, and an unwavering commitment to the letter and spirit of California’s sheltering laws.

And Martin’s task will be complicated further by political realities: her direct supervisors on the Riverside County Board of Supervisors have already signaled deep alignment with Consortium ideology—approving a $2.45 million sole-source contract with Kristen Hassen and relying on Gary Weitzman, a Consortium ally, to validate her appointment. Successfully navigating these waters will demand not only shelter reform expertise, but also deft political judgment—and the willingness to lead when those above her prefer to follow.

Martin’s prior success offers reason for optimism. But the challenges in Riverside are profound. The path to reform will demand more than incremental improvements. It will demand structural courage—and political independence.

The Stakes

As Martin steps into a leadership role shaped by national ideology and local dysfunction, the lawsuit offers the clearest legal pathway to reset the system—and force a return to lawful, accountable sheltering.

The petitioners are asking the court to cancel the Hassen consulting contract, terminate former director Erin Gettis’s county employment, and appoint an independent monitor to oversee shelter operations. They also seek sweeping policy reforms to bring RCDAS into full compliance with California’s animal welfare statutes, including the Hayden Act.

"This is not about isolated mistakes," the lawsuit states. "This is about a culture of disregard—for animals, for the law, and for the taxpayers."

The implications stretch far beyond Riverside—or even California. The dysfunction exposed in this case is part of a broader national trend, fueled by the same consultant-driven opacity, misapplied ideologies, and top-down influence that have destabilized municipal shelter systems across the country. If successful, this lawsuit could set a precedent not only for California, but for communities nationwide seeking to reclaim public accountability, lawful sheltering, and humane outcomes. More urgently, it could spare thousands of animals from preventable deaths in the months ahead.

Turning the Page

Based on my previous professional experience working with Mary Martin—when she served as Director of Shelter Medicine under my leadership in both Maricopa County and New York City—I can confirm her extensive background in municipal shelter reform, veterinary oversight, and lifesaving policy development.

However, no leader, no matter how experienced, can succeed without structural support and a fully engaged community. If Riverside is to truly turn the page, it will require a partnership:

Critics and advocates must stay engaged: attend Board of Supervisors meetings, participate in sessions of the Coachella Valley Animal Campus Commission, and engage with the Ad Hoc Committee on Animal Services. They should demand full transparency, insist on measurable progress, and be willing to collaborate in good faith when opportunities arise.
Martin’s administration must continue to meet this moment with action, not rhetoric: commit to public reporting, rebuild shelter and field services, empower qualified veterinary leadership, and restore the department’s true mission—serving animals and the communities that care for them.

Only by combining strong leadership inside the system with unrelenting public vigilance from outside can Riverside shift from crisis to compassion. The stakes could not be higher. But for the animals depending on the outcome, the effort could not be more urgent—or more worth it.

Animal Politics contacted Mary Martin seeking comment regarding the lawsuit and her vision for Riverside County Animal Services. Although she initially expressed possible interest in responding, no comment was received as of publication time.