Bridal, Commenter, updated the Community Corrections Partnership on Paws, a pilot program that takes temporary custody of clients’ pets while the clients enter treatment or custody.

The update matters because the program is funded in part by CCP dollars and affects reentry planning, client stability and animal-care liability at the county level.

Bridal said the program already has several clients and animals in care: “We have 7 clients currently ... we have 9 pets ... I think we've assisted with 11 or at least reached out to 11,” and asked for feedback as the program scales. Bridal told the group the program takes custody of animals by contract and holds them for up to 24 months, with a possible extension by board approval. Bridal said a client must show completion of a rehabilitation program or the ability to provide a “suitable living environment” before reunification is considered.

Jeff Goldman, chief probation officer, and others in the room pressed on the legal and operational details. Concerns raised included liability if an animal in program care causes harm, and how the program documents custody. Bridal described the program’s current practice as a temporary surrender contract rather than a permanent transfer: “We signed a contract instead of saying signing over ownership... the contract states that when you sign ownership of the pet over, we'll keep it for up to 24 months and longer with board approval.” Bridal added the contract was revised to clarify thresholds for reunification.

Board oversight and case-by-case assessments were described as central to return decisions. Bridal said a board member, Yvette, who is familiar with animal care, helps assess health and suitability before reunification. Bridal also described clinical triage practices: for animals needing diagnostic work but not immediate treatment, the program may defer full treatment 7–10 days to avoid covering large upfront medical bills if a client drops out of treatment quickly.

Participants suggested clarifying language and protections in the program contract. One attendee recommended adding explicit reasons why reunification might be delayed or denied — for example, the animal’s health or safety — to reduce mistrust and help potential clients decide about signing the surrender document. Bridal agreed to circulate the updated contract to CCP members for comment.

No formal action was taken; the group discussed next steps including circulating the revised contract and a future PowerPoint presentation that Bridal said would describe caseloads, outcomes and lessons learned.

Bridal said the program is pursuing additional funding, including a pending city partnership grant application and other grant opportunities; exact amounts and award status were described as “not specified” or pending. Bridal said the Paws model draws from a Texas program and that the county pilot is new and likely to change based on experience and feedback.

The discussion also covered operational details: current foster-family capacity is limited, the program sometimes pays for neuter/spay as a preventive step, and return decisions are handled case-by-case with board input. Bridal emphasized the program’s stated goal: to help people first and animals second.

The CCP did not vote on any Paws policies during the meeting. The program lead promised a fuller briefing at a future meeting and to distribute the revised contract for review.