Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chimp at the center of custody battle in court today ^ | January 21, 2010 | Isabel Mascarenas

Posted on 01/22/2010 4:05:06 PM PST by Daffynition

Sarasota, Florida -- Custody battles can be complicated, emotional and downright nasty, and it's not all that different when it involves an animal. Usually couples fight over a pet dog, cat, or even a bird.

But this custody battle involves a baby chimp.

11-month-old Eli has known only one home with his animal baby-raiser in Sarasota Gini Valbuena.

"I've raised him since he was 3 months old. It takes a lot of diapers, a lot of baby formula it's 24/7 care," she says.

Photo Gallery: Chimpanzee caught in custody battle

Valbuena will raise Eli for the first two to three years before he returns to his owners in California, who are animal trainers. But someone else claims ownership to the baby chimpanzee that is worth $65,000. He's a Missouri man named Mike Casey and he's going to court to seek a DNA test.

"If it's good for the state of Florida to execute people based on DNA evidence, I think it's good enough to determine the lineage of this animal," says Jason Wandner, Casey's attorney.

Unlike with children where there are birth certificates showing who the parents are, with animals like Eli, there are no birth records and that raises a lot of questions.

Casey owned a chimp habitat in Missouri. He told the judge when he and his wife were going through a bitter divorce, she allegedly sold Eli, despite a court order. Casey believes Eli's mother is one of his apes, but she died before it could be proven.

While Casey says he has no physical proof, he believes Eli's mother Ella was pregnant and died after complications from child birth. Her death came about two months after Eli was reportedly born.

Valbuena tells the judge she picked up Eli on May 24, 2009 at the Caseys' chimp habitat, but the location was set up out of convenience. Valbuena has been friends with Casey's ex-wife for more than 20 years. She says Eli's owners, Steve and Donna Martin, bought him from another breeder in Missouri. Since Valbuena had wanted to visit two of her chimps living at the Casey facility, she asked they meet there instead of traveling to the Martin's home in California to pick up Eli.

"People know animals, like humans, have familiar characteristics they look like their relatives," says Wandner.

"There's no evidence he belongs to Mike Casey, because does he look like one of his chimps? I don't think so," adds Valbuena.

Judge Charlie Roberts agrees and based on a lack of evidence, denies the DNA test, but leaves the door open for Casey to try again in court. Wandner says they will be back.

"We're going to dig as deep as we can until we find the truth," assures Casey's attorney.

"It's frivolous. It's someone angry over a bad divorce trying to claim something as his just to hurt his wife further," says Valbuena, a long time friend of Casey's ex-wife. She adds, "It's all about money and greed."

Some say instead of what's best for the child or in this case, Eli the chimp. While the legal proceedings continue, Eli will continue living with Valbuena in Sarasota.

Chimps are illegal to own as pets in Florida, unless the owner is a licensed professional exhibitor

TOPICS: Local News; Pets/Animals; Weird Stuff
Cute until it chews your face off.

1 posted on 01/22/2010 4:05:06 PM PST by Daffynition
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

No chimps, I baby sat for one in my home once, never again.

He was a dangerous creature.

2 posted on 01/22/2010 4:13:20 PM PST by ansel12 (anti SoCon. Earl Warren's court 1953-1969, libertarian hero, anti social conservative loser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Daffynition

This is an intentionally misleading headline. This has nothing to do with “custody” and everything to do with ownership. It is well established in American jurisprudence that it is not custody of animals that is determined in a divorce proceeding, but ownership. Animals are, and should be, viewed legally as property, nothing else.

While it is a somewhat interesting set of circumstances, considering that the plaintiff is alleging that his stolen property was pregnant at the time of the “theft” (and I really don’t know what the case law is in this regard) this isn’t about custody, but about stolen property, and the possession or receipt of stolen property and not about custody. The last thing we want to do is assign “rights” to an animal that are reserved exclusively to human children and their parents. That would be a dangerous and extremely slippery slope.

3 posted on 01/22/2010 4:25:17 PM PST by OldDeckHand
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
No barrel full 'o monkeys, eh?

4 posted on 01/22/2010 4:38:38 PM PST by Daffynition (What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OldDeckHand
Spot on post. Follow the cha-ching. That's the bottom line with these litigants. Bidness . . . strickly bidness . . .flea bitten . . . monkey bidness . . .

5 posted on 01/22/2010 4:41:43 PM PST by Daffynition (What's all this about hellfire and Dalmatians?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson