A veterinary hospital has become the center of an online controversy after a family alleged that an employee secretly took their dog home instead of carrying out the euthanasia they had paid for.
The case involves Cha Cha, a four-year-old pug whose family says they were told she was suffering from a life-threatening condition and had little chance of recovery.
Highlights
- A Georgia family says they paid about $716 to have their pug, Cha Cha, euthanized, only to later learn that a veterinary employee had allegedly taken her home.
- While some defended the employee for potentially giving the dog another chance at life, others questioned why the owners weren't informed.
- Another family also discovered that their senior cat had reportedly been kept alive after her scheduled euthanasia at the same hospital.
Months later, however, the family learned that Cha Cha may have survived the appointment and spent time living with a hospital employee, raising concerns about keeping someone else’s pet without their consent.
One viewer wrote, “I am f**king horrified by what I just read. Every part was worse than the last! She should sue them…”
The family says they paid $716.50 to euthanize their 4-year-old pug after being told she had a life-threatening condition
Rebecca Belote’s family took Cha Cha to Senoia Animal Hospital in Georgia on March 4, 2026, after the pug became lethargic and began drinking and urinating excessively.
According to Belote, the veterinary staff told the family that Cha Cha was seriously ill and recommended euthanasia.
“They said that she was in organ failure and had diabetic ketoacidosis,” Belote told Channel 2.
Diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) is a life-threatening complication of diabetes mellitus that occurs when the body cannot use glucose properly for energy because of insufficient insulin.
The body begins breaking down fat instead, leading to a buildup of acidic substances called ketones in the blood.
In dogs, DKA can develop in cases of undiagnosed or inadequately controlled diabetes, and other illnesses, including infections or pancreatitis, may complicate the condition.
Multiple veterinary reports list warning signs such as weakness, lethargy, vomiting, dehydration, and a reduced or absent appetite.
The family was told that treatment could cost thousands of dollars a month without any guarantee that Cha Cha would recover.
Belote said the hospital recommended putting the dog down, and the family ultimately agreed.
Some people defended the decision to spare the dog, but others questioned why the family was never informed
“They both took it kind of hard,” she said, referring to her son and husband. “My son was really attached to the dog.”
Belote said the family paid $716.50 for the veterinary visit, diagnostic tests, euthanasia, and communal cremation.
They left believing that Cha Cha had been put to sleep.
However, the family later learned the dog might have survived the appointment and a veterinary employee took it home.
Belote alleged that a former hospital worker told her an employee took Cha Cha home and posted a photo of herself with the pug on social media.
When Belote raised the matter with the hospital, she said, “They have a lawyer. They won't talk about it.”
According to her, the employee’s husband confirmed that Cha Cha had been living with his wife and appeared to be in good health.
The controversy has divided social media users, with some focusing on the possibility that the employee wanted to give a sick animal another chance at life.
Others argue the issue isn't simply whether the dog could have recovered, but whether the family had the right to decide what happened to their own pet.
“They told them to do this, then kept the dog. How can you defend this?????” one commenter wrote.
Another person added, “The details are bad, really bad. Watch the video. Some vet needs to lose his job for the terribly wrong diagnosis. And then the hospital [tried] to hide everything.”
“If I was putting one of my babies down because they were sick and someone took them, I think they would be heartbroken without me,” a third person said.
Another comment read, “I really do think it was a crisis of conscience moment. You have to remember that at the end of the day, it’s their responsibility to take a life and that shouldn’t be and can’t be taken lightly.”
Cha Cha’s case is linked to another family’s disturbing experience at the same hospital just months earlier
“Possibly they stared into the dog’s eyes and felt they could give them a life. I’m not saying it was done the right way, I’m just giving a possible reason.”
The allegations involving Cha Cha emerged after another family discovered that their elderly cat, Annie, had remained alive for approximately 18 months after they paid Senoia Animal Hospital to euthanize her.
Brian Jagt took Annie, a 19-year-old Ragdoll cat, to the hospital in February 2025 after her health had deteriorated.
According to reports, she had stopped eating and suffered from painful arthritis.
The family believed Annie had been euthanized and cremated, only to learn much later that a hospital employee had reportedly taken her home.
The hospital acknowledged that Annie had not been euthanized as requested.
She was eventually euthanized on August 13, 2026, after her family learned what had happened.
The Citizen, which thoroughly investigated both cases, reported that the employee’s husband confirmed Cha Cha had lived with his family and later alleged the dog had been put down.
Belote said she was troubled by the possibility that Cha Cha had been euthanized after being nursed back to health.
The Senoia Animal Hospital’s attorney says it will not comment as police decline to file criminal charges
She also believes the hospital should explain what happened instead of leaving the family searching for answers.
The controversy has continued to grow, with some social media users even calling for the veterinary staff to face consequences.
“Business ki**ed the dog after the employee nursed it back to health?! That's messed up...” one commenter wrote.
Another said the family should consider legal action, writing, “She should sue them for euthanizing her perfectly healthy dog.”
A third user questioned, “Why was the recommendation for the dog to be euthanized if it could’ve survived?”
Last week, in an official statement, the attorney representing Senoia Animal Hospital said the clinic would not discuss the developing situation publicly.
They said, “With the developing issues at this time, we have advised (them) not to make any statements regarding these issues - the Hospital has decided to follow our advice. Senoia Animal Hospital looks forward to providing excellent care to its clients and the community.”
Meanwhile, Senoia police and prosecutors have decided not to file criminal charges against hospital employees in connection with the cases.
Police acknowledged ethical concerns but said they did not believe the conduct met the legal threshold for criminal prosecution.
The matter has been referred to state veterinary regulators, and the affected families reportedly may also pursue civil remedies.
“Vets do this all the time. If someone can't afford care, they surrender or euthanize, vets can offer to take pets on,” one netizen wrote
