While it might be tempting to give a definitive “no” as an answer, the reality is more complex. “It’s in the dog’s best interest to live with whoever can provide the best life for them,” says Carroll. He offers an example from his practice, recalling a time when he recognized a dog he had worked with in a missing ad just a few weeks later.

“I reached out to the new owner, who immediately became defensive and didn’t want me to contact the original owner. But I was faced with an ethical dilemma—I felt obligated to inform the original owner that their dog was alive and well,” Carroll shares.

“There was a company called DogLost advertising the missing dog, so I had to anonymously reach out to them and ask them to notify the original owner. But since the new owner was now the legal owner (which had to be established), there was nothing more I could do, and I still think about this years later.”

“In my particular case, the new owner was leaving the dog alone for up to 12 hours a day and, unfortunately, didn’t consider that the dog might have had a better life with the original owner,” Carroll says.

As for the Reddit scenario, he recommends that both the original and new owners meet without the dog to discuss things openly. Each side should explain what they can offer for the dog’s well-being and long-term care. With the help of an intermediary, they can then work together to decide what’s truly best for the dog.

“Every dog and every situation is different, so you should always consider the individual circumstances and what may be best for the dog,” adds Ralph. “Things such as emotional connection to the people involved should be considered, alongside aspects such as how well each caregiver can provide for the dog and meet their needs long-term.”Readmore

“Ignored All My Calls And Texts”: Neighbors Move Out, Leaving Their Dog Behind, Now Want Him Back