08/28/2026
📢 A Statement From Ciara’s Pet Grooming
Unfortunately, we feel the need to address a situation that has once again been brought publicly against our business through a recent 1-star review.
Normally, we do not discuss client matters publicly. However, when serious allegations are made about our business that do not accurately reflect the documented events, we believe we have the right to correct the record.
This person seems to not want to leave this situation alone since it happened back in May and is still ongoing harassing us. Even after the dog is no longer in their care. We are going ahead and addressing this before more post are made. Especially since we noticed she started following our FB page but I blocked her before she can leave me a false review on here as well.
The incident in question involved a dog brought into our salon that our staff recognized as a dog who had previously been coming to us for the last 4 years, we contacted who we knew owned him and she stated he had been missing for the last 6 weeks. Law enforcement became involved after we contacted the lady that dropped off because she became hostile on the phone call, they then investigated the competing claims regarding the dog when they arrived.
Ciara’s Pet Grooming did NOT determine the legal ownership of this dog. We did NOT accuse an elderly woman of theft or any other crime.
It is also important to clarify who we actually dealt with during this appointment. The reviewer's elderly mother was the person who booked the grooming appointment, brought the dog to us, and was the person our business communicated with throughout the entire situation. Her daughter—the person who has now left this review and pursued the matter against our business—was not present during the appointment or the original incident.
Law enforcement responded and investigated the situation. According to the police report, officers scanned the dog for a microchip, later went to the animal shelter themselves to investigate the adoption claim, located the adoption documentation, contacted the dog's original owner, took custody of the dog, and ultimately returned him to the adoptive owner.
We strongly dispute the characterization that Ciara's Pet Grooming “confiscated” this dog and simply handed him over to an “unauthorized third party.” The police report documents law enforcement's involvement and identifies the individuals in question as the dog's original owners.
The review also criticizes Ciara for refusing to provide her mother with a written apology. That is correct—we have not provided an apology. Ciara’s Pet Grooming never accused her mother of theft or any other crime, and we do not believe we owe an apology for an accusation our business did not make.
What the review also fails to mention is what happened approximately three days later.
That was when the daughter became personally involved. She came into our business by herself to confront our staff. We have retained video footage of this entire interaction. She entered making accusations, repeatedly spoke over our staff while we attempted to explain what had occurred, and would not allow us to have a productive conversation. She was ultimately asked to leave the business. It was following this confrontation that she chose to pursue the matter further through legal channels.
There is another significant part of this story that was left out.
Approximately three weeks after the original incident, the adoptive family stated that they could no longer care for the dog following an incident involving their elderly mother. They returned the dog to the animal shelter. The shelter subsequently returned the dog to his original owners—the same people now being characterized publicly as an “unauthorized third party.”
Despite voluntarily relinquishing the dog and no longer having him, the daughter continued pursuing a case against Ciara's Pet Grooming.
Her lawsuit sought $2,500—the maximum amount she was seeking in that proceeding—including claimed mental/emotional damages. This is important context considering the review now states that the case “was not about money.”
As the reviewer herself acknowledges, THE CASE WAS ULTIMATELY DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
We have retained the police report, surveillance footage, court records, and other documentation concerning these events. This is not simply a matter of one person's recollection against another's. There is documentation of what occurred.
Everyone has the right to share their experience and opinions about our business. However, opinions are different from factual allegations. We will not accept responsibility for accusations or actions that were not made or taken by Ciara's Pet Grooming.
We have attempted to put this situation behind us, and we consider this matter closed. Any continued unwanted contact, confrontations, or conduct directed toward our business or staff will be documented, and we reserve the right to pursue any legal remedies available to us.
We stand behind our staff and how they handled an incredibly unusual and difficult situation. At this point, we will not continue litigating a matter that has already gone through the court system through Facebook posts or online reviews.
— Ciara’s Pet Grooming
