Wanda Oughton lived with about 150 cats in a 12 room mansion at the end of a cul-de-sac, the kind of upscale neighborhood where people know each other only if they go out of their way.
The houses are spread far apart by rolling green lawns, and it’s a long walk to get to someone’s front door.

People didn’t notice Wanda in 2005 when she moved into the $1 million+ home. When reporters nosed around in March, neighbors didn’t know who Wanda was, or who lived in that house.
Everyone knows her now of course, as Wanda’s made headlines all over the NJ/NY Metropolitan area. Wanda’s been dubbed the Chester cat lady, and really, what else do you call a woman with a 150 cats? She’s the cat lady of all cat ladies!
Or “was” a cat lady. Wanda, you see, is now cat-less. What do you call a cat lady without cats?
How Wanda came to lose her cats is a bit of a mystery. Acting on a tip, agents of the New Jersey Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals were able to get a search warrant and in March, seized 22 they deemed in need of immediate vet care.

Over the course of a few days, animal cruelty charges hanging over her head, Wanda volunteered to turn over her other 128 cats. Authorities then took the kitties to a local shelter, where adoption days are still being held. Several of the cats were pregnant, and the population of Wanda’s family ending up topping 200.
The cats were described as having taken over the mansion, roaming where they pleased, sleeping atop filthy mattresses on garbage-strewed floors. There was a separate feeding room, but bathroom habits were hit or miss; many of the felines were said to be feces-covered and the bathtub served as a quite-filled litter box.
That said, the Morris County Emergency Management Coordinator described the cats as fat, healthy and not suffering from abuse. The house itself, was another story. Authorities from the SPCA said it was horrid, the smell so bad, his help filled their nostrils with Vicks vapor rub and wore masks. Garbage filled the microwave and cereal boxes were stored in the oven. Clearly, Wanda is no Martha Stewart.
In fact, you could say she’s the anti-Martha. You could say she’s a lot of things: a hoarder, a cat lover, a complete slob. A tad to the left of normal. Or perhaps bat-shit crazy.
But is Wanda Oughton a criminal? Did she deserve to be charged with 186 counts of animal cruelty and lose all of her cats to a shelter? During a recent adoption day held for her cats, she showed up, trying to reclaim some. She was turned away, reminded by the township Office of Emergency Management that authorities forbid her from adopting back her own cats.
She’s pleaded not guilty to the animal cruelty charges, and her June 4 court hearing was delayed to give her attorney time to look at the $42,000 in restitution the town wants for vet bills and shelter costs.
Wanda won’t talk to reporters and shields her face in public when there’s a camera nearby. She didn’t show up in court, allowing her attorney to speak on her behalf.
What troubles me is why Wanda so readily agreed to turn over all of her cats. It seemed out of character, especially since she obviously wants some back. I think most people would say anyone who would live in a garbage-filled, smelly home with 150 cats isn’t normal. It’s not how I choose to live. But your normal, my normal and Wanda’s normal are all defined differently.
Besides, everyday life is anything but normal. What is normal? The only normal I can count on is the dial on my washing machine, and even that sticks sometimes.
Wanda isn’t stupid. She knew to subdivide her land when she ran into tax trouble last year. She knew to hire an attorney for her cat troubles. She has a son away at college, and a 20-year-old daughter who supposedly lives with her. She’s a widow for only a year or two; at one time she was a wife, a mother to young children.
I want to know the pieces of this story, the ones only Wanda knows. I want to know why she gave up her cats, and if she feels like a victim, like her rights have been trampled. I want to know if she has a sense of smell, or is the messy thing and odor issue are part of a mental illness.
The health department hasn’t condemned her house and its odor isn’t detectable to neighbors. Reporters said you can smell it up close. She maintains her home lovely on the outside – she’s smart enough to keep up appearances -- and the cats never left the mansion. I don’t know what problems prompted the anonymous tip that led to the search warrant, or why the warrant was granted.
It’s not surprising Wanda won’t talk to reporters; a lot of people won’t. There’s sometimes an unnatural distrust and she assumes, I suppose, we’ll just take the sides of the authorities and she’ll be further exploited.
But right now, all reporters have are the authorities to quote, making the story so officially one-sided. It’s shame really. Wanda has a story tell, and I have a feeling we can all learn from it.
Maybe she’ll change her mind and speak up. If not for herself, for some other cat lady.


Salon.com
Comments
I love this line CC :)
I hadn't heard about this story here in Chicago... but you've definitely piqued my interest. I'd love to know more-- wish she'd tell her side of the story!
MAWB, I hear ya. I don't get it either. But I don't get most things. Keeps life interesting tho!
Thanks Newsie! Maybe I'll plead my case of fairness to her attorney ...
Thanks
Excellent post... rated, as always.
A lot more Brian. we'll see.
Thanks Skip. Appreciate it!
Duane, it's more than just her mind, but what made her cave. I think her rights were violated on some level.
Sorry Fireeyes, didn't mean to skeeve you out! But didn't want to downplay the facts. Despite her filth, she contained it.
Dustbowldiva, that's exactly it. She was able to afford to feed them. Her level of care, maybe too much for anyone to handle. Where to draw the privacy line?
Through my work, selling foreclosed properties for banks, I have met many people that lived in unusual conditions like Wanda. Some of them line the walls with foil to keep out alien radio signals. Others are pack rats. Their homes filled floor to ceiling, basement to attic with only narrow paths to move from room to room. Even their beds cannot be reached. I am convinced they sleep standing up!
Wanda's situation is sad, as is the case with all of the people I have encountered living in unusual conditions like I have described. She needs help and compassion, not punishment.
If it were not for the cats, she should be free to live in her filth. The cats may have been loved by Wanda, but the conditions they lived in constitute cruelty.
The tip about the conditions at the house is reported to have come from a delivery man.
The pictures don't look like cruelty. The cats themselves actually look rather content as they loll about the mansion. But somehow, we seem comfortable dictating to this woman how she should live her life--and we give this dictation the quality and power of Law.
To John Stuart Mill is attributed the statement at the heart of classical liberal notions of ordered liberty: “The rights of your fist end at my nose.”
The smell was contained to her own house, she did not, and is not accused of having created a public health hazard. The woman has a right to live as she chooses as long as she does not harm anyone else. She did not harm anyone else. She should be left alone with her cats. That is the heart of ordered liberty. The heart of what we as a country are supposed to mean. Shame on those who would rob her of her choice and seek to rob her further of her money for the privilege of having done so. And shame on us for letting it happen. The loss of liberty is a slippery slope. Give 'em an inch and they'll take a yard--maybe yours (See Kelo).
So I ask you all this: by what right does a governmental agency even require a citizen to license a pet-- a cat or a dog? To give a "license" is to "grant permission." Why need I receive governmental permission to have a pet? Register, sure. Make me prove I've had the animal inoculated, fine. (Health & Safety require it) Tax me for it, ok. But grant me permission? From whence does this authority come? I know this sounds radical, but ask yourself the question: "why must I be granted permission from my town to have a pet?"
Perhaps this all sounds radical because we are so far removed from any sense of real liberty. I would suggest that to those who drafted the constitution, the idea of being granted permission to keep a dog or cat would have seemed radical-- radically authoritarian. I would also suggest that the prospect of taking this woman's cats (happiness) and charging her close to an after taxes year's salary to do so would have been thought to be an appalling abuse of power.
The woman was harming no one.
(and yes, i have a law degree)
michael j. ricciardelli, j.d.