I'm no legal eagle but I'd swear I've heard of contracts being voided if they were signed under duress.
If that wasn't duress, I don't know what would be.
If they can take a kid away from its adoptive parents after they raised it for years when the "birth mother" pops back into the picture, what's the big problem with giving back a dog?
Another thing : The witch is gonna claim that it would be cruel to take the dogs from her kids (after they've had him three, count 'em, THREE weeks) to return to the man who raised Shuma from a puppy. She's going to try to play the "it's for the children" card. But it says that the man turned over Shuma because he was frantic to find housing for his FAMILY. That means he has at least one child, since if it were jsut him and his wife, the reporters would've referred to a "married couple" but not a family. Surely a judge would rule that the feelings of the children who've known Shuma longest take precedence over the feelings of the Neville creature's children.
Probably the "flood the employer with nastygrams and a boycott" are the best alternatives here. Maybe the employer will lean on the BC.