A divorce and separation brings about many complicated issues that need to be resolved and one that we are seeing more and more is the arrangements for the family pets. Pets are so often seen as a member of the family. This can be especially true when parties have not had children and instead focus their love and affection upon their pets.
Often the law takes a while to catch up with modern day life and this can be seen in these circumstances. Currently, the law treats pets as chattels, akin to property. This legal position does not reflect the needs of the animals and the individual contributions that each person may have made towards their care. This can lead to some unsatisfying decisions, ignoring the bonds shared with pets and their families.
We are however seeing a change in the Court’s approach. Judges seem to be moving away from the strict interpretation that whoever has purchased the pet owns it. Previously the ownership of a pet would only change if one party gifted it to the other.
There was a reported case in 2024, where the Court showed a pragmatic and revised approach to pets. In this case, the husband removed the dog and injured it. The Court found that the family home where the dog had been living with the wife for the previous 18 months, was the dog’s safe place where she belonged. The Court showed real concern for the welfare of the animal, and this appeared to be the dominant factor in determining the outcome of the case.
We are seeing more and more people entering into pet-nuptial agreements, where they agree in advance what would happen to their pets in the event of a separation. The focus is usually on what is in the pet’s best interest, when the parties are able to look at matters calmly and free from heavy emotion. This is a desirable step, which can prevent costly and highly emotive litigation. The uncertainty of where a much-loved animal will live following a separation can often be overwhelming.
When a dispute about a pet becomes particularly entrenched, people are more frequently resorting to arbitration over the Court system. Under the arbitration rules, parties can set out their individual cases and an arbitrator can make a legally binding decision about the issues in dispute. An arbitrator can be appointed who has specific understanding or sympathy towards animal welfare or who has a particular knowledge of the type of animal in question.
Separated parties can also consider mediation whereby they attempt to reach their own agreement with the help of a neutral mediator. This can often ensure that parties are more comfortable with the resolution achieved, as it is one that they have actively agreed to.
It seems as though the Courts of England and Wales have some catching up to do, to reflect modern values and connections to our pets. In Australia, the Court will consider the extent to which each party cared for the pet, any history of violence, attachment to the animal by a party or child. The law further provides that there shall be one single owner. In Canada, the law also provides that animals are to be treated differently from other types of property. The same applies in France where pets are recognised as unique where their wellbeing must be considered when determining where they shall live.
No doubt we will see a greater recognition of the importance placed on our pets over the coming years. If you require any assistance with regard to a disagreement about the ownership of a pet, then do contact us using the links below.
