Pets in Divorce: Are Courts Finally Considering Their Welfare?

Pets are integral part of family life and as such, disputes about their future living arrangements in the wake of a divorce are often hotly contested.

Previously the position in law has been to treat pets like chattels. The Court will look at who has proof of ownership which can be demonstrated usually by proof of purchase, who paid the vet bills, whose name the pet is registered/microchipped in.

I was recently involved in a case where the parties had two rescue dogs; their monetary value was low but they were significant in this case. Both parties wanted the dogs to live with them post-divorce. In fact, we had resolved the finances and the dogs were the only issue in dispute. As there were two dogs, the Court could have split the pair so that each party had their own dog. As the dogs were bonded, this was not considered in their best interests by the parties and the only way this case settled was due to the parties agreeing to essentially a pet living arrangement. The dogs lived with one party and had regular contact with the other.

The Court has no requirement to consider the welfare of a pet. Is this right? Could this change?

In the recent case of FI v DO [2024], the Court was asked to consider the future living arrangements of the family dog post-divorce. Both parties wanted the dog to live with them. It was the Husband’s case that he purchased the dog and that the Wife made no financial contribution to the dog. This was disputed by the Wife who asserted that it was a family pet of whom the children were very close to.

After considering all the evidence, including suggestions that the dog was a disability animal for the Husband and the recent abduction of the dog from the maternal grandmother by the Husband outside the Family Home, the Judge concluded that the decision had to be based on who has principally looked after the dog- not who had purchased the dog. The Judge found that following the parties’ separation, the dog had been cared for solely by the Wife for 18 months and that this was a long period of time in a dog’s life. The Judge found the Wife to be someone who “understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog’s interests first.”

This could show a change towards attitudes of pets in divorce disputes- and one that is long overdue.

To minimise extensive litigation on our furry friends, you may want consider including clauses about your pets (living arrangements, payment of vet bills and food etc) in a pre-nuptial agreement. Alternatively, some people have gone as far as to have separate agreements solely on pets- often referred to as “petnups.” Whilst prenups or petnups are not legally binding, they can be considered persuasive if certain criteria has been met. It goes without saying that the cost of preparing such an agreement would be infinitely less than Court proceedings. Moreover, many Judges may still view your pet as a chattel and make an order that is not in the animals’ best interests.

Please contact our specialist family law team for expert advice on protecting your pet’s future in a divorce. Call 0330 822 3451 or request a callback.