As the festive season approaches, many families consider welcoming a new furry, feathery, or even scaly companion into their homes.
We’re all familiar with the saying, “A dog is for life, not just for Christmas” – a reminder of the long-term commitment that comes with pet ownership. But what happens when post-Christmas blues lead to a family separation?
How do the courts view pets?
It may come as a surprise to devoted pet owners, but under the law in England and Wales, pets are considered chattels – essentially personal property, like cars or furniture. In divorce proceedings, this means the court can make orders about who retains ownership of a pet in much the same way it would for other possessions.
This legal approach can feel outdated, especially given the emotional significance of pets in our lives. Unlike decisions involving children, the court is not required to consider the welfare of the pet, which can feel at odds with how many of us view our beloved animals.
What does the court consider?
When deciding who should keep a pet after separation, the court may take into account:
- Who paid for the pet
- Who is registered as the legal owner
- Who covers ongoing costs such as insurance, food, and vet bills
There can be exceptions – for example, if there is clear evidence that the pet was later gifted to the other party.
In RK v RK [2011], the judge declined to transfer ownership of the couple’s dog, noting that one party had been the primary caregiver. However, until recently, guidance in this area has been limited.
A new perspective
A more recent case, FI v DO [2024], has helped clarify how pets might be treated in future financial remedy applications.
In this case, the couple were separating and disputing the division of assets, including their former matrimonial home and their beloved dog. The emotional attachment was evident, with the dog even being removed by one party during a walk with the other’s mother, prompting police involvement and a report to the RSPCA.
Although the husband had contributed more financially to the dog’s purchase, the wife had been its primary caregiver for 18 months. The judge considered:
- Who had been the dog’s main caregiver
- The post-separation living arrangements
- The environment best suited to the dog’s wellbeing
Ultimately, the court decided the dog should remain with the wife, not just based on ownership, but on where the dog would feel most secure and cared for.
Looking Ahead
In 2024, a working group was established comprising solicitors, barristers, vets and animal behavioralists. Their aim is to advocate for a change to the law so that pets are no longer treated merely as property in divorce proceedings.
While a change to the law may be on the horizon, pet owners can take proactive steps. “Pet-nups” and shared care arrangements can help reflect each party’s intentions regarding pet ownership in the event of separation or divorce.
For more information, please contact Catherine Lowther at catherine.lowther@swinburnemaddison.co.uk or call our family team on 0191 384 2441.
