Today is National Pet Day, and it’s all about celebrating the joy, loyalty and unconditional love our furry, feathery (or even scaly!) companions bring into our lives. For many, pets are more than just animals – they’re family. But how are they treated when it comes to family law and financial remedy proceedings?
So, how do the courts view pets?
It might come as a surprise to many devoted pet owners, but under the law in England and Wales, pets are considered chattels – essentially, personal property – similar to cars or household items. This means that in divorce proceedings, the court has the power to make orders regarding who retains ownership of a pet in much the same way it would for other possessions.
This legal approach may feel a little outdated, especially when we consider how emotionally significant our pets can be. The courts are not required to consider the welfare of the pet in the same way they would a child, which can understandably feel at odds with how we view our beloved animals.
What does the court consider?
When deciding who should keep a pet following a separation, the court might consider:
- Who paid for the pet
- Who is registered as the legal owner
- Who covers costs such as insurance, food, and vet bills
- There can be exceptions – for instance, 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 fairly limited.
A recent case sheds new light
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 parties were separating and disputing the division of assets, including their former matrimonial home – and their beloved dog. The emotional attachment to the pet was clear, with the dog even being removed by one party while out on a walk with the other’s mother – an act that led to police involvement and a report to the RSPCA. That’s how deeply these bonds can run.
Although the husband had financially contributed more towards the dog’s purchase, the wife had been its primary caregiver for 18 months. The judge, therefore, considered:
- Who had been the dog’s main caregiver
- The living arrangements after the separation
- The environment best suited to the dog’s wellbeing
The court ultimately decided that the dog should remain with the wife – not just based on ownership but on where the dog would feel most secure and cared for.
Why does this matter?
This case is a positive step forward in recognising the unique role pets play in family life. While pets are still technically considered property, this judgement acknowledges their emotional value and the importance of their welfare when making decisions post-separation.
So, as we celebrate National Pet Day, it’s encouraging to see the courts starting to reflect the reality of how much our pets mean to us.
Need advice about pets or other family matters during separation?
Get in touch with Niamh Wilson, Solicitor in our Family Law team, by emailing niamh.wilson@swinburnemaddison.co.uk or calling us on 0191 384 2441. We’re here to help you – and your four-legged friends – through whatever challenges lie ahead.
