How Family Law Treats Pets in a Divorce or Separation

It is said that Britain is a nation of animal lovers. And whilst that may not be entirely true, it is certainly true that we have some of the highest populations of dogs, cats and other pets in the world.

And this inevitably means that pets are often caught up in disputes over who should keep them when their owners separate.

Most pets are of course cherished members of the family, such that it will often be the case that both parties to a separation or divorce will want to keep them.

Hopefully, the issue of who keeps a pet will be sorted out by agreement, whether directly between the parties, or by some other means, such as mediation. But what if they cannot agree? How is the matter then resolved?

In this article we will look at how the law treats pets in a divorce or separation, and will then examine a recent example case. We will also look at how the law may be reformed in the future.

The law treats pets as chattels

As indicated above, couples should try to agree between themselves what should happen to any family pets in a divorce or separation. And various arrangements are possible, not just that one party keeps the pet, to the exclusion of the other party. Some couples agree to treat the pet in a similar fashion to a child, sharing its time between the two parties.

But if a couple cannot agree who should keep the pets in a divorce or separation, then they will need to ask the court to sort the matter out. This occurs most frequently in divorce proceedings, when a party asks the court to deal with the matter as part of an application for financial remedies (i.e. a financial and property settlement).

And when such an application is made the law (as it currently stands in England and Wales – we will look at how some other countries approach the matter in a moment) essentially views the pet in the same way as it would view any other chattel, such as a car, or an item of jewellery.

Chattels are usually dealt with by the court by reference to their value, taking into account such matters as how and why the chattel was purchased, and which party possessed it. Thus for example one party may be awarded a chattel, or allowed to keep a chattel, as part of their divorce settlement. And if that is not appropriate then the court might order all of the chattels to be sold, with the proceeds of sale being divided between the parties.

All of which may seem rather callous so far as pets are concerned, but there can be a difference between the strict law and the way that a judge approaches the matter of what should happen to a family pet.

A clue to that approach came from a High Court case in 2011, in which the judge stated: “I do not consider it appropriate to make any order in respect of one of the dogs, because on the evidence I have heard, they would seem to have been principally looked after by the husband.” In other words, when it comes to deciding who should have a pet, the court will consider other factors, such as who looked after the pet.

We will now examine this more closely, by looking at a recent example case.

Example case: FI v DO

There are actually very few reported cases where the court dealt with the issue of who should keep the family pet on divorce, but a divorce case that took place in the Family Court in Manchester last December provides a very good example (although it should be noted that the case was only decided by a District Judge, and is not therefore binding upon courts in future cases).

The case involved a dispute between the parties over who should have the family dog. Rather amusingly, the judge gave the case the name FI v DO.

In the case the dog, a female Golden Retriever, had been purchased jointly by the family (the husband, the wife, and their daughter) in May 2022, for £1200.

The couple separated in November 2022, since when the dog had been looked after solely by the wife, and been a pet for the two children of the family, who live with the wife.

From this, it would seem clear who should keep the dog. But in February 2024 the husband attempted to steer matters into his favour, by registering the dog as a disability support dog, required by him to assist in relation to his anxiety and depression.

And then in December the husband forcibly took the dog from the maternal grandmother whilst she was out walking the dog. The dog ran off, and the grandmother witnessed the husband dragging her into his car from the family home, where the dog had run back to. Following this the husband was arrested by the police, and the dog was returned with damage to her paws from being dragged away by the husband. Unsurprisingly, the children were incredibly upset over this incident.

Deciding who should have the dog, the judge found that she had never been purchased as a disability support dog as the husband alleged – the husband had only registered her in an effort to support his case that he should have the dog.

The judge went on to say that in her view who purchased the dog was not as important as who the dog saw as her carer. She found that the dog’s home was with the wife, and she should stay there, particularly as it would be upsetting for both the dog and the children if those arrangements were to be changed.

Accordingly, the judge ordered that the wife should retain ownership of the dog.

This case is a hopeful example of how the courts here might treat the issue of pet ownership on divorce with care and compassion, rather than in the rather callous way that a strict reading of the current law indicates. However, as noted above, the decision is not binding in future cases.

How the law may be reformed

As might be imagined, there are many people who are not happy with the way that the law currently treats pets on separation or divorce. Some are therefore calling for change, particularly as the law does now specifically recognise that some animals are sentient beings.

Some campaigners have even launched a UK government petition calling for legislation to make a pet’s welfare the paramount consideration when courts resolve disputes over their ownership and possession, and to recognise a pet’s true value as being the value to its owner, not just its open market price. Whether the petition receives sufficient signatures for the government to respond remains to be seen.

However, other countries including France, Spain and Australia have updated their laws to ensure that pets are protected on divorce and separation.

To give an indication of how this might happen in England and Wales, we will conclude this article by looking briefly at how the law was recently reformed in Australia.

Last December the Australian government passed the Family Law Amendment Act 2024. The Act prescribed “companion animals” (pets) as a specific type of property, to which a set of considerations may apply when the family law courts determine what order, if any, should be made in respect of the ownership of the companion animal as part of property division.

The Act defined a “companion animal” as “an animal kept by the parties to a marriage or either of them, or the parties to a de facto relationship or either of them, primarily for the purpose of companionship”. Animals kept for some other purpose, for example in connection with a disability or for agricultural purposes are excluded from the definition.

The Act then states that in divorce settlement proceedings the court may order that only one party to the marriage is to have ownership of the companion animal, or that the companion animal be transferred to another person who has consented to the transfer, or that the companion animal be sold.

In deciding what order to make the court is to take into account the following considerations, so far as they are relevant:

(a) The circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired;

(b) Who has ownership or possession of the companion animal;

(c) The extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the companion animal;

(d) Any family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other party;

(e) Any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal;

(f) Any attachment by a party, or a child of the marriage, to the companion animal;

(g) The demonstrated ability of each party to care for and maintain the companion animal in the future, without support or involvement from the other party;

(h) Any other fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.

As will be seen, this is much wider than the law as it presently stands in England and Wales, specifically directing courts to take into account such relevant matters as who cared for the pet, whether a party had ever abused it, and any attachment that a party or child has to it.

It is to be hoped that the law in this country may in future have some similar provision. For now, however, we are left with the law as it stands at present.