Pets and family law

Not to make light of the situation but I guess this post could be subtitled: “When your marriage goes to the dogs, and pets are involved, what is the solution?”

Couples, especially those who do not have children, adore their pets and often treat them like kids. It's no surprise then that the question of who gets the pets after separation is a growing issue for family lawyers.

In some parts of the USA – and elsewhere around the world – pets are looked upon as property and the Courts can set out who is going to get the pets. Some Courts even settle pet disputes by making arrangements that are similar to those used in parenting cases – the Judgment will set out what days of the week pets will spend with each party, as well as issues concerning medical care and stipulations for pet day care if both parties work.

In Australia, however, such options are not available. I have had numerous cases where pets were an issue and I have had to tell my clients that they have to work it out themselves. If you can’t reach agreement it usually means one person walks away from their beloved pet. Even if an agreement can be reached between the parties it is not possible to have that agreement formalised as the Courts will not make Orders for pets.

While some may think that Orders for pets would be a good idea there are a few reasons why the law doesn’t consider pets as property. Most of these reasons relate to the question: what is their value? Unlike a child that cannot be bought and sold, it is possible to purchase a pet – but overtime the value of that animal will become vastly different to its “replacement” cost – perhaps even bear no resemblance to it at all in the case of a mixed breed dog who has become a vital member of the family, for example.  Or when an animal becomes a show animal or a champion - they will then have a much higher value that does not necessarily bear any resemblance to their replacement value. If the Courts allowed litigation in relation to pets people could spend thousands of dollars fighting over the value of the pet – and the reason they want the animal in the first place is not actually a monetary one, but an emotional one.

Nonetheless, it will be interesting to see if the law develops to reflect the growing importance of pets in our lives.