To the shock and dismay of pet lovers, when it comes to divorce court, pets are treated as property, not children. While pet owners approach their pets as comparable to the custody and visitation of children, divorce judges will generally decide pets like they would pots and pans. Pets will be divided based on their “monetary” value, not necessarily sentimental value. Notwithstanding the way the law views their pets, many pet owners are emotional and attempt to turn “property litigation” into “custody litigation.” While the reality is that pets, such as dogs, may have very real emotional and physical responses to their owners separating, divorce judges are either unwilling, or unable to deal with those circumstances. Some courts believe that addressing the ownership of pets is simply a waste their time.
This view may be changing. Some courts have made a determination as to what is in the best interest of a pet, similar to how it would handle custody of a child. If this approach continues, the courts may have to address not only issues of custody or visitation of a pet, but also possibly “pet support” and expensive veterinary care. Further, while former spouses may necessarily have to retain a relationship if they have children, that is not necessarily true with a pet and a judge may feel it is better to sever the parties’ relationship by awarding the pet to one party or the other.
In a real sense, determining custody of a pet is not that different than determining custody of a child. If a court is going to spend time dividing up the parties’ pots and pans, why not take the time to determine what is in the best interest of a dog? Evidence such as who walks the dog, feeds the dog, takes the dog to the vet, or has appropriate accommodations for the dog may be relevant. Moreover, the court should be able to consider evidence if one party was abusive to the animal.
In sum, while some courts may have sympathy or empathy for pets and their owners, the majority conclude that there is not any legal authority to treat pets as children and they are compelled to treat them as property.