With National Pet Day coming up this week, we look at a recent case given the anonymous nickname FI v DO for exploring how the Court can approach who keeps the family pets on a divorce or dissolution.

Deputy District Judge Crisp recently had the unenviable task of deciding who should keep the family pet in a divorce. The husband wanted to be declared the owner and proposed a “shared care arrangement” (akin perhaps to what he also wanted to do with the children). The wife wanted to keep the dog outright in the end.

Each person explained to the Court why they ought to be considered the dog’s final owner. The husband’s case centred on him having paid for the puppy, training her, and that she was now formally his disability support dog helping with his anxiety and depression. He said he had become her sole carer after the spouses split up.

The wife’s case was that the puppy had been purchased with a mix of family funds, including the children’s birthday money, and that she was the registered keeper of the dog and met the costs of her upkeep.

The dispute between husband and wife wasn’t helped by a difference of opinion about how the husband had come to take or retain the dog when she was out with the wife’s mother for a walk, causing the dog to then escape and run back to the home occupied by the wife.

As much as we love our pets, legally speaking, they remain property. It’s not uncommon for the Court to order the sale of an asset that is being argued over (depending on value of course) and then split the net sale proceeds. That’s not as easy with a living creature of course.

When you cannot take the “King Solomon” approach to divide something equally, what can the Court do?

The judge looked back at other cases involving this very question and the main consideration was who had had principally looked after the dog, not who had bought her and who did the dog view as her carer?

Overall, the judge decided, helped by the fact the dog had run back to the home where the wife lived when she was scared, that she should stay with the wife.

The law on pets is out of date. A pet in a loving home is part of the family, not property akin to a three-piece suite. But, at the moment, that is the law that we have to deal with.

It is absolutely possible to mitigate the risk of this happening should you and your spouse separate. Our recent article Do you need a “pet-nup”? looks at some of the protections that can be put into place for your pets before or after a marriage/civil partnership or in a living together agreement. This can include where a pet might move between homes on separation, with the children, between the adults, whatever the adults might decide. But, as most pet owners will know, that’s not always the right thing for the animals themselves.

If you are separating and have animals that need to be taken into consideration, talk to any of our family lawyers or family mediators about the options that might be available to try and do the very best for you, your family and your pets.