Currently, under English divorce law, pets are defined as ‘chattels’ meaning they are considered the same as any other possessions owned by a married couple, like the contents of the house. However, this clearly does not reflect the emotional bonds a lot of people have with their pets – seeing them as part of the family. This insight, by Joseph Umerah, paralegal at Staffordshire Family Law, dives into the recent developments of the law in this area and what effects this could have on future cases.
A common problem
The PDSA “Paw report” estimated that 28% of UK adults own a dog and 24% a cat. In 2024, there were around 22 million cats, dogs and rabbits kept as pets. There are also estimated to be around 800,000 horses. Where these animals are owned by a couple going through a divorce, who gets to keep the beloved pets can often be one of the most contentious aspects of separating.
How pets are treated:
When there have been disputes over the custody of pets in the past, the Court has looked at ownership:
- Who purchased them;
- Who has the registration documents in their name;
- Whose name was registered on the pet’s microchip;
The other party would have to try and displace this by proving the pet was gifted to them. The Court would not traditionally look at welfare issues or what was in the pet’s best interests, as they would when deciding where children of the marriage would live.
What are parties expected to decide before going to Court?
Generally, along with the division of the contents of the home, parties are expected to agree arrangements for shared pets before they go to Court. It is not something that judges expect to have to determine. The Court would likely consider it disproportionate for the parties to incur significant legal costs litigating over who keeps the pets. There are significant backlogs in the Family Courts, with the Court’s time being very limited. The judge is likely to want to focus on other issues in the case such as who keeps the house, the pensions and savings, and how these significant assets are to be divided. To avoid costly litigation over assets which have a lesser monetary value, such as the pets, the parties can mediate or look at other Non Court Dispute Resolution.
Parties can also plan ahead to avoid disputes over the family pets. ‘Petnups’ (pet specific pre-nuptial agreements) are another way for couples to avoid these disputes in court. Planning who should keep the pet in the future will certainly help parties to agree in advance what happens to them. The agreement can set out with whom the pet will live and spend time with, in the event of a separation or divorce, and other details such as payment of future vet bills, food and insurance. Whilst such a document is not binding on the Court, if it is broadly fair, has been entered to freely and openly, and certain other criteria are met, then a judge is likely to uphold the agreement.
What powers do the court have?
Where the parties have been unable to agree between themselves what happens to the pets, the Court has the power to make various orders regarding pet custody. These options can include
- sole ownership- the Court can order one party retain the animal
- joint custody- it may be possible for the pet to divide it’s time between the parties, with them sharing maintenance costs. However, it is generally the preference of the Court to achieve a clean break between the parties, with no continuing financial ties, so parties would have to consider whether a shared custody arrangement would be a good idea, and a workable arrangement longer term.
- sale of the pet- if the pet is a pedigree and has a significant financial value, the Court could in some circumstances order a sale with the division of the proceeds
- a referral of the parties to mediation.
How have the courts decided previous cases?
Due to the reluctance of judges to deal with this issue, there are not many reported cases on the treatment of pets on divorce. However, in a complicated case where the parties were living in separate countries, where there were two dogs, one of which lived with one spouse in France and the other lived in England with the other spouse, the judge indicated he believed this was a fair arrangement. The judge was not comfortable going further into the specifics and stated that the parties could go to mediation if they were still not satisfied.
Recently however, it has been seen that courts have taken into account the wider context of the situation before making decisions about the pets. In one case, named Fi v DO, the courts ruled for a dog to stay with the wife because
- it had lived with her for 18months beforehand
- the husband had snatched the animal from her care and injured it in doing so.
This shows that Courts are starting to take past actions can be taken into account and what arrangement will benefit the animal the most.
What can be expected in the future?
As with most other disputes, the courts will still prefer for couples to deal with the disputes outside of court, either through mediation or their own personal negotiations. However, because it has been seen that past behaviour and conduct to the animals has been taken into account by judges, it may be that if the dispute does reach court, judges will now decide which party should have custody of the pet taking into account
- Who has been the primary caretaker during the marriage
- Where the pet has lived post separation
- Who has the financial means to care for the pet
- What is in the best interest of the pet.
rather than simply looking at strict rules of ownership.
If you have any questions regarding ownership of your pets on divorce or separation, please contact our office on 01785 336617 or by email family@sflsolicitors.co.uk to arrange a free initial appointment with one of specialist solicitors who can advise further on your specific case.