• Vanessa McMurtrie
  • Collaborative Law
  • Mediation
  • Divorce
    • Divorce Procedure
    • Court fees
  • Financial Matters
    • Court's powers
    • Timetabled approach
    • Factors (financial)
  • Children
    • Section 8 apps
    • Factors (children)
  • Pre-nups
  • Living together
  • What people say
  • Blog
  • Links
  • Contact
Vanessa McMurtrie Family Solicitor
Share

Parting with pets

7/15/2014

0 Comments

 
As a dog owner and divorce lawyer an article in The International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family (Oxford Journals), written by Deborah Rook  of Northumbria Law School - Who Gets Charlie? The Emergence of Pet Custody Disputes in Family Law: Adapting Theoretical Tools from Child Law caught my eye.

Pets are often considered by their owners to be 'part of the family'. It is therefore not uncommon for me to be asked 'who will get custody' or 'can I get help in paying for...' their food, annual booster and medical expenses.

In her article, Rook advocates a new approach to resolving pet custody disputes on relationship breakdown. Rather than looking at pure ownership - in whose name is the pet registered, who paid for it and so on - the court should consider what is best for the animal. She considered reported cases from the USA and Israel  to show that two distinct tests have emerged to resolve pet custody disputes: first, the application of pure property law principles and secondly, the application of a  'best interests of the animal' test.

Thankfully, I have never had a case where the court was asked to determine who got the pet. My advice to clients where this has been an issue has been based on the English court's likely apporoach being one of property law principles, even though this does not sit happily with my instinctive response that it should be what is best for the animal.  Of course, the animal's welfare should always be a parting couple's overriding concern.  But where there "is the emotional bond between the pet and at least one of its human carers" it can trigger a dispute. "It is the irreplaceability of this special relationship that means that the dispute cannot be resolved by simply buying another pet of the same breed and type".

Rook points out that "pet custody disputes only arise because of this emotional bond. Either both parties genuinely love their pet and both want to
keep it or one party feels this way and the other party is merely using the pet as a bargaining chip in order to get a better financial deal". 

The full article can be read on the journal's website.


0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Archives

    April 2016
    January 2016
    June 2015
    May 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    October 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    February 2013

    RSS Feed

    Author

    Vanessa McMurtrie, Partner, Hart Brown. Over 20 years experience in matrimonial and family legal matters.

Picture
Here to help
Email: vmm@hartbrown.co.uk
www.VanessaMcMurtrie.co.uk