District Judge Crisp. Final Hearing in FR case involving which party should keep the family dog, a golden retriever puppy, ‘N’.

Background

The parties married in 2010 and separated in November 2022. They have two children, born in 2011 and 2017 respectively. There were separate proceedings before the court in relation to the children. At the time of the hearing, the children resided with their mother and did not have any contact with their father.

The issue of N

Amongst the issues of the case was the question as to which party should keep the family dog, ‘N’. H sought a declaration of ownership of N and a shared care arrangement. W sought retention of N, initially on the basis that N could accompany the children to the home of H if the court permitted such contact. However, W’s position changed, and she stated that she did not think that it was in N’s best interests to spend time with the husband due to a particular incident which occurred on 12 December 2022 (of which DDJ Crisp later made a determination of fact).

Evidence regarding N

H’s evidence

Separate statements were issued in relation to N. H said that N was purchased by him for £1,200 cash and that W did not make any financial contribution towards the purchase. Moreover, H stated that he was the one who trained N and registered her as a disability support dog supported by a letter from his medical practitioner. H set out that he suffered from a mental health disability. He required the return of N to assist with his anxiety and depression. He said that after the parties separated, W did not look after N and she refused to feed or walk her. H became the sole carer for her.

H stated that the incident of 12 December 2022 arose whilst he was in the community visiting his previous dog’s grave, when he saw what he thought was N running freely. H said that he took N, and that she was happy to go with him. H was later arrested by the police who removed N and returned her to W.

Under cross examination, H said he had been exercising his legal rights and that he had more of a right to the dog than the maternal grandmother who was walking the dog, so he took her. He accepted that the dog had run off back to the family home and that he had followed. He denied dragging her but accepted that the dog had run off as she had not recognised him initially.

W’s evidence

W stated that N was purchased by the family jointly. Their daughter used £320 of her birthday money, W contributed £280, and H paid the balance of £600. N was purchased as the children were distraught after the loss of their previous dog. W stated that she was the registered keeper, she registered her at the Kennel Club and paid for all her costs of upkeep. W did not accept that N was ever registered as a disability support dog whilst they were together.

As to the incident of 12 December 2022, W stated that H forcibly took the dog from the maternal grandmother whilst she was out walking the dog. H was arrested by the police and reported to the RSPCA. The dog was returned with damage to his paws from being dragged away by H.

Under cross-examination, she said that, prior to purchase of N, she was told by H that the cost of N would be too much. As such, if N was to be purchased, they would all have to pay towards it. W’s position was that their daughter had money from her birthday and that W and she both paid one half of the cost.

The law

DDJ Crisp reminded herself of the factors contained within s 25 MCA 1973. She was also referred to the case of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), where Moylan J said in relation to the dog:

‘I do not consider it appropriate to make any order in respect of one of the dogs, because on the evidence I have heard, they would seem to have been principally looked after by the husband.’

Findings of fact

DDJ Crisp reminded herself that N is a chattel, although she commented that during the evidence, it seemed as if the case was in the realms of a Children Act application, especially when W was cross examined about the dog's welfare and shared care arrangements.

DDJ Crisp found that N was first registered as a support dog in February 2024 – in other words, after the separation of the parties. Moreover, she found that H had registered the dog to support his claim that she should be returned to him. Whilst ultimately irrelevant, DDJ Crisp found that N had been jointly purchased by the parties with the daughter.

She found that on 12 December 2022, H had forcibly removed the dog, and that N had run back to the FMH.

Exercise of the court’s powers

Referring to RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), DDJ Crisp stated that the question to be determined was who principally looked after N, not who purchased N. It was important as to who N saw as her carer. This was not a matter of who had previously looked after N, but who did so now. Alluding to the fact that N had run back to the FMH in December 2022, that W had been caring for N in the 18 months between separation and the hearing, that 18 months was a long time in a dog’s life, and W was someone who understood dogs and was compassionate towards them, DDJ Crisp determined that N should remain at W’s home.