Of dogs and divorce: why treating pets as chattels is an anachronism.

This is Ernest, our beloved English bull terrier. According to English law he has the same status as the chaise longue upon which he is performing his Kate Winslet impersonation. How can this be right? How can he have the same legal status as a settee?

Our legal system has a reputation for being the finest on the planet. Yet in court, the legal test for who gets to keep the family dog is the same as that for any other inanimate content of the family home. The roots of this absurdity lie in the common law, which insists that pets are properly no different in principle from furniture even though we all know that this does not reflect reality.

This probably stems back to mediaeval times when dogs were kept for hunting and cats for mousing, but in the 21st century it’s laughably outdated. In other jurisdictions, courts are beginning to recognise that pets aren’t just property.

There seems to be no effective mechanism in English courts, however, for resolving the issue of who gets the family dog. A decision in the Spanish courts recently sought to reclassify pets as sentient beings, and courts in New Zealand have shown a willingness to make more nuanced decisions about animal custody. Meanwhile English law plods on arrogant, unabated and ineffective.

The only judge brave enough to step forward and address this phony anachronism is District Judge Crisp, who in the aptly named case of Fi v Do at Manchester Family Justice Centre on 20 December 2024 said this:

‘The legal authority to which I have referred provides assistance as to who has principally looked after the dog. Not who has purchased the dog, that fact in my view is not as important as who the dog sees as her carer. This is not who had previously looked after the dog, but who does now. It is an agreed fact that the parties separated and the dog has been cared for solely by the wife since that separation some 18 months previously. I accept what the wife says 18 months is a long time in a dog’s life. It was clear when the dog ran back to the family home after he had been taken by the husband that the dog considered that to be a safe place and where he belonged. The wife’s evidence as I have set out was compelling but more importantly in my view showed someone who understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog’s interests first. The dog’s home is with the wife, and she should stay there. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter. The husband has managed without a dog for 18 months and it does not therefore seem necessary for his support, even if that were the case which I do not accept was the position at the time the parties separated.’

Could this judgment be the gamechanger we so crave?

Until the higher courts adopt the stance taken by Judge Crisp, divorcing couples are left with no legal framework that reflects the reality of modern pet ownership. They must navigate a pet unfriendly legal landscape. This offends the clean break principle as there is no resolution for the parties over the family dog. This leaves the weaker party vulnerable or worse still the stronger party using the family pet as ammunition as happened in Judge Crisp’s case.

In a legal system that prides itself on fairness and humanity, treating pets as chattels is both a relic and a betrayal. Has the time not come for the law to recognise the reality that animals are neither property nor mere ornaments in our lives? They are, like Ernest, our companions, confidants, and occasionally our greatest source of chaos and amusement.

‘So here’s my plea for a legal shakeup

treat pets like family, not just a breakup
for Ernest’s no chair no trinket no tat
he’s priceless, and frankly he’d agree with that!’