Pets on Divorce and Separation: Why the Consultation Matters

The Working Group on Pets on Divorce and Separation is concerned about the lack of guidance in relation to pets as chattels. This is vitally important in any proposed reform. The emotional connection between separating parties and the family pet cannot be treated in the same manner as chattels normally are. Other jurisdictions including Spain, parts of Canada, Australia and a number of US states have already recognised that uniform treatment of pets as other chattels is unfair and unworkable. The current reform project provides an opportunity to consider whether a similar approach is appropriate here.

Data collected in 2025 by the Working Group from over 410 family professionals confirmed that only 7% have never seen a dispute over pets in financial remedies, 76% said that the lack of guidance on pets makes disputes harder to solve, 80% said further guidance was needed and 98% believed that whoever cares for the pet should be a relevant consideration.

There has been a repeated failure to properly address chattels in financial remedy proceedings in particular, with courts relying on older authorities such as K v K (Financial Relief: Management of Difficult Cases) [2005] 2 FLR 1137 where Baron J had simply suggested that chattels ought to be resolved by the parties, not by the court. This overlooks the fact that statutory powers under s 24 MCA 1973 allow the court to make property adjustment orders. More recently, in FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), the court took a different approach, deciding who should keep the family dog by reference to who cared for her and whom the dog regarded as her carer, rather than who had paid for her. This illustrates that the court can engage with these disputes, but that the outcome currently depends heavily on the individual judge in the absence of any settled framework. What is missing is the necessary direction that helps the court apply s 25 MCA 1973 to consider the welfare of pets properly, rather than following the existing judicial convention.

Ruby’s Law is a separate campaign directed at pets in the context of domestic abuse. It is now a Bill before Parliament, supported by Ruth Jones MP and due for its Second Reading on 16 October 2026, which would amend the Family Law Act 1996 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 to recognise harm to a pet as a form of coercive control and to allow non-molestation and occupation orders to extend to pets. That Bill is concerned with abuse rather than financial remedies, but the same dynamic can arise on divorce: where a pet is used to coerce or control a former partner, that may itself be relevant to conduct under s 25(2)(g) MCA 1973. In practice, the current regime (a) disregards chattels as trivial in most financial remedy proceedings and (b) in doing so, minimises the personal value of pets to the parties with no principles or guidance which militate towards fair outcomes.

There is a strong case for clearer guidance to clarify not only the treatment of chattels wholesale but also the need to distinguish between different categories of chattel. The current procedure is preoccupied only with applying a universal monetary value to all assets and dividing them on that basis. That cannot work in relation to pets, who have an emotional and personal value to the parties that the s 25 MCA 1973 criteria are unable to capture.

That is why this consultation matters. The Ministry of Justice’s review of the law governing financial remedies, A fairer end to relationships, is open until 11:59 pm on 14 August 2026, and responses can be submitted at consult.justice.gov.uk. It does not, on its face, mention chattels or companion animals and this is precisely why practitioners cannot assume the point will be made for them. The Working Group’s evidence, drawn from more than 410 professionals, shows that these disputes are now a routine feature of family practice; but that evidence is at its most powerful when joined by the day-to-day experience of those who see how much can turn on the family pet. Whatever view is taken on whether the law needs to change, a short response now may be the difference between this issue being addressed in the next round of reform and being overlooked once again. We would encourage every family practitioner to take the time to make one.

Adrian Barnett-Thoung-Holland and Gemma Lindfield write on behalf of the Working Group on Pets on Divorce.