Who gets the pets in a divorce?

Pets are not legally recognised in English law as anything beyond a chattel. This means they are treated as personal property, in the same category as furniture. Many would argue that this view is outdated and does not reflect the emotional bond that can exist between a pet and its owner. 

Historically, when resolving disputes about pets during separation or divorce, courts have considered factors such as:

• Who purchased the pet?
• If the pet was a gift, who it was gifted to?
• Whose name the pet is registered in?
• Whose name is on the microchip?
• Who has paid for the pet’s care?
• Who is financially able to support the pet?
• Who has a suitable home for the pet?

Despite these considerations, the court’s approach can still feel insensitive. The decision often comes down to who can show legal ownership and possession, rather than who shares a genuine emotional bond with the pet or who the pet would be better off living with.

There is increasing support for pets to be recognised as more than property under the law. One approach is to create a written agreement that sets out the arrangements for the pet in the event of a separation, including who will be responsible for its care and where it will reside. The court may take such an agreement into account, particularly if it reflects the welfare of the animal.

Although the traditional legal approach may seem rigid, recent case law suggests that things are beginning to change. In the case of FI v DO 2024 [EWFC] 384 (B), the court initially considered the usual factors relating to ownership. However, District Judge Crisp gave greater weight to the current reality of the situation. The deciding factor was not who had previously looked after the dog, but who was presently providing ongoing care and with whom the dog had a stronger emotional bond. The judge observed that when the husband attempted to take the dog, it ran back to the wife. This demonstrated that the dog had clearly aligned itself with her. A finding was made that the dog should stay with the person who was acting in its best interests, even if that person was not the legal owner.

This case shows that pets are now being considered beyond their strict legal definition as property. Courts are increasingly willing to take a more compassionate and realistic view, one that recognises the emotional significance of pets and the importance of their welfare in decisions made during a separation.

If you would like advice on any of the issues raised in this article, please contact our Family Law Department here.