The work of a family lawyer can be incredibly varied, yet the types of cases which we find ourselves dealing with still fall into a certain range.

Perhaps most frequent of all are those in which we help people deal with the consequences arising from the end of a relationship, whether they were married or not.

Again, despite the very individual circumstances involved, a number of themes emerge over time.

One which has arguably assumed more currency in recent years is the question of what happens to the family pet.

As cold as it sounds, pets are regarded by the law as mere possessions – or chattels, to use the legal term.

That much was emphasised in a notable Family Court ruling in Manchester last December in a case featuring a dispute between former spouses about who paid for and should retain ownership of a dog (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/384.html).

The case – appropriately referred to in court records as Fi v Do – was presided over by District Judge Crisp who stated bluntly that “it matters not who paid for the dog. The dog is a chattel.”

She added that there been such focus placed on resolving the problem that it had even prevented other, more substantial matters being agreed.

District Judge Crisp’s words may have offended the many people who regard animals as bona fide – or even bona fido – family members.

However, she was simply outlining the facts.

As is stands, family courts are under no obligation to afford any special treatment to animals when it comes to weighing up the division of assets on divorce.

In fact, they are regarded as much as property as furniture, fine art, clothes or cars (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/55).

That could change, though, if a new campaign group has its way.

Media have reported how the group, Pets In Divorce, is pressing for legal reform to bring England and Wales into line with other countries and ensure that courts prioritise the interests of animals (https://www.thetimes.com/article/e019576f-7981-4a32-9a4d-aa77f48f68ab?shareToken=56cf8adbcd4799c2c3b3f8e572b9365a).

The group has suggested that, in some cases, the welfare and ownership of pets has become “weaponised” by spouses seeking to apply pressure during disputes with their exes.

It is something which Hall Brown is well aware of, having been involved in a number of cases in which such issues have complicated attempts to reach agreement on the wider span of assets that come under consideration at the end of a marriage.

In my opinion, domestic animals – cats, dogs, birds and other small furries – are more inclined to be treated almost as children by their owners.

Horses do not necessarily attract the same degree of attachment but, as my colleague Alice Rogers has observed to a number of national newspapers in the past, can be a source of passionate disagreement between divorcing spouses, particularly when it comes to the far higher maintenance costs entailed (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213763/Horses-dividing-couples-bitter-divorce-battles.html).

One of the supporters of the Pets in Divorce campaign is the Conservative life peer, Baroness Berridge.

During a debate in the House of Lords in February, she outlined her hope that a change in the law “could avoid some litigation” (https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/2025-02-27/debates/9CF77A50-10D3-4F2B-9F0D-83B32286D4C6/PrenuptialAgreements#contribution-7CEF0490-91E6-4DD0-9C00-2D838FC3DFA9).

I think that would be in the best interests of both clients and the country’s incredibly busy family courts.

Nevertheless, Baroness Berridge subsequently explained to The Times that “pets are not chattels — they are not money or your house”.

Although that may be a raw, personal sentiment shared by many people, it is – I repeat – not the position in law.

Even if Government was amenable to change on the matter, the glacial pace at which most legislation moves through parliament means that it would most likely not take effect for some time.

In the meantime, the failure to accept the legal realities could actually fuel more such litigation.

It doubtless pains those who love their pets but the primary objective of family law is fairness and not fur-ness.

With that in mind, it is essential to be pragmatic in any situation concerning how assets are split when a relationship comes to an end, including those involving animals.

Whilst it might be tempting to become embroiled in an argument over Kitty or Rover, it’s important to focus on what is really going to help a case.

That is far more helpful than fixating on points of detail which might take up a disproportionate amount of cost and time but ultimately lead nowhere, irrespective of whether that is done with the best intentions.