RUFF JUSTICE: PETS, DISPUTES AND DIVORCE 

Published on 15 November, 2024 | Madelaine Hailey

Britain has historically had a reputation as a nation of animal lovers.

According to figures published recently by a leading veterinary charity, more than half of all UK adults own a pet (https://www.pdsa.org.uk/what-we-do/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-report/uk-pet-populations-of-dogs-cats-and-rabbits).

Furthermore, many of those people regard their cats, dogs and rabbits as important members of their households (https://www.purina.co.uk/news/pets/family-members-data-study).

Whilst that’s all very good when relationships are going well, pets – just like children – can be caught in the middle when couples run into difficulties.

In the last few weeks, media reports have once again highlighted how complicated such rows can become (https://www.thetimes.com/article/745a8eaa-c89a-4ba8-b551-efd5e5364185?shareToken=0d11fbc4876ded4b68750b447704cebc).

It is, sadly, nothing new. Nor is it confined to cats or dogs.

Back in 2017, my colleague Alice Rogers told the Daily Mail about the frequency with which separating spouses were arguing over the ownership and cost of maintaining horses (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213763/Horses-dividing-couples-bitter-divorce-battles.html).

The following year, the resolution of one couple’s multi-million divorce settlement was held up because they couldn’t agree how to look after their pets (https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5cb02e802c94e02c1b892d0f).

In that case, the judge recommended the use of a mediator or arbitrator skilled in handling this kind of dogged dispute.

There is no doubt that cases of this sort are now far from unusual.

One aspect which I find relatively common when they do crop up is a sense of disbelief at how pets are regarded by divorce law.

Under the law as it stands, animals are treated as chattels or possessions after a break-up (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1973/18/section/25).

Even so, family courts are still generally reluctant to become involved in arguments about how to divide chattels of any kind, particularly those of a lower financial value – which most cats and dogs generally are.

Courts instead prefer couples come to an agreement about such matters themselves, leaving the courts to focus on issues of greater financial substance.

Animals’ status during divorce currently not only fails to take into account how we think of them but recent legal developments.

In May, a Private Member’s Bill creating two new offences of dog and cat abduction became law (https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3549/stages).

It came three years after Boris Johnson’s government had published an Action Plan recognising animals as “sentient beings in law” rather than mere possessions (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/action-plan-for-animal-welfare/action-plan-for-animal-welfare).

A number of commentators have suggested that the answer to disputes about who gets the pets following a split lies in what has been described as a ‘pet-nup’.

Similar to a pre- or post-nuptial agreement, it sets out what happens to a couple’s pets in the event of them going their separate ways.

‘Pet-nups’ have even won the endorsement of the Blue Cross animal charity, partly because it is apparently asked to help rehome many pets given away by those involved in relationship breakdowns (https://www.bluecross.org.uk/pet-nup).

Despite Hall Brown being firm advocates of the clarity which nuptial agreements can bring to discussions about how to divide joint marital assets, I must say that I disagree with the idea of a ‘pet-nup’.

After all, if there is a genuine desire to respect animals as being above inanimate objects, it might be considered at odds with a document that might determine their future in a fashion which is much the same as the rest of a couple’s property.

There are parallels between how some couples approach this problem and the kind of arrangements which are made regarding children after a marriage ends.

By way of example, the television presenter Ant McPartlin and his ex-wife, Lisa Armstrong, have shared ownership – or parenting – of their labrador, Hurley, since their divorce in 2018 with the dog splitting his time between their respective homes.

I am also aware of people using non-court dispute resolution (NCDR), like mediation or arbitration, specifically to untangle disagreements about pet welfare when they break up.

Such options are frequently agreed upon to separate deliberations about pets from discussions about things such as finances and property.

There are also obvious practical constraints to having the legal system asked to determine arrangements for animals in the same way as they are for children following a relationship breakdown.

I believe that arguments about pet ownership on divorce will perhaps only become less delicate once their sentience is reflected across all areas of the law, including divorce law.

It remains to be seen, though, whether an ongoing review by the Law Commission of the law on financial aspects of divorce will cover the treatment of pets too (https://lawcom.gov.uk/project/financial-remedies-on-divorce/).

Without legislative change, I suspect that the fur will continue to fly when separating partners don’t see eye to eye about who gets Kitty or Rover.