TAIL WAGS DOG: WHEN PET DISPUTES DERAIL DIVORCES 

Published on 20 January, 2025 | Alice Rogers

Britain is, by reputation, a nation of animal lovers.

The most recent statistics made available by one of the UK’s leading veterinary charities, the PDSA, would appear to bear that out (https://www.pdsa.org.uk/what-we-do/pdsa-animal-wellbeing-report/uk-pet-populations-of-dogs-cats-and-rabbits).

It calculated that more than half of all homes now have a cat, dog or rabbit.

That percentage actually increased during the Covid pandemic with millions more furry friends finding a home (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56362987#:~:text=A%20total%20of%203.2%20million,owning%20homes%2C%20the%20association%20says.).

Our reliance on animal companions means that they are often regarded as much loved family members.

Whilst that can be a source of comfort for children, adults and animals, it can occasionally be a factor in disputes when relationships break apart.

I have been reminded of that fact while reading a recent ruling handed down by Manchester’s Family Court (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2024/384.html).

District Judge Crisp was asked to determine the nature of financial settlement between a couple who had split up after a 12-year marriage.

Having given his findings on how they should apportion their assets, he found himself having to decide on the “thorny issue” of the future ownership and care of the couple’s golden retriever.

Purchased jointly by the couple as a puppy, the husband maintained that he trained and registered it as a Disability Support dog to help him deal with anxiety and depression.

After the couple separated, the dog’s living arrangements became so disputed that the husband applied for a shared care order after moving out of the family home.

Police were also called upon to seize and return the dog after the husband attempted to abduct it while it was being walked by his mother-in-law.

District Judge Crisp described how the amount of focus on what became of the dog had, in part, prevented the couple reaching agreement what should happen to their finances.

So much attention was paid to the puppy, he said, that “at times it seemed to me that I was in the realms of a Children Act application”.

Even so, District Judge Crisp was able to cut through the acrimony, to clearly set out how marginal the issue actually was. “It matters not,” he said, “who paid for the dog. The dog is a chattel.”

Under the law as it stands, animals are regarded as property in much the same way as furniture, fine art or cars (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/23/section/55).

From my own experience, that is a point which some couples still find hard to grasp.

Several years ago, in fact, I found myself explaining to a number of national newspapers how couples were rowing not just about cats and dogs but horses too (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5213763/Horses-dividing-couples-bitter-divorce-battles.html).

Even to animal lovers like myself, these might seem relatively frivolous arguments. That they are the subject of court hearings, though, presents a serious point.

As figures published by the Ministry of Justice last month illustrated, family courts are very busy (https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/family-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2024/family-court-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2024#probate-service).

During 2023, there were nearly 263,000 cases of all types brought before family courts across England and Wales. Furthermore, divorces now take 63 weeks on average to conclude.

That means almost 15 months before spouses who may have separated some time before beginning the process bringing their marriages to a close can move on with their lives.

The potential for that process to be delayed by disagreement about who gets to care for Kitty, Rover or Dobbin is not taken lightly at all by family lawyers or the courts.

Court hearings are always seen as something of a last resort and should be reserved for matters such as childcare arrangements or the division of complex finances.

It is one reason why Sir Andrew McFarlane, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, have been so forthright in supporting measures which enable people to resolve their differences away from courtrooms (https://www.judiciary.uk/guidance-and-resources/a-view-from-the-presidents-chambers-july-2024/).

There are those individuals who might view the case decided by District Judge Crisp as an example of how or why they should also pursue arguments about pet ownership in court.

I feel that would be a big mistake, not least because he insisted couples should put their two children first instead.

District Judge Crisp’s comments echoes guidance which myself and my colleagues have given to many current and previous clients.

Although the matter of how chattels are split up can be a distraction, it is vital to retain a sense of proportionality.

Losing sight of the bigger picture can result – if you pardon the phrase – in the (de)tail wagging the dog, something which although resulting from good intentions can be extremely counterproductive for children, adults and pets alike.