The Court has recently published the case of FI v DO which has provided much needed guidance in relation to family pets upon breakdown of a marriage.  

Introduction
Susie Packer of MSB’s Family Department represented the Wife in this case and instructed Counsel, George Paterson of Four Brick Court Chambers.  

Disputes relating to family pets are becoming increasingly common with many couples seeing dogs and pets alike as ‘part of the family’. Throughout the course of this case, it became apparent that there is little legal framework relating to ownership of pets and how such ‘chattels’ should be distributed.  

In the case of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3910 (Fam), Moylan J refused to make an order for a transfer of pet ownership due to the evidence showing that the dog had been principally looked after by the other party. Other than this legal framework, guidance relating to ownership of pets is limited.  

Case Summary   

This case involves a long marriage with young children who reside with the Wife, both parties are employed with modest incomes. The overall value of the family pot is relatively low with the main asset being the family home which both parties agreed was to be sold.  

The Husband and the Wife were able to agree as to the distribution of marital assets however the overriding issue was the ownership of the family dog. This dispute led to continued litigation and the matter proceeded to Final Hearing to determine this issue.  

The Wife’s position was that the dog was a family pet that belonged to the children. She considered herself to be the ‘main caregiver’ to the dog and the dog had not seen the Husband for some 18 months since the parties separated. The Wife felt that the dog being removed from the children would be detrimental to them and would cause significant distress and upset.  

The Husband’s position was that he had contributed the most money towards the purchase of the family dog. The Husband filed a Civil claim against the Wife for loss of earnings in the sum of £39,600 as he hoped to breed the dog. During the course of proceedings, the Husband indicated that the dog was a registered Disability Dog to assist with his mental health however this was not accepted by the Court who found that the Husband had ‘registered the dog to support his claim that [the dog] should be returned to him’. The Husband filed an application within proceedings for ‘Shared Care’ of the family dog.  

The Husband and Wife were ordered to file statements regarding their position relating to the ownership of the dog alongside evidence in support.  

Shortly prior to the Final Hearing, the dog was removed by the Husband whilst the Wife’s mother was walking her. The Husband denies that he forcibly removed the dog from the Wife’s mother. The Husband was subsequently arrested by the police and reported to the RSPCA. The dog was returned with damage to her paws from being dragged on the floor and the children were incredibly upset over the incident. The Wife reiterated in cross examination that the Husband had not seen the dog for 18 months and she was not surprised the dog did not recognise him as ’18 months in a dog’s life is a significant period’.  

Further, the District Judge in the matter, DJ Crisp states ‘whilst I may understand the husband’s actions as he sees the dog as his right, “I have more right than the grandmother”, he fails to understand the implications of his actions which impact the family and the dog.’  

Outcome
The court ultimately determined that the dog was to remain with the Wife and she was to receive 69.23% of the family pot. The Court also considered the Wife’s extensive legal costs and indicated that the same should be deducted as the Court was ‘satisfied that [the Husband] has caused unnecessary costs….in the pursuit of issues such as the ownership of the dog.’  

Judge’s Comments
DJ Crisp has provided helpful guidance regarding the ownership of a family pet and supports the position of Moylan J as to who has principally looked after the dog. DJ Crisp says ‘that fact [who has purchased the dog] in my view is not as important as who the dog sees as her carer. This is not who had previously looked after the dog, but who does now’. ‘The dog’s home is with the Wife and she should stay there. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter.’  

Conclusion
This case reiterates that whilst family pets are regularly considered part of the family by separating couples, when dealing with the division of marital assets, a pet is a chattel. The court will not consider the pet as though it is a child and will not delve into the realms of Children Act proceedings or make orders akin to a Child Arrangements Order.  

However, it does provide more scope for the court to ascertain the animal’s needs and assess how a change in situation may affect the pet, and the people around it.   

The case provides helpful guidance to practitioners in that the issue to be determined is not who purchased the pet but who has principally cared for the pet and who the pet sees as its carer.