This week on Weird and Wacky Wednesdays: Who Gets the Pets When Love Ends
I love my dog. Wrigley has been my companion, my friend, my protector and when I’m down, my primary emotional support. He has given me so much, and we have a deep emotional bond. Sadly, he’s very old now. He can’t hear. He pees on my kitchen floor. But we still enjoy our time together, he enjoys being with me and I love him so.
One can understand the emotional bond people have with their pets. Certainly few people think of their pets as a possession but more akin to an important person in their life. Years ago, in a relationship split, I ended up with Wrigley, and my ex ended up with our other dog. We didn’t go to court; it just seemed like a sensible way. Nevertheless, I found it hard, and I think of my other older companion very often to this day.
When relationships end, property gets divided. People often think of pets as family. The law does not always share that view. Courts are generally not interested in feelings or bonds people have with their pets, although there seems to be an increasing recognition that this should be considered. This week, we look at four weird and wacky cases that show how messy it gets when the law meets the emotional lives of people and their animals.
Four Cats and No “Best Interests” Test
A couple in Alberta separated after a long relationship. They had four cats: Salem, Diablo, Zora and Samara. Each partner wanted all four. Each partner told the court to use a “best interests of the cat” test. This was an interesting angle because they were attempting to ask the court to apply a test that the court had never employed for a pet. It seems the litigants figured that if they invited the court that they both agreed to this test, the court would comply.
It was a bold ask. The court did not follow them there and declined that tempting invitation. He said Alberta law treats pets as property. He said courts should not apply the same type of inquiry that applies to children. He said the law should not ask who can give a cat the best foundation for a successful life. He said that kind of analysis belongs in parenting cases. He said cats are property and the job is to decide ownership.
The trial judge had already divided the cats two and two. The appeal judge reviewed the record. He accepted that the cats had emotional value. He accepted that bonds matter. Still, he found that the proper test is ownership. He upheld the two and two split and ended his reasons with a simple line: The cats will stay where they are.
Dogs With a Visit Schedule
A couple in Nova Scotia fought over two dogs. The judge took a very unusual step of making a schedule for visits. One partner kept the dogs most of the time and the other partner was allowed two days with them each week. The court did not call it custody. The court did not try to create a parenting regime. The court imposed a structure that sure looks like one, however.
Most courts refuse to create access plans for pets. Many judges say the law of property cannot support this type of order. The judge in this case decided the dispute needed a practical solution. It remains one of the most cited examples of a court willing to stretch the tools it has to resolve a pet custody dispute.
B.C. Judge Looks at Emotional Bonds
A separating couple in British Columbia each wanted two dogs. One dog had been a gift. One had been bought during the relationship. Both partners played a role in caring for them. The judge decided that ownership required a closer look. The judge considered emotional attachment. The judge looked at which party seemed honestly connected to the animals. The judge also looked at each party’s motives. The result was that both dogs went to the husband.
This decision seems to show an early shift that didn’t catch on the way many had hoped. The court treated pets as more than items. The judge did not turn pets into children, did not apply a best interests test but nevertheless used emotional evidence as part of the ownership analysis.
As of January 15, 2024, amendments to British Columbia’s Family Law Act created a new category called “companion animals.” These changes give courts more flexibility to consider care, attachment, and welfare factors when deciding who will keep a pet after a separation, although final orders still award the animal to one person.
The Roommates and the Exotic Shorthair
Two former roommates in Pennsylvania went to court over an exotic shorthair cat named Gary. One woman bought the cat in 2018. She later moved out of the shared home and left the cat with her roommate while she arranged her next steps. The plan was temporary. The roommate kept the cat anyway.
The dispute grew over time. The caretaker roommate changed the veterinary records, the microchip information and she told people she was the owner. The original owner wanted her cat back. The case moved into the court system with both parties lawyering up.
At trial the judge heard evidence about the purchase history and the actual care of the animal. The judge also heard evidence about how the roommate had taken control of records and identification. The court found that the original owner never gave up her rights and that the cat belonged to her. Reports say the legal bills reached tens of thousands of dollars for both sides.
The rules in property law are clear and well-established. Dealing with the connection people have to their pets, the emotional attachment, is difficult to reconcile with property law principles.
If you ever find yourself in a dispute over a pet, I’d be happy to connect you with a lawyer who can help you. These are not cases I take because I don’t wish to be emotionally attached. I love my pet, and I can empathize with anyone in this situation, which takes away from my capacity to be objective.
I will be here next Wednesday with another set of stories.
