Divorce settlements often involve disputes over finances, property, and child arrangements. But what happens when the disagreement is about a beloved family dog? A recent case FI v DO highlights how courts approach pet ownership.
The Background
In this case, a couple who had been married for 12 years separated in 2022. Among their many disputes was the fate of their Golden Retriever. The husband insisted that the dog should be returned to him, while the wife maintained that the dog belonged with her and the children.
The husband argued that he had financially contributed to the dog’s purchase and later registered it as a support dog. However, the wife countered that she had been the dog’s primary carer for the past 18 months since the separation, and the dog had become an integral part of her and the children’s lives.
How the Court Decided
Under English law, pets are considered chattels—property, much like furniture or vehicles. However courts are generally reluctant to make formal orders regarding pets unless absolutely necessary. The main question was not who bought the dog but rather who had been its primary carer.
The court found that:
- The wife had been solely caring for the dog for 18 months – The dog had lived exclusively with her and the children since the separation.
- The husband’s actions suggested he saw the dog as an asset – He made a claim of £39,600.00 for the loss of litters during the dog’s lifetime rather than focusing on its well-being.
- The dog showed a clear attachment to its current home – When the husband forcibly took the dog, it later ran back to the family home, indicating where it felt safe.
Taking these factors into account, the judge ruled that the wife should keep the dog. The court emphasised that stability was in the pet’s best interests, particularly given the impact of the dispute on the children.
“The wife’s evidence … showed someone who understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog’s interests first. 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. The husband has managed without a dog for 18 months and it does not therefore seem necessary for his support, even if that were the case which I do not accept was the position at the time the parties separated.”
Lessons from This Case
Ownership vs. Care – In pet disputes, courts prioritise who has been the primary carer rather than who paid for the pet.
Emotional vs. Legal Arguments – While pets are family members to their owners, legally, they are viewed as property. This means emotional arguments hold little weight unless they are backed by evidence of responsibility and care.
Avoiding Costly Disputes – Pet ownership battles can be costly and time-consuming. Couples should aim to resolve these disputes using out of court solutions rather than through litigation.
For pet owners facing divorce, this case underscores the need for early legal advice and, where possible, mediation to avoid expensive legal battles.
Get Expert Advice You can contact us for confidential family law advice. We offer free, no obligation, telephone consultations. If you would like to book an initial phone consultation at no cost, please contact us today. Copyright 2013-2025 Rainscourt Law LLP. All rights reserved.