Pets and Divorce - who keeps the family pet

For many families, pets are much more than animals — they’re loyal companions and an important member of the family. It’s no surprise, then, that when relationships break down, decisions about family pets can bring unleashed emotion to an already difficult situation. While we often hear the phrase “a dog is for life, not just for Christmas”, life events can undermine this sentiment. This blog explores how our beloved family pets are dealt with by law when a marriage breaks down.

When a couple divorces in England and Wales, the Court can make property adjustment orders to determine which party should own which asset. This applies to property including (but not limited to) the family home, savings and personal belongings (known as “chattels”).

As the law currently stands, pets are simply considered chattels. This means that they are to be divided in the same way that a separating couple will need to divide up the furniture at the family home.

The historic position – a case of Ruff Justice?

Whilst the Court encourages parties to deal with the division of chattels by agreement, if they were asked to determine who should keep a pet, as with any other personal belongings, they would historically just look at the ownership position. They would consider who initially purchased the pet, in whose name it was registered etc. Often, as a pet is purchased jointly and has ongoing costs associated with it, the Court would need to consider who has made the larger financial contribution (who paid more initially, who paid the vets’ bills, etc.).

The United Kingdom is often described as a “nation of pet lovers”. If this is true, it certainly feels counterintuitive for the Court not to consider factors such as who the pet has a deeper bond with and who is best placed to look after the pet better.

Thankfully, there seems that there is somewhat of a shift in the Court’s approach (and hopefully more change to come).

FI v DO – Paws for thought on the issue of pets?

In December 2024, District Judge Crisp delivered a judgment in the case of FI v DO. This judgment has certainly brought a smile to many family solicitors’ faces (and not just because it is aptly called “Fido”). It represents a move away from the strict financial position when considering pets on divorce.

This case involved divorce after a 12-year marriage, with two children and a family dog known as “N”. At the time of the final hearing, each party respectively said that they should retain N.

The husband claimed that he had initially paid for N. The wife said that, whilst the husband had paid the lion’s share of N’s purchase costs, she and the children had also contributed. The wife stated that the children saw N as their dog. Historically, the husband’s greater contribution would have been a determining factor.

The husband claimed that N was registered as his disability support dog (though it transpired that she was only registered as such partway through proceedings). He alleged that the wife had neglected N after separation, including by failing to walk her. Wife disputed this.

The wife alleged that the husband abducted N after the parties had separated. It was alleged that he took N off the wife’s mother whilst she was out walking her on behalf of the wife. The wife stated that N had managed to get away from the husband and had run back to the family home. Unfortunately, she returned with grazed paws and the wife alleged that the husband had dragged N along to take her with him.

In her judgment, District Judge Crisp determined that N should be retained by the wife. In her summing up, she observed (at paragraph 71) that:

“The legal authority to which I have referred provides assistance as to who has principally looked after the dog. Not who has purchased the dog, that fact 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. It is an agreed fact that the parties separated and the dog has been cared for solely by the wife since that separation some 18 months previously. I accept what the wife says 18 months is a long time in a dog’s life. It was clear when the dog ran back to the family home after he had been taken by the husband that the dog considered that to be a safe place and where he belonged. The wife’s evidence as I have set out was compelling but more importantly in my view 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.”

Whilst, in her judgment, District Judge Crisp re-confirmed the position that N was a chattel, the focus of her decision was on who the dog saw as her carer and the impact on both N and the family if the arrangements since separation were to change. This focus on the welfare of the dog and the family is a welcome shift in the approach taken by the Courts on this thorny issue.

The Future – fewer growls on the horizon?

Thankfully, the days of pets being treated as just another chattel may be numbered. As well as a shift in judicial approach, there may be more wide-reaching changes to come in the future.

Last year, a Pets on Divorce Working Group was established which is expected to work with Government to hopefully guide reforms to this area of family law.

In the meantime, until any such reforms are decided and implemented, there are still things that couples can do to hopefully avoid this tricky issue. One example is to enter into a Nuptial Agreement, which includes a provision for what would happen with the family pets in the event of a divorce. It is often easier to agree on such issues (taking into account the reality of the pet’s care arrangements) when there is not the stress of a divorce.

If you are going through a separation and there are issues surrounding what should happen with the matrimonial assets (whether assets of the furry or feathered kind or not), we would be happy to assist. Similarly, if you would like to explore options for avoiding such issues in the event of a separation, please do get in touch to see how we can help. To discuss any of the issues raised in this blog, please contact us at mvc@hughes-paddison.co.uk.