Our Blogs

Our pets are, to the vast majority of us, part of the family and are viewed as significantly more important than the other items that will need to be divided amongst a couple in the event of a divorce. In fact, many people regard their pets as being just as important as their children and, as a result, the decision of with whom they will live is often a cause of dispute. In spite of this, however, pets are still regarded as possessions by the courts and the decision of who a pet should reside with is determined not in accordance with which spouse is better placed to care for them, but which spouse has a stronger claim regarding ownership of the animal in question. Now, though, Deborah Rook, a leading legal academic, has called for the law to change and for the courts of England and Wales to utilise a test similar to that currently in use in both the United States and Israel where, as well as viewing a pet as property, judges are also able to consider what is in the best interest of the animal; much like the test that is applied when considering what is in the best interest of a child in custody disputes. Ultimately, Rook argues that, as pets are sentient beings and that the vast majority of individuals who own pets regard them to be part of their family, current law fails to recognise that pets are a ‘unique’ type of property and that more advanced and sophisticated laws are needed to determine with whom a pet should reside in the event of a divorce. What do you think? Should pets be viewed as property in the event of a divorce or do current laws need to change in order to reflect how we view our pets? Let us know your opinion be leaving a comment.