Who gets the Pets?  

Within Financial Remedy Proceedings, I am often asked “who gets the pets?” Pets can include cats, dogs, rabbits and exotic animals, for example. 

We are said to be a nation of animal lovers with almost as many pets in the UK as people. Pets are a vital part of our everyday lives and are precious to owners, but how does the Court determine ownership upon separation?    

In English Law, separating couples are surprised to learn that Pets are classed as chattels and that Judges have discretion as to ownership and living arrangements. However, there is no mandatory consideration to do so. 

 Consideration can however be given to: 

• Which party purchased the pet – who kept a record? 

• Which party registered the pet at the Kennel Club or similar? 

• Which party arranges and obtains the pet insurance?  

• Which party pays for the vet bills? 

• Which party generally cares for the pet day to day? 

• Which party has the closest bond with the Pet? 

• Which party arranges kennelling? 

• Which party feeds the pet?  

Purchasing a pet as a gift for somebody does not necessary equate to the pet belonging to the person receiving such gift. Ownership can be transferred between parties over time, making matters a little more complex. However, each case will depend on the individual circumstances and arrangements. For example, if a Pet is a service dog or if transferring ownership of a Pet will impact the welfare of children, such considerations may carry more weight in terms of legal arguments.  

Such considerations are not always easy to prove with documentary evidence and what happens in those situations where couples share bills and fees etc? Courts can consider maintenance costs for Pets when determining income needs as part of the overall settlement. It can however be hard to navigate the best way forward when in a highly emotive separation.  

Court preference  

Without clear evidence, the Court may look at what is in the best interest of the Pet. Courts do prefer parties to agree such important decisions amicably rather than leaving a decision in the in the hands of a Judge. Therefore, non-court dispute resolution to consider options such as shared care, fees, bills etc will be preferential.  

Whilst not common, Pet Nups can be considered to prevent costly court action and further upset amongst already separating couples. They are not legally binding however and it is ultimately the decision of the Court as to enforceability. 

Is the UK law doing enough to protect ownership of pets upon separation?  

The UK is short on case law surrounding pets, but some do exist. Prior to the new case of Fi v Do [2024] EWFC 384 (B) we only have IX v IY [2018] EWHC 3053 (fam), recommending out of court settlement and RK v RK [2011]  EWCH 3910 (fam).

Outside of England, different rules apply. As of 5th January 2022, Spanish Law requires the Courts to consider the welfare of the Pets during divorce proceedings and classes Pets as “sentient beings” with the capacity to feel emotions, rather than “objects” and treated similar to other family members, such as children. 

In Portugal, separating parties must declare how they plan to care for their Pets within the divorce application and can make orders as to how costs of such Pets are to be shared – animals in this country are not treated as objects.  

Further, in France, Pets are considered as “living beings” rather than “moveable goods” and must consider the Pet’s welfare when deciding on who shall keep the Pet.

Fi v Do is no doubt welcomed. This case clearly recognised and considered the Pet’s living arrangements, welfare and value in the home, along with the impact on children should a relocation be imminent. It is refreshing to note the clear attempts at changing the landscape regarding Pet status within families. It is hoped the higher courts will adopt the same approach and lead to a clear framework that reflects the reality of Pets being so much more than just chattels. 

Ruby’s Law 

At the time of writing, Ruby’s Law is campaigning to seek specific changes for the protections of pets in cases of domestic abuse. This proposes to include: 

• Expanding Non-Molestation Orders to include Pets - S42 FLA 1996; 

• Expanding Occupations Orders to include provisions for retention and care of a Pet, ensuring safety S33-38 FLA 1996; and 

• Broadening the understanding of domestic abuse by the introduction of language which recognises harm to Pets being used as a form of coercion or control.  

There is certainly scope for modern change it seems and about time!  

Written by Kim Okell, Consultant Barrister at Unit Chambers.

Law is correct as of 29th January 2025. Whilst every effort has been taken to ensure that the law in this article is correct, it is intended to give a general overview of the law for educational purposes. Readers are respectfully reminded that it is not intended to be a substitute for specific legal advice and should not be relied upon for this purpose. No liability is accepted for any error or omission contained herein.