We Treat Our Pets as Family—So Should the Courts

In New York divorce proceedings, pets are treated as property. Similar to a piece of furniture or an automobile, the court is interested in the pet’s monetary value. The opposite is true for owners who view their pets as children. Unless an agreement is reached, both parties could lose if the court is forced to decide the fate of the pet.

Custody Agreement & Visitation

Generally, the court will seek to give half of the monetary value of the pet to the spouse who does not receive the pet in the divorce. Moreover, in a worst-case scenario, the court has the ability to order that the pet be sold to a third-party, and that the net proceeds of the sale be split between the pet’s divorcing owners.

Divorcing couples that both want their beloved pet often engage in a game of “chicken”—the pet becomes like the disputed baby in the biblical story of King Solomon, with both pet lovers potentially losing if the Court orders the pet to be sold. In other scenarios, one spouse may try to use the pet as a negotiation tool for leverage, threatening to have the pet sold if the divorcing spouse does not give in to his or her demands on other issues like child custody, child support, or a desired division of the parties’ money.

Almost always, a “custody” dispute over a beloved pet is extremely challenging; but unlike with children, the law is not going to help the parties reach a solution that includes visitation with the pet for the losing party—it is truly an all or nothing scenario. The Court will not listen to which party cares more about the pet or which person took care of the pet; in they eyes of the Court, the animal is no different from a couch or the kitchen table. In a worst-case scenario, the Court will order the pet to be sold like a piece of furniture, and both individuals will lose dearly.

And so, it is up to the couple to create their own custody and visitation agreement to split time with their pet.

Pet Custody: Recent Updates

Many people in the midst of divorce are concerned about their spouse’s ability to care for the pet. For example, a wife may say, “Well, I don’t trust him to take care of our dog. I take better care of her.” She may provide multiple examples of why this is true; yet, most courts are currently not looking at the best interest of the dog—only its tangible value.

This philosophy about the worth of animals that has governed our laws may be shifting. Earlier this year, the legislature in Alaska passed a new law that allows the courts to look at which spouse should have custody based on the type of care they provide, similar to the way that the courts discern child custody.

It will be interesting to see if this trend continues in other states. We will continue to provide updates on this topic, but in the meantime, pet lovers going through a divorce should keep in mind that the best resolution is probably an agreement between the parties—because the Court does not look at their pets the same way that the owners do.

Contact us with questions or comments by calling 516-352-2100.