In England and Wales, there is no specific legislative provision regarding the ownership of pets within divorce or separation proceedings. Unfortunately, case law on this matter is very limited. Currently, pets are regarded as ‘chattels’, which often leads to disputes between individuals about who retains the pets after a divorce or separation, typically addressing this issue as part of financial proceedings.
Generally, the individual who purchased or adopted the pets is considered the legal owner. Determination of who keeps the pets depends on various circumstances. The court will consider factors such as fairness, reasonableness, the ability of one party to care for the pet, and the availability of necessary resources for the pet’s upkeep.
In the case of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3910 (Fam), the judge rejected the wife’s claim to keep one of the family dogs, as evidence indicated that the husband primarily cared for the dogs. The general approach treats pets as chattels, and ideally, parties should agree through a schedule confirming the transfer of pet ownership and any related arrangements. It is important to note that unless a chattel is of significant value, the court may be unwilling to address such issues due to proportionality concerns. When parties cannot agree on the care of the pets, a Scott Schedule should be prepared, detailing the reasons behind each party’s request for ownership.
Regarding family pets, it is uncommon for them to be included in the list of chattels unless their value is substantial, such as pedigree animals where income is derived from breeding. Unless there is a dispute, family pets typically will not be addressed at all.
The court’s approach to pets in cases of dispute mirrors that for other assets, with considerations of proportionality in litigation costs being a primary factor. Ownership is the key consideration, and the pet’s welfare is generally not paramount in the judge’s decision-making process due to the court’s limited resources and the need for efficient case management. However, recent cases suggest a shift in perspective, with pet welfare and emotional connection with the owner being considered by the court when making decisions.
By Shama Mughal