Results
Title |
Author | Citation | Alternate Citation | Summary | Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WA - Domestic Violence - 7.105.310. Relief for temporary and full protection orders | West's RCWA 7.105.310 (formerly West's RCWA 26.50.060) | WA ST 7.105.310 (formerly WA ST 26.50.060) | This Washington law reflects the state's provision for protective orders in cases of domestic abuse. The state renumbered this law in 2022 (the former section was West's RCWA 26.50.060). In addition to other forms of relief, a court may also order possession and use of essential personal effects. Per subsection (1)(n): "The court shall list the essential personal effects with sufficient specificity to make it clear which property is included. Personal effects may include pets. The court may order that a petitioner be granted the exclusive custody or control of any pet owned, possessed, leased, kept, or held by the petitioner, respondent, or minor child residing with either the petitioner or respondent, and may prohibit the respondent from interfering with the petitioner's efforts to obtain the pet." | Statute | |
| Where's Fido: Pets are Missing in Domestic Violence Shelters and Stalking Laws | Tara J. Gilbreath | 4 Journal of Animal Law 1 (2008) |
This article addresses two key areas of domestic violence law where disregard for the bond shared by an animal and owner places both the animal and the domestic violence victim in danger. The first of these situations is the majority of domestic violence shelters’ refusal or inability to allow victims to bring their animals with them. The second is the law’s blatant omission of a stalker’s threat of violence, and actual violence, towards animals from coverage by the nation’s anti-stalking laws. Both of these situations illustrate how refusal by the law to recognize the bond shared by human and animal place both in peril. |
Article | |
| Why is it a Crime to Stomp on a Goldfish -- Harm, Victimhood and the Structure of Anti-Cruelty Offenses | Luis E. Chiesa | 78 Miss. L.J. 1 (Fall 2008) |
Part I provides a brief recount of the history of Anglo-American statutes prohibiting harm to animals. In Part II, the notions of victimhood, consent and harm are explored in order to lay the groundwork for the claims that will be put forth in the remainder of the article. Part III examines five different theories advanced to explain the interest society seeks to promote by punishing acts that are harmful to animals. Part IV explains why it is not necessarily the case, as some animal law scholars have argued, that because animal cruelty statutes allow for the infliction of harm to animals as a result of hunting, scientific activities and farming, the interest primarily sought to be protected by these laws is something other than the protection of animals. |
Article | |
| WI - Domestic Violence - 813.12. Domestic abuse restraining orders and injunctions | Wis. Stat. Ann. § 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | W. S. A. 813.12, 813.122, 813.123 | These Wisconsin statutes concern restraining orders or injunctions in domestic abuse cases, child abuse cases, and cases filed by "individuals as risk." In each of these laws, there are protections for “household pets,” defined as domestic animals that are not farm animals, as defined in s. 951.01(3), that are kept, owned, or cared for by the petitioner or by a family member or a household member of the petitioner. In both cases of domestic abuse and child abuse, a judge or circuit court commissioner shall issue a temporary restraining order ordering the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet, to allow the petitioner or a family member or household member of the petitioner acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet, or any combination of these remedies requested in the petition. The domestic abuse and child abuse laws then outline the procedures for obtaining an injunction that includes those protections for domestic pets if requirements are met under the laws. In section 813.123, an "individual at risk," may also seek a TRO and injunction that orders the respondent to refrain from removing, hiding, damaging, harming, or mistreating, or disposing of, a household pet and allow the individual at risk or a guardian, guardian ad litem, family member, or household member of the individual at risk acting on his or her behalf to retrieve a household pet. | Statute | |
| WV - Domestic Violence - § 48-27-503. Permissive provisions in protective order. | W. Va. Code, §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | WV ST §§ 48-27-503; 48-27-702 | In West Virginia, the terms of a protective order may include awarding the petitioner the exclusive care, possession, or control of any animal owned, possessed, leased, kept or held by either the petitioner or the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent and prohibiting the respondent from taking, concealing, molesting, physically injuring, killing or otherwise disposing of the animal and limiting or precluding contact by the respondent with the animal. Furthermore, West Virginia mandates that law enforcement officers who suspect animal cruelty during an alleged incident of domestic violence must report that suspicion and the grounds therefor to the county humane officer within twenty-four hours of the response to the alleged incident of domestic violence. | Statute | |
| WY - Domestic Violence - § 35-21-105. Order of protection; contents; remedies; order not to affect title to property; conditions | W. S. 1977 § 35-21-105 | WY ST § 35-21-105 | In 2019, Wyoming amended its domestic violence protection order law by adding subparts (a)(ix) and (a)(x). Subpart (a)(ix) grants sole possession of any household pet, as defined in W.S. 6-3-203(o), owned, possessed or kept by the petitioner, the respondent or a minor child residing in the residence or household of either the petitioner or the respondent to the petitioner during the period the order of protection is effective if the order is for the purpose of protecting the household pet. In addition, under subpart (a)(x), the court may order that the respondent not have contact with the household pet(s) in the custody of the petitioner and prohibit the respondent from abducting, removing, concealing or disposing of the household pet if the order is for the purpose of protecting the household pet. | Statute |