|
Pet Custody During Divorce |
|
|
Pets in the eye of the storm: Hurricane Katrina Floods The Courts With Pet Custody Disputes |
This article recounts a modern-day King Solomon story: the baby is the animals left behind during Hurricane Katrina; the two mothers claiming ownership of the “baby” are the original owners of the animals and those who adopted the animals after the hurricane; and the role of King Solomon is played by judges in the custody cases that arose after the storm. This article provides a summary of those custody disputes while examining the question of whether those who left their pets behind during Hurricane Katrina have the right to reclaim them from the animals’ new adoptive family. The animals of Hurricane Katrina became trapped in the middle of an unfortunate and complicated situation largely because of defects in our national policies and laws regarding animals and disasters. Therefore, this article also reviews legislative changes that have and should occur concerning pets and disasters, pet adoption, and animals as property.
|
|
Placey v. Placey |
The appellate court held that the Protection from Abuse Act authorized the trial court to determine and award ownership of Preston the dog in a domestic violence dispute between a mother and daughter. It then awarded ownership rights to the mother because took better care of the Preston and it was in his best interest.
|
|
Pratt v. Pratt |
A childless, divorcing couple sought divorce; trial court awarded couple's registered dogs to wife based on the best interest standard used for determination of custody of children. Appellate court held the best interest statute inapplicable to dogs, but stated that the trial court can award dogs based on evidence of mistreatment of the dogs by one of the parties. Because the trial court's determination had a reasonable basis in fact, the appellate court affirmed its decision.
|
|
PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA, EXPTE. N° 450237 - Bauty, the dog - Argentina |
This case revolves around a dispute between German Luis Prieto (the plaintiff) and Luciana Andrea Colonna (the defendant) regarding the ownership of personal property acquired during their cohabitation. The plaintiff claimed sole ownership of the property assets and sought their return, while the defendant argued that these assets constituted community property acquired for their shared residence during their relationship. Additionally, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff granted her exclusive possession and gifted the property to her upon their separation, relieving her of any obligation to return it. The court held that the plaintiff had the right to take back the property, with the exception of Bauty, considering that the latter had developed a significant emotional bond with the defendant and that his surrender could cause unnecessary suffering. In the judge's view, dogs were not mere "things." Consequently, the judge upheld the lower court's decision in part, ordering all the assets to be returned to the plaintiff. At the same time, the defendant was allowed to retain custody of the canine companion. |
|
Pron v. Tymshan |
This case was filed by the previous owner (plaintiff) of an Abyssinian cat named Murchik, who was seeking to recover possession of the cat. Plaintiff took care of the cat for several years, but eventually lost their job and their housing, and needed to give the cat to a friend (defendant) who agreed to house the cat while plaintiff was living in a shelter. Plaintiff and defendant eventually disagreed over who was the rightful owner of the cat, with plaintiff insisting that defendant was temporarily watching the cat and defendant insisting that they were the rightful owner of the cat. Plaintiff filed this case to repossess the cat. The court considered that New York law traditionally treated companion animals as personal property, and the party with the superior possessory right to the animal would be awarded the animal. However, the court was moving towards a "best for all concerned" standard, which would consider factors such as why each party would benefit from possession of the pet, and under whose possession the cat would have a better chance of thriving. The court found that plaintiff had the superior possessory right in the cat, since plaintiff was the original purchaser of the cat and there was no evidence that plaintiff intended to give the cat to defendant permanently. The court then looked to the other factors, and found that since plaintiff's living situation had stabilized, both parties were equally capable of ensuring the cat would thrive in their care. However, since plaintiff had cared for the cat for over five years, and defendant had cared for the cat for under a year, plaintiff had a slight advantage in showing they could care for the cat. Therefore, the court awarded possession of the cat to plaintiff. |
|
Raymond v. Lachmann |
Trial court allowed visitation in property dispute over cat between roommates. Later, that court determined it was not in the aged cat's best interests to be shuffled back and forth so revoked its decision, awarding it to the non-possessory roommate in a straight property analysis. The appellate court determined that it would be best for the cat to remain with the possessory party because of his age and the amount of time he had already been living there.
|
|
RI - Divorce - § 15-5-30. Custody of domestic companion animals--Pets |
In 2024, Rhode Island revised its divorce and separation chapter to include a provision for disposition of a companion animal during divorce. This new law allows a court to consider the "best interest" of the animal and provides factors to determine sole possession of the animal. These factors include, but are not limited to, who first owned the animal, who assumes most responsibility for care of the animal, which living arrangements are in the best interests of the animal, and whether children are involved in the care of the animal. In addition, the statute uniquely has provisions for awarding joint possession of the companion animal. |
|
Ribera v. Ribera |
In this Wyoming divorce case, the primary animal-related issue concerned the disposition of the family's goldendoodle, Sadie, whom Father claimed was his service animal, while the district court found the "overwhelming evidence" showed she was "a beloved family pet." Under Wyoming law, dogs are treated as property subject to division in a divorce, and the district court had discretion to award Sadie on a shared custody schedule. Crucially, Father himself testified at trial that he would "absolutely be okay with" Sadie going between homes when the children moved, and the court incorporated that exact arrangement into its order, with the provision that the dog would remain with Father if Mother did not want the transportation responsibility. The district court rejected Father's service-animal argument based on evidence that he never actually used her as a service dog and that she may have been purchased as a Christmas gift for one of the children, which was a credibility determination entitled to deference on appeal. Applying the invited-error doctrine, the Wyoming Supreme Court held that Father could not challenge an order that gave him precisely what he had requested, and the court affirmed the shared-custody arrangement for Sadie. |
|
Riley v. Riley |
Trial court ordered husband and father, in divorce decree, to maintain his life insurance policy naming his children as beneficiaries; he appealed. Appellate court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion. Appellate court upheld original decree, which also vested in the wife title to "some poodle dogs."
|
