Dog lovers won’t be surprised to learn that custody of the family dog ​​is often a bone of contention in separation or divorce. However, they may be surprised to learn that Fido is considered personal property under state law, just like a piano or a favorite piece of jewelry. Many divorcing dog owners disagree with this law and want their dog to be treated like a child. Courts determine custody of a child based on what is in the “best interest” of the child. Judges (who may be dog lovers) are often torn between following the law, which treats the animal as an inanimate object, or giving in to the wishes of the parties.

Akers v. sellers, a 1944 Indiana court case, appears to be the first reported case involving a dispute over a dog in a divorce. John Akers filed a lawsuit to repossess his Boston bull terrier from his ex-wife, Stella Sellers. The dog was not mentioned in the divorce decree, and Stella, who got her family’s home, ended up with the pet because she lived there. The court said the dog belonged to Stella because John gave it to her during the marriage. This decision treated the dog like any other gift of personal property.

Sixteen years later, in 1960, in Ballas v. Bullets, a California appeals court declined to consider whether the family Pekingese was community property or separate property, a relevant issue if the dog was treated as personal property. He agreed with the trial court that Shirley Ballas should keep the animal because she was the one who cared for it. This is believed to be the first reported court decision in which a court considered the “best interests” of a pet when deciding who would get custody.

In Arington v. Arringtona 1981 Texas case, perhaps in response to Bulletshe insisted that the dogs are personal property (saying they are not to be confused with humans), but opined that although A.C. Arrington had agreed that his ex-wife should have custody of the dog, Bonnie Lou, there should be enough love in Bonnie’s heart. Lou. to allow visits with AC What dog lover wouldn’t agree?

Not long after that, an Iowa court of appeals in In re Marriage of Stewart, while agreeing that a dog is personal property, affirmed the trial court’s award of Georgetta, the family dog, to Jay Stewart. Regardless of the fact that Jay had originally given the animal to his wife, Joan, as a Christmas present, the court noted that Georgetta accompanied Jay to his office and spent a substantial part of the day with him.

In Dickson v. dicksonIn 1994, a court in Garland County, Arkansas, issued a consent decree ordering Mr. Dickson to pay $150 per month in support for the dog in a joint custody agreement designating the former Mrs. Dickson as primary custodian of the animal. Subsequently, the parties stipulated a modification of the decree to grant the ex-wife sole custody of her, without her ex-husband having more responsibility for the expenses of the future care of the dog, since he no longer had an interest in the animal. .

In the case of In re Marriage by Tevis-BliechIn 1997, the Kansas court of appeals upheld a trial court decision that it lacked jurisdiction to modify a divorce agreement that (by contract) granted Michael Bliech visits with Cartier, the family dog. This visit left it intact.

Although not a published court decision, Dr. Stanley Perkins, an anesthesiologist, and his wife Linda made headlines in San Diego County, California a few years ago when they got into a two-year-old dogfight over Gigi, a pointer greyhound. mix they had adopted from an animal shelter. Linda won custody of the dog through legal theater such as a canine bonding study prepared by an animal behavior specialist and Gigi’s “A Day in the Life” video. What was unusual was not only the astronomical legal expenses incurred in the fight over Gigi, but the judge’s apparent willingness to listen to everything.

In a recent case in Alaska, the trial court tested a joint ownership agreement between the divorcing parties and their chocolate Labrador retriever, Coho. When that didn’t work, the court awarded custody to Stephen Gough and visitation to Julie Juelf. When that didn’t work, he awarded Stephen sole custody, meaning Julie has no visitation rights, an arrangement the Alaska Supreme Court upheld in 2002 in juelfs v. Gough.

Despite past cases, most courts seem reluctant to make animal custody orders. In Nuzzici v. nuzzciIn 1995, a Delaware divorce court refused to sign a mutually agreed order that included visitation with a golden retriever. The court stated that it did not believe it had the authority to enforce such an order if the parties later disagreed.

In Bennet v. bennettThat same year, a Florida appeals court refused to uphold a trial court order granting Kathryn Bennett visits with the parties’ dog, Roddy, every other weekend and every other Christmas. The appeals court said the lower court had no authority to award custody or visitation with personal property.

And in De Sanctis v. Pritchard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, in 2003, upheld the trial court’s dismissal of a lawsuit asking the court to enforce a settlement agreement providing for joint possession of Barney, a purebred golden retriever-golden Labrador retriever. mixed. The settlement agreement was found void to the extent that it attempted to grant visitation or joint custody with personal property.

Although custody of the family dog ​​in divorce cases may seem like a trivial issue to some, dog lovers take it very seriously. The Animal Legal Defense Fund has filed amicus curiae written in some divorce cases, suggesting that the judge consider the best interest of the companion animal. Public and legal interest in “animal rights” is growing. There are reportedly 42 law schools offering courses on animal law and at least two law journals devoted to animal law, with others publishing articles on the subject.

Despite objections that court dockets are already overloaded with ongoing disputes over custody, visitation and child support, we may be heading towards the day when dogs are entitled to their day in court. of divorce.