Companion Pets and Divorce

By Stark & Stark on June 11th, 2019

Posted in Business & Commercial Law

The legal wheel is (slowly) turning toward recognition of companion pets as more than mere “property” in divorce proceedings. The traditional view that family pets are no different from tables or chairs is evolving toward acknowledging of their “special subjective value,” most notably in custody cases but also in divorce cases where no children are involved.

To that end, California recently enacted a statute authorizing courts to determine what is best for the animal based on primary responsibility for its care during the marriage. In Missouri, a Judge ordered a “bonding test.” In New Jersey, the situation is more muddled with some Judges still taking the traditional “property” view and others being (somewhat) more sensitive.

In a case I handled, the Judge ordered the divorcing parties, accompanied by their attorneys, to take the pet dog to a local football field, stand under opposite goalposts, and call the dog who was to be placed on the fifty yard line by the lawyers. After the dog ran to my client, the other party accused her of rubbing meat tenderizer on her clothing to attract the dog. My client stood her ground and kept the dog (I would not want to be the Judge hearing the case a second time).

Seriously speaking, in a society where pets are considered members of the family, and sometimes akin to children, the law is currently playing “catch up.” The scarcity of reported decisions notwithstanding, it is this author’s opinion that New Jersey courts will increasingly recognize the “special status” of pets in divorce proceedings by establishing a hybrid examination of the parties’ rights and the animal’s well-being.

If children are involved, the emotional nexus to a pet may be relevant to parenting time determinations. There is still a long way to go before courts or the legislature adopt formal standards, but as one Judge recently told me, “stayed tuned.”

For persons seeking to avoid the uncertainty, delay, and costs of litigation, a viable alternative is divorce mediation, which allows for more creative solutions like shared pet custody. Pet loving persons contemplating divorce are wise to consult with an attorney familiar with such issues before deciding how to proceed.

Multiple locations to better serve your needs—

Hamilton, NJ

100 American Metro Boulevard
Hamilton, NJ 08619
Phone: 609.896.9060
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 609.896.0629
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Marlton, NJ

40 Lake Center, 401 NJ-73, Suite 130
Marlton, NJ 08053
Phone: 856.874.4443
Secondary phone: 888.241.7424
Fax: 856.874.0133
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Yardley, PA

777 Township Line Road, Suite 120
Yardley, PA 19067
Phone: 267.907.9600
Fax: 267.907.9659
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

New York, NY

5 Pennsylvania Plaza 23rd Floor
New York, NY 10001
Phone: 800.535.3425
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Philadelphia, PA

The Bellevue 200 S Broad St #600
Philadelphia, PA 19102
Phone: 267.907.9600
Secondary phone: 800.535.3425
Fax: 215.564.6245
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer

Bridgeton, NJ

78 W Broad St
Bridgeton, NJ 08302
Phone: 856.874.4443
county best pa pennsylvania reviews south jersey berks northhampton montgomery bucks lehigh valley gloucester burlington mercer