Contents
Who gets the dog in divorce?
FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)
Separation & Divorce
Although this case primarily dealt with a financial remedies’ application made by the Husband, the Court were largely concerned with the family dog and who should retain the dog upon separation. What is interesting in this case is how the Judge approached the issue regarding the family dog by considering what was in the dog’s best interests, even though in the eyes of the law pets are considered family property.
This judgment was published by District Judge Crisp sitting in the Family Court at Manchester.
The court was concerned with an application made by the husband for financial remedies and shared care in relation to the family dog.
“It matters not who paid for the dog. The dog is a chattel. At times it seemed to me that I was in the realms of a Children Act application which featured the dog when the wife was cross examined about the dog’s welfare and shared care arrangements”.
Reported: 20th December 2024
Background
H made an application for financial remedy with regards to the parties needs in terms of housing and income.
H made a further application for a shared care order and return of the parties golden retriever puppy.
The marriage was a 12 year marriage with two children that resided with W.
Issues
H sought a sale of the family home with the net proceeds to be divided equally between the parties and the return of the sum of £544.37 in relation to the parties split share account. The husband also sought a declaration of ownership of the family dog and a shared care arrangement.
W sought a sale of the family home with the net proceeds to be split 70% in her favour. She also sought the retention of the family dog. The wife’s original position was that the dog could accompany the children when they stay at the husband’s home but, she later changed her position to say that this would in fact not be in the dogs best interests.
Assets
The assets were modest and consisted of the following:
- Family Home with a net value of £142,485
- Aviva Pension worth £10,300
W had liabilities of £26,656 which included £20,000 towards her legal costs.
H had liabilities of £15,611.
The Law
District Judge Crisp helpfully sets out the s25 factors at paragraph 2(a) on pages 7-8 of the judgment.
The judge was also referred to the case of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), a case in which Moylan J refused to transfer ownership of a pet.
Evidence regarding the family dog
District Judge Crisp helpfully sets out the s25 factors at paragraph 2(a) on pages 7-8 of the judgment.
A significant amount of evidence had been put before the court dealing with this issue.
H asserted that the dog had solely been purchased by him and that he had trained and registered the dog to be a support dog. H also asserted that after separation the wife refused to feed or walk the dog. On 12 December the husband took the dog from the maternal grandmother and asserted that he was exercising his legal rights. He later accepted that the dog had run back to the family home.
W ‘s evidence was such that the dog was purchased by the family jointly and that their daughter also contributed a sum of money. W was the registered keeper, registered her at the Kennel Club and pays for all veterinary bills, insurance and other incidentals. W’s evidence was that the dog was never registered as a support dog. W said that the husband had forcibly taken the dog on 12 December from the grandmother and dragged the dog into his car. The dog was returned with damage to his paws.
Outcome relating to finances
District Judge Crisp ordered the sale of the family home giving the wife £98,642.50, 69.23% of the net proceeds of sale leaving the husband with £43,842.50, taking into account the fact that he had the benefit of an additional £36,026 which is more than the wife will receive after payment of her legal fees. The wife also retained her pension in full given she is 6 years older than the husband.
The judge provided that any monies received over the sum of £290,000 from the sale of the family home shall be shared equally.
The contents are to be divided at the point of sale, with each party retaining assets in their sole name and thereafter a clean break.
Outcome relating to the family dog
District Judge Crisp noted that “it matters not who paid for the dog. The dog is a chattel” clearly highlighting that the debate as to ownership was not about who paid for the dog, although the judge did, accept that the parties had jointly purchased the dog. The judge found that the dog had only been registered as a support dog to support the husband’s claim that the dog should be returned to him, following a claim form that had been issued by him for £39,600 for loss of litters.
Following the incident that took place on 12 December 2024, the judge found that the husband did forcibly take the dog from the grandmother’s care and that the husband had failed ‘to understand the implications of his action which impact the family and the dog’.
District Judge Crisp found that it was clear when the dog ran back to the family home that the dog considered that to be a ‘safe place and where he belonged’. Accordingly the judge found that the dog’s home was with W and ordered that she retain the dog.
Disclaimer: Please note that this page is for guidance only and does not replace legal advice. It is correct with the law at the time of publication but please be aware that laws may change over time. This article contains general legal information but should not be relied upon as legal advice. Please seek professional legal advice about your specific situation – contact us for dedicated help for you.
