Dealing with pets on divorce

Insight

17.06.2025

It is estimated that approximately 57% of households own at least one pet, with dogs being the most popular, closely followed by cats. It is not uncommon for couples who are separating to disagree about with whom a pet should live once they are living separately. These disputes can be highly emotive, and many clients are surprised at the limited remit of the court powers.

The legal position

It may surprise some animal lovers to learn that, under English law, a pet is a mere chattel, in exactly the same way as an inanimate object, such as a car or jewellery. When a couple separate and disagree about what should happen to a pet, the court's role is therefore limited to determining ownership. On divorce, the court can go on to decide which individual should own the pet going forwards through the making of a property adjustment order if necessary.

The court's approach

There is limited guidance from the courts. In S v S [2008] EWHC 519 (Fam), [2008] 2 FLR 113 the court had to consider horses as part of the case as they had played a prominent role in the wife's life. At first instance, the Judge made a capital order (of £900,000) to enable the wife to rehouse herself and the horses in a property with equestrian facilities. He also gave her an income award of £80,000 a year, (of which £50,000 was for the upkeep of her horses). The husband unsuccessfully appealed. On appeal, the Court noted the wife's devotion to her horses and upheld the original Order. Notably, Sir Mark Potter, President of the Family Division at that time, stated:

“this was an unusual case, the result of which depended upon the particular position of a wife whose talent with, and love for, horses had during the marriage been a prominent and accepted feature of the parties' lives.”

In RK v RK (Financial Resources: Trust Assets) [2011] EWHC 3910 (Fam), [2013] 1 FLR 329 the wife sought an order that a family dog remain with her. Mr Justice Moylan (as he was) did not consider it appropriate to make an order because, “on the evidence I have heard, they would seem to have been looked after principally by the husband”.

The issue also arose in IX v IY (Financial Remedies: Unmatched Contributions) [2018] EWHC 3053, [2019] 2 FLR 449 (in which I acted), where the wife, who received a £10m award, was seeking custody of dogs in England and France. The parties owned two dogs, and the court ultimately determined that each party should keep one dog each. The judge commented:

“I believe that one dog is currently in France and one dog is in England. That seems to me to be fair. If the parties wish to argue over their access to the other dog, I would suggest that they place the dispute before a mediator or arbitrator, perhaps one with experience of dogs.”

A new direction? FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)

The anonymisation of this case as “FIDO” can only have been a thinly-veiled reference to the canine subject matter. It concerned a golden retriever puppy, referred to in the judgment as “N”. One of the issues for the court to determine was who should keep N. The husband sought a declaration of ownership and a shared care arrangement. The wife proposed that N stay with her, and not spend any time with the husband, as a result of an incident that occurred in December 2022 (whereby the husband had forcibly taken N from the maternal grandmother who was walking her, and which resulted in an injury to the dog and his arrest).

The husband argued that he had paid for N. He had trained her and registered her as a disability support dog (he suffered from a mental health disability). He stated that he required N to assist with his anxiety and depression. He complained that the wife did not look after N and had refused to feed or walk her, and therefore he had become her sole carer. The wife's case was that N had been purchased by the family jointly, and that she and their daughter had both made a significant contribution. She stated that she was the registered keeper, had registered her at the Kennel Club and had paid for her upkeep.

In her judgment, the judge found that the couple had jointly purchased the dog. Whilst she reminded herself that N was a chattel, she stated that the question to be determined was who principally looked after N, not who purchased her, following RK v RK. It was important to consider who N saw as her carer. The wife had been caring for N for the 18 months since the parties separated, and the judge therefore determined that N should stay with the wife. The judge notes,

“The legal authority to which I have referred provides assistance as to who has principally looked after the dog. Not who has purchased the dog, that fact in my view is not as important as who the dog sees as her carer. This is not who had previously looked after the dog, but who does now. It is an agreed fact that the parties separated and the dog has been cared for solely by the wife since that separation some 18 months previously. I accept what the wife says 18 months is a long time in a dog's life. It was clear when the dog ran back to the family home after he had been taken by the husband that the dog considered that to be a safe place and where he belonged. The wife's evidence as I have set out was compelling but more importantly in my view showed someone who understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog's interests first. The dog's home is with the wife, and she should stay there.”

The future

It remains to be seen whether other judges adopt this “care-led” approach. Regardless, the court still lacks the ability to make flexible arrangements for pets after a divorce. Meanwhile, other jurisdictions are recognising the significance of pets in a family's life. For example, in the US, states such as California and New York now allow courts to consider the pet's best interests, sometimes leading to shared custody orders.

Time will tell whether English law develops further, but in the meantime, couples do have options to help them resolve difficulties and avoid a dogfight. Mediation, for example, can give couples a confidential space to discuss possible solutions, and they can then agree an arrangement (for example that the pet spends time with each of them) that a court would not be able to impose. So called “pet-nups” are also a solution turned to by some, in order to ensure that it is clear from the outset who is the pet's “owner” and how he or she will spend their time in the event of a divorce. This might keep the other party at heel in the event of a dispute, or at least on a short leash.