First World Problems: Pet Custody Disputes on The Rise

I’m sure you’ve heard about child custody disputes before. After all, when a couple has children, and then gets divorced, they have to decide where the children will live, and the terms under which the non-custodial parent will be able to visit them. A family law court will craft a child custody arrangement that it believes is in the best interests of the child.

And courts generally assume, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, that it’s in a child’s best interest to have both parents involved in his or her life. For that reason, even if one parent is given sole custody, the other parent will be usually be given visitation rights.

But according to an interesting story in the ABA Journal, another type of custody dispute is becoming increasingly common in the United States: pet custody.

I have a feeling that opinions on this story are going to be polarized: you either think that this is an example of our society’s completely warped priorities, proving once again that we’re in decline. Or, you might view this as a positive development: the fact that we value the companionship of animals almost as much as people indicates that we’re becoming more compassionate as a society.

Whatever your view on this issue, there’s no doubt that in Western society, particularly the U.S., we’ve become increasingly attached to our pets in recent decades, and that we treat them increasingly like children. When a couple moves in together or gets married, the decision to get a pet is often treated with the same seriousness as the decision to have a child, and getting a pet together is seen as a huge commitment to the relationship, as well as to the animal itself.

So, it makes sense that if a couple splits up, the emotional connection that the individual partners developed for their pets will not simply go away.

However, the law does not treat pets like children. Legally, animals, including pets, are property. So, as far as the law is concerned, a dispute over custody of a pet makes about as much sense as a dispute over “custody” of a television or a chair. When property is divided up between a couple going through a divorce, there may be disputes over who gets what, but chances are you won’t see anyone trying to get the right to weekend visits with their refrigerator.

But in an increasing number of cases, family judges have begun awarding joint custody of pets to couples who have split up.

While this may seem silly to some, I don’t see any reason why courts, when called upon by the parties to do so, shouldn’t be able to resolve pet custody disputes. And there’s no reason the law needs to be significantly changed to allow this. I would suspect that the goals of the party could be accomplished within the framework of existing property law. So, if you’re concerned about the law being changed to treat animals more like people, and the slippery slope that might lead us down, fear not.

After all, an arrangement of “joint custody” for pets could be legally treated as joint ownership of a piece of property. And the parties should be able to agree amongst themselves about the details of visitation.

Of course, if we take the “pets as children” concept further, one can imagine, in the not-too-distant future, a person being awarded sole custody of a pet, and then demanding that a court require the non-custodial “parent” to make support payments, similar to how we require non-custodial parents to pay child support.

This, I think, would be taking it too far. Don’t get me wrong, I love animals. But requiring a divorcee to pay his or her former spouse “pet support” would effectively abandon the animals-as-property model that our legal system operates under. Now, if you’re a very strong believer in animal rights, you may be happy with the law treating animals as something other than property. However, I think that the current system we have works fairly well.

We have laws against animal cruelty, and our society generally doesn’t tolerate such cruelty. Furthermore, there’s no getting around the fact that humans use animals to their own ends, whether it’s for food, medical testing, or any number of other uses.

So, while I completely understand the sentiments of couples who make an issue over pet custody, and I have no problem with courts resolving those issues, I think they should be handled in the framework of existing property rights.