There are possibly many things to find out when a couple separates, but one increasingly controversial area is who gets the worries of the pets.
In recent years, more couples have been arguing over this issue in Australia, says lawyer Jane Libbis.
The partner and founder of Umbrella Family Law attributes this in part to the pandemic that saw a spike in pet ownership as well as an increasing number of relationship breakdowns.
“We find that as more people separate, it becomes a problem to say, ‘well, which of us gets to keep the dog?’ Ms. Libbis tells ABC RN’s law report.
While many resolve the issue themselves, sometimes it is not immediate.
And if a dispute goes all the way to the courts in Australia, it is possible that the judge will consider a pet as much as they would a piece of real estate, as pets are treated as noise under Australian family law.
“It’s considered a piece of property in the same way you deal with your fridge, antique jewelry, your artwork,” says Ms. Libbis.
“We are not thinking at the moment about what will be best for the animal. We’re just thinking about things like who’s its name, who paid for it and maybe who has the means to pay for it. “Future.”
Laws differ abroad
Overseas, pets are treated very differently, and the legal status of animals is changing, especially in Spain.
Earlier this year, Spain adopted new laws requiring divorce couples and courts to consider the welfare of their pet. This legislation recognized animals as sentient beings rather than mere objects.
For example, in October 2021, a judge in Spain considered the best interests of a dog after a couple separated and decided that they should receive joint custody of the dog.
Melbourne University Law professor, Katy Barnett, says it is part of a growing trend. The author of Guilty Pigs: The Weird and Wonderful History of Animal Law points to recent changes in the law in the Czech Republic, France, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland.
But a 2021 case has shown how different the laws are in Australia.
“Essentially, it was a de facto couple where the man bought the Pomeranian dog Kobe as a gift for his then-partner,” says Professor Barnett.
But a dispute over the dog’s owners arose after the couple separated. In her decision, the judge analyzed whether there was an intention to give the dog as a gift.
It was decided that the dog would be a gift for the woman, as it was put in her name, and so Kobe went to her.
“It’s just simple” Was it an intention to give that gift? So this is how we treat it now in Australia.
Joint arrangements
Jane Libbis says most out-of-court cases are resolved through negotiation or mediation.
For example, she often sees pets traveling with the children of divorced parents.
Then there are all the other common arrangements.
“I heard from someone where the separated partners, one did not work, so they had the dog during the day. And then the dog went to the other parent in the evening because they were then available to spend time with him. , “she said.
She describes another arrangement where the separated spouses did not want to reveal their new addresses.
“So, they had a third party that would come and take the animal from one house to the other, so their location remained a mystery, but the animal had to spend time with each pet.”
Unfortunately, animals can be “armed” in acrimonious divisions.
“I also had a situation where a client was very, very attached to a rabbit, and the rabbit was taken by his ex-husband and … that was a big source of strife,” she recalls.
“And unfortunately, she would not give up the animal at all. But … this is an example of where animals can be used very much … as a bargaining chip.”
Ms. Libbis is also aware of situations where colleagues have brought home pet psychologists to express their professional opinion on what is best for the animal.
“But again, the courts are not yet formally dealing with it that way,” she says.
Change laws
It is important to note that some states and territories in Australia are already taking steps to see pets as more than real estate.
The Act Animal Welfare Act 2019 recognizes animals as sentient beings, even though it has so far not been raised in family law disputes in that state.
Victoria is also looking to amend its Animal Welfare Act to include sin provisions, Dr Barnett added.
But at the moment, no other state is actively considering recognizing animal welfare.
“It means that while you are bound by family law to treat it as divisible property, you have said the other legislation, yes, it is property, but it is sentient property,” she says.
“And sure enough, I think it will be welcomed by family lawyers if there is a slightly more nuanced way to deal with such disputes than simply the one that belongs in the law.”
RN in your inbox
Get more stories going over the news cycle with our weekly newsletter.
Add Comment