The province of British Columbia (B.C.) and the State of New York are leading the way in the field of pet custody and could be just the nudge needed to signal others to catch up. In the United States, pets are generally categorized as property to be distributed pursuant to the applicable state’s property distribution laws. There are a handful of states that stand in exception to this standard, including Alaska , California , Illinois , Maine , New Hampshire  and New York . Given the scientific backing  of emotional bonding between pet owners and their pets, the current laws stand in stark contrast with how child custody is awarded, which most states evaluate via a “best interest” analysis.
If you are going through a divorce with pets in the family, then you know how frustrating it is when a judge looks at your fur child like a flat-screen television or a set of golf clubs. Even though some states have taken paws-itive steps to humanize pet custody, in many of these states, the laws still consider pets as property. Additionally, some laws give judges the discretion to make decisions for the well-being of a pet, but not all require judges to do so.
However, if you’re barking for change, it seems you are being heard. On Monday, March 27, 2023, British Columbia Attorney General Niki Sharma introduced legislation that would amend B.C.’s Family Law Act.  The legislation aims to clarify and provide more guidance for judges to decide what to do with pets in a divorce and would be the first law of its type in Canada. Proposed amendments include requiring the consideration of factors such as each person’s ability and willingness to care for a pet, the relationship a child has with the pet, the relationship of the pet to the family, and the risk of family violence or threat of cruelty.  The word “requires” is very important as some of the current laws purposely do not use this language.
Earlier this year, a case out of New York, Acosta v. Shaw (Case No. 71730/2020), became the first of its kind. This case is unique because it was not a divorce case. It was a case between two unmarried individuals going through a breakup revolving around who gets the dog — “Waffles.”
Waffles made his way to the New York Supreme Court’s 11th Judicial District on this issue. The Court’s decision is based heavily on Section 236 of the Domestic Relations Law that New York added in 2021 that gave courts direction for awarding “companion animals” (i.e., pets) in divorces. This law, however, has not been utilized for cases outside of divorce. The court decided what was in Waffles’ best interest, taking into consideration not only who purchased the animal, but that one party lived in a duplex and one in an eleventh-floor apartment, one party had direct access to a yard, and which party was caring for the animal pending the final hearing.
So, it’s not just hotels and restaurants that have become more pet-friendly, it is now custody and property laws as well. This broadens what courts can do, not only in domestic relations courts, but perhaps in general sessions courts or chancery courts involving animals. The effects of this will be doggone interesting as new laws invite more litigation and could be used as strategy for custody with children. If one of the factors a court analyzes is the relationship between a child and a dog, then the parent who is granted primary custody of the child will have a leg up on custody of the dog as well. It also creates an opportunity to use a pet as incentive to manipulate a child into spending more time with one parent over the other and vice versa. It will be interesting to see how far litigants will go to prove that their beloved pet is happier with them. Will they hire a veterinarian as an expert witness; an animal psychologist? Only time will tail.
This DarrowEverett Insight should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion on any specific facts or circumstances. This Insight is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. The contents are intended for general informational purposes only, and you are urged to consult your attorney concerning any particular situation and any specific legal question you may have. We are working diligently to remain well informed and up to date on information and advisements as they become available. As such, please reach out to us if you need help addressing any of the issues discussed in this Insight, or any other issues or concerns you may have relating to your business. We are ready to help guide you through these challenging times.
Unless expressly provided, this Insight does not constitute written tax advice as described in 31 C.F.R. §10, et seq. and is not intended or written by us to be used and/or relied on as written tax advice for any purpose including, without limitation, the marketing of any transaction addressed herein. Any U.S. federal tax advice rendered by DarrowEverett LLP shall be conspicuously labeled as such, shall include a discussion of all relevant facts and circumstances, as well as of any representations, statements, findings, or agreements (including projections, financial forecasts, or appraisals) upon which we rely, applicable to transactions discussed therein in compliance with 31 C.F.R. §10.37, shall relate the applicable law and authorities to the facts, and shall set forth any applicable limits on the use of such advice.