Paws off – pets in divorce proceedings
23 April 2025
(Some of the pets who own members of East Anglian Chambers)
Sophie Canning explores the recent Family Court decision of FI v DO and the implications it has on pets in divorce cases.
The existence of pets can be traced back to prehistoric times, and today pets are often a huge part of our lives, whether furry, scaly or feathery. They are more than just animals; for many they offer comfort, support, and love. When relationships break down, and families are forced to navigate the complexities of divorce, the question of who gets to keep a cherished pet can stir up just as much emotion as any other element of the dispute.
There is no specific legislation to govern pet ownership following divorce. The courts had previously considered pet ownership and divorce in the case of RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3910 (Fam) where Mr Justice Moylan stated at paragraph 83 of the judgment:
“…I do not consider it appropriate to make any order in respect of one of the dogs because, on the evidence I have heard, they would seem to have been looked after principally by the husband.”
Until recently, there had been very little guidance in this area and pets were treated by the Court as no more than another object (a “chattel”) when determining financial relief cases upon divorce.
FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)
The (very aptly named) case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), decided in December 2024, marks a significant development in family law concerning the treatment of pets in divorce proceedings. FI v DO demonstrates a shift towards recognising the emotional and familial importance of pets. In FI v DO, the court considered the ‘welfare’ of the dog, similar in some ways to the approach taken in Children Act proceedings, and the impact of the dog on the family.
In FI v DO, whilst the husband had financially contributed more towards the dog’s purchase, the wife had been the dog’s primary caregiver for 18 months. The Court decided that despite the financial contribution the dog was to remain with the wife, considering where the dog would feel most secure and cared for. In paragraph 71 of the Court’s judgment, District Judge Crisp explained this (emphasis added):
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. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter. The husband has managed without a dog for 18 months and it does not therefore seem necessary for his support, even if that were the case which I do not accept was the position at the time the parties separated.
As can be seen from the above, the Courts may now be more susceptible to arguments relating to pets which go beyond the merely financial, and while they may remain a satellite issue in divorce proceedings, an animal’s welfare looks set to be a relevant consideration in future cases.
If you have any questions regarding the above, would like Sophie to give advice, or would like to instruct Sophie, please contact her clerks.
Please note: this article does not constitute legal advice.
< Back to Articles