For many separating couples, the question of “Who keeps the pets after a divorce?” is one of the most difficult. Pets can understandably feel like another member of the family; however, the current law in England and Wales classifies pets as personal property.
The short answer
In law, a pet is a chattel. That means personal property, in the same legal category as a car or a sofa. On divorce, or on dissolution of a civil partnership, the court deals with a pet using the same powers it uses for any other asset, principally under the
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and, for civil partners, the
Civil Partnership Act 2004.
In practice, that means a court decides who owns the pet, not what is best for it. There’s no equivalent to a child arrangements order for a dog or cat. On the other hand, some European countries have taken a different approach. Portugal in 2017 and Spain in 2022 both amended their civil codes to recognise pets as sentient beings rather than property, meaning their welfare is explicitly factored into decisions on divorce and separation.
Determining ownership
Where ownership is genuinely disputed, a court looks at the whole picture rather than any single document, and may take into account factors like:
- Who has the purchase, adoption or rehoming paperwork, and who paid?
- Which of you is registered with the vet, and who has paid the bills?
- Whose name is on the insurance policy?
- Who is registered as the microchip keeper?
- Who is the primary carer of the pet?
One point causes more confusion than any other. A microchip is registered to the animal’s ‘keeper’, the person it normally lives with and who is responsible for the daily care of the animal. That record is one piece of evidence a court can consider, but keeper and owner aren’t always the same person in law, and a court can look past the microchip record if other evidence points the other way. Updating the database doesn’t transfer legal ownership on its own.
Has the law changed?
One recent decision has been widely reported as a turning point, so it is worth being clear about what it decided.
In
FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), District Judge Crisp, sitting in the Family Court at Manchester, dealt with a case in which the husband sought a declaration that he owned the family dog, along with shared care. The judge took the view that who had paid for the dog was not the most important factor, and instead looked at who the dog now saw as its carer. The wife had cared for the dog alone for around 18 months since separation, and the judge decided the dog should stay with her.
This is a first instance decision, so it is not binding on other courts, and it did not change the legal status of pets. It may encourage judges to look beyond the purchase receipt, but it is not a guarantee that a court will do so in your case.
Can you agree on arrangements instead?
In most cases it is worth trying. The court cannot impose a shared care arrangement for an animal, but nothing stops you from agreeing one covering where the pet lives, who has it and when, and how vet bills, insurance and food are paid for. If you reach an agreement as part of your financial settlement, it can be recorded in your consent order so there is a clear written record of what was agreed.
What if you weren’t married?
If you weren’t married or in a civil partnership, the
Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and
Civil Partnership Act 2004 don’t apply, since they only cover married couples and civil partners. A dispute over a pet is instead a straightforward civil claim, usually brought in the county court. The route is different, but the underlying question is the same: who owns the pet?
What to do now
Gather your paperwork early, including purchase records, vet invoices, insurance documents and microchip details, and try to keep discussions about the pet in writing where you can.
If you are struggling to come to an agreement on arrangements for your family pet, please contact a member of our expert
Family Law team.
JR Levins:
This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice.