While one might typically expect the most contentious financial issues in a divorce to involve the family home or a business, the case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 instead centred on the ownership of a golden retriever puppy and who gets the dog in a divorce. To many people, pets are like family members, something which goes beyond the traditional legal classification of pets as “chattel”.
Judgment was handed down for this case on 20 December 2024.Let’s examine the case and who gets to keep the dog in a divorce in more detail.
Background
The couple filed for divorce in October 2022 and have two children who were born in 2011 and 2017 respectively. A conditional order was pronounced in May 2023, and the parties confirmed they had not lived together since. The children and the dog remained with the wife and had no contact with the husband. Both the husband and the wife claimed ownership of the dog.
Disputed Issues
-
Who Paid for the Dog?
The husband claimed that he purchased the dog in cash and that the wife made no financial contribution. The wife, however, asserted that it was a joint family purchase. She is the registered keeper and has paid for all ongoing expenses, including veterinary care and insurance.
Under English law, pets are considered as chattels (i.e., tangible, movable property), similar to items such as jewellery or furniture. Therefore, courts do not focus on who purchased the pet, but rather the fair division of property based on the circumstances. Despite its irrelevance, District Judge Crisp found the wife’s evidence more credible, noting her status as the registered keeper and highlighting the inconsistencies in the husband’s legal correspondence.
-
Whether the Dog was a Disability Support Animal
The husband argued that he had trained and registered the dog as a support animal to assist with his mental health. He submitted a letter from his medical practitioner to support his claim. The wife disputed this, stating the dog had never been registered as a support animal.
The court found that the registration occurred only in February 2024 — after the parties had separated. Furthermore, earlier legal documents made no mention of the dog’s support role. The judge concluded that the registration was likely made to strengthen the husband’s legal position.
-
The Incident on 12th December
The husband claimed he encountered the dog running loose in the community and took it home, where it willingly accompanied him. The husband was later arrested, and the dog was returned to the wife.
The wife’s account differed significantly. She stated that the husband forcibly took the dog from her mother, who had been walking it. The dog ran off because of the husband and that he was chasing it. The wife had a recording of the husband dragging the dog into his car from the family home where the dog had run back to. The dog was later returned with injuries to its paws after being dragged away by the husband.
The court found the wife’s evidence compelling during cross-examination and did not accept the husband’s version that the dog willingly accompanied him.
Judgment
District Judge Crisp referred to the legal authority in RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 as to who has principally looked after the dog. He also emphasised the question is not who purchased the dog, but who the dog sees as their carer and who is currently taking care of the dog. The judge noted:
- The wife had cared for the dog exclusively for 18 months after the couple’s separation
- The judge agreed with the wife that 18 months is a significant period in a dog’s life
- The dog ran back to the family home after the December incident, suggesting it viewed that as its safe space
- The husband had managed without the dog for 18 months, undermining his claim of necessity
The judge concluded that the wife had consistently prioritised the dog’s welfare and should retain ownership.
Our thoughts
The case is notable given the limited precedent on pet ownership in divorce proceedings, despite the prevalence of family pets. While pets are traditionally treated as chattels under English law, the judgment in FI v DO suggests a shift toward considering the welfare and emotional bonds of the animal. District Judge Crisp’s approach introduces a more nuanced framework, where the pet’s best interests may influence the outcome.
However, until higher courts adopt a similar stance, legal uncertainty remains. Outcomes may vary depending on the specific facts of the case — including the type of pet (e.g., dogs versus cats), its value, and the nature of the relationship with each party. Nonetheless, this decision may serve as a useful reference point for future cases involving pet ownership in divorce proceedings.
Have questions? Get in touch today!
Call us on 020 7928 0276, phone calls are operating as usual and we will be taking calls from 9:30am to 6:00pm.
Email us on info@lisaslaw.co.uk.
Or, use the contact form on our website. Simply enter your details and leave a message, we will get right back to you: https://lisaslaw.co.uk/contact/
For more updates, follow us on our social media platforms! You can find them all on our Linktree right here.
