Divorcing man’s best friend

I recently saw an advert for family law services that made reference to couples being helped to decide “who gets the dog” and I got to thinking is this really what it comes down to?, is it right to suggest that this is a valid enough argument to have before the Court? to spend money on?

Certainly I am only too aware that positions taken on the division of assets on Divorce or separation can become polarised during negotiations and I know from experience that very often the smaller, more legally insignificant items can become real sticking points (I speak of small and inexpensive items as opposed to small items with significant monetary value)

It’s not that I am unsympathetic and certainly I can well understand sentimental items being of real emotional value to clients. Equally, I can understand the bond that clients can have with their family pets – often seen by many as a great source of reliability and comfort and often bought when children leave for university, to replace the silence that frequently descends at that point.

Of course, there may be situations in which there is a significant cost to the upkeep of the animals, typically horses – that can be a real issue in terms of who is to maintain them financially, are they to be kept, did they form part of the family’s lifestyle etc. those are not the situations I speak of here.

The issue I have is whether people should be encouraged to litigate over small items or pets.

Certainly, encouraged or not, cases continue to reach the high court (granted, with other more significant legal arguments) in which claims to family pets are made. The Courts in the UK tend to take a quite literal approach to family pets, looking really at whose “asset” the pet is, who looked after the animal, who purchased it etc.

The “best interests” of the animal and the emotions of the parties do not feature on the Court’s list of considerations.

My personal view, and that which I would advise my clients, is that they must think long and hard over their stance. They will undoubtedly spend significant amounts of money negotiating such matters, increase the hostility and in some cases risk the other party withdrawing from what you had considered agreed points.

I have not reached a point in my life as yet where I have such attachment to items or pets and I do not agree that clients should be encouraged to litigate over such issues but each person must of course make their own decision.

Still, the question remains….how do you balance emotional value against the monetary cost of litigation/negotiation?