Argo Corner

Pets as More Than Personal Property

by Emily R. Turner and Jennifer L. Brinkley

During the beginning of the COVID-19 quarantine, animal shelters across the United States saw a massive increase in demand for fostering and adoptions. Animal shelters in Florida were no different, with shelters across the state reporting drastically reduced numbers. Locally, the Santa Rosa County Animal Shelter went from 169 animals available for adoption or foster to only three during a single week in March 2020.

Given the increase in pet ownership during 2020 and the fact that 95% of pet owners consider their pet a family member, it is important to consider what happens should a divorce occur within the human family. Like most states, Florida classifies pets as personal property. In a divorce, pets are given no more consideration during the division of assets than would be given a lamp. The family pet is left to be awarded by the trial court based upon the rules of equitable distribution. Florida was recently ranked third in the nation for the highest divorce rate. Additionally, 56% of Florida families report to be pet-owners. Florida laws should require courts to consider the unique situation of the pet and what is in the best interest of the family when deciding where the pet will live.

This is not a new idea. Alaska was the first state to enact legislation in response to the cultural shift of recognizing the pet-family bond and, as a result, classifying pets as more than personal property. H.R. 147 was the result of a divorce case involving court-granted visitation rights for “Coho” the dog. H.R. 147 became effective in 2017 and requires judicial consideration of the “wellbeing of the animal” during adjudication of ownership.

Following the path set by Alaska, Illinois amended its Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act in 2018. This amendment makes the consideration of the pet’s well-being a mandatory requirement during the trial court’s decision, although the factors which determine wellbeing are often left to the court’s discretion. California passed Assembly Bill 2274 in 2018 shortly after Illinois’ legislation was passed. AB 2274 allows courts to consider “the care of the pet animal.” Unlike the other two states, a best interest consideration is only applied within California pet custody cases if requested by one of the parties involved within the divorce. By requiring a finding based on the well-being of the pet, the court eliminates the danger of spouses attempting to weaponize pets during divorce proceedings and using them as a manipulation tool.

The cleared shelters are evidence of the human desire to bond with companion animals for emotional support and comfort, especially during highly stressful times. It is important to remember that divorce proceedings are highly stressful times as well. As such, it is up to the court to help manage the proceedings and make decisions within the best interest of children and families. It is easy to see how involving the family pets in this decision-making could either add to, or help alleviate, stress. An argument against pet custody statutes involves not wishing to add issues involving pets to an already overly burdened court docket. However, it appears that pet custody statutes in Alaska, Illinois and California have been successful. There is no indication these types of findings would be any more burdensome than other findings of facts and conclusions of law that must be made in a divorce proceeding.

Often viewed as more than “man’s best friend,” pets are considered full-fledged family members. Bearing in mind the events surrounding quarantine and the clear evidence that family pets provide support and critical emotional bonds, it is time for Florida legislators to amend family law statutes to reflect the widely accepted view that pets are more than personal property. Our laws should reflect an accurate view of pet ownership and allow courts the discretion to appropriately resolve conflict when it comes to family pets.