In the eyes of the law, pets are currently classified as chattels, which is a legal term meaning personal property. This definition groups pets with inanimate items like furniture or vehicles. While such a classification may be appropriate for objects, it sits uneasily with many pet owners who view their animals as cherished members of their family.
As family structures have evolved and the emotional significance of our pets grows, this outdated legal framework is facing scrutiny—particularly during divorce or separation proceedings.
The Current Legal Status of Pets
Under the current law in England and Wales, pets are treated as property within family law disputes. This means that when a couple separates, or divorces, decisions around the ownership of their pets are handled like the division of their other possessions.
The family court may consider who purchased the pet, whose name is on the veterinary records or their microchip registration, and who has paid for the majority of the pet’s upkeep. However, the emotional bond between the pet and its human family members often goes unacknowledged in legal proceedings.
This property-based approach fails to accommodate the reality that pets are sentient beings. They form emotional attachments to humans and, in turn, humans form deep and lasting emotional bonds with them. For many families, pets function more like children than like property—yet the current legal system does not reflect this understanding.
How Pets Are Treated in Separation:
A recent example of how pets are treated in divorce can be seen in the aptly named case of FI v DO [2024]. In this case, amongst other issues, the dispute involved the family dog and who she should live with.
The court was asked to determine which spouse should keep the dog after the breakdown of their marriage. The judge declined to make an order which would have seen husband and wife sharing the care of the dog, stating that family law is not designed to manage ongoing arrangements about pets in the same way as it is for children.
Whilst the judgment noted that “the dog is a chattel”, the court did consider the welfare of the dog to some degree. The judge gave a view as to who had cared for the dog since the breakdown of the relationship and who was considered her care giver.
This case highlights the careful balance the judge had to make given that pets are currently classified as chattels whilst also recognising the importance of the dog’s wellbeing.
A High-Profile Dispute: Ant McPartlin and Harley
A widely publicised example of pet arrangements in a celebrity divorce involved British television presenter Ant McPartlin and his ex-wife Lisa Armstrong. Their split attracted media attention not only because of McPartlin’s fame, but also due to a disagreement over the custody of their Labrador, Harley.
The couple reportedly agreed on a form of shared care for Harley, allowing Harley to split time between them both.
Whilst this arrangement did not involve a formal order of the court, it reflected a growing recognition that pets matter more than just as property. This “pet arrangement” set an example for how separating couples could prioritise the welfare of their animals without the need for court intervention.
It is crucial to be aware that such informal arrangements do depend heavily on the goodwill and cooperation of both parties. This may not be possible in more contentious breakups, where communication has broken down.
Should the Law Be Reformed?
The current legal treatment of pets is increasingly being viewed as outdated and in need of reform. Society’s understanding of animals has changed, and pets are no longer seen merely as working tools or possessions. They are increasingly our companions and family members. Animal welfare legislation acknowledges their sentience and sets out standards for humane treatment. However, family law has not yet caught up.
There are several arguments in favour of legal reform such as reflecting on the emotional bond between pets and humans and recognising that pets are emotional creatures who have feelings and personalities too.
Current Efforts to Change the Law
There is growing momentum for reform. A petition organised by solicitor and animal welfare advocate, Trevor Cooper, is currently calling on Parliament to distinguish pets from other types of property in family law proceedings. The petition asks for a change in the law that would require courts to consider the welfare of pets when making decisions about their care in separation or divorce cases.
The petition is part of a broader campaign to align family law with modern attitudes towards animals. While the movement is still in its early stages in the UK, other jurisdictions have already implemented reforms. For example, recently Spanish courts have sought to reclassify pets as sentient beings. The courts in New Zealand have shown a degree of willingness to make more considered decisions about pets in cases of separation. These legal changes acknowledge pets as more than property, which may pave the way for similar reforms in the UK.
The call for reform is also being echoed by animal rights organisations, family lawyers, and members of the public who believe that the legal framework should better reflect society’s values about our pets.
Conclusion
The classification of pets as chattels is increasingly being challenged by evolving social norms and legal thinking. Cases like FI v DO and high-profile separations such as that of Ant McPartlin demonstrate how ill-suited current laws are to deal with the realities of modern pet ownership. While family law still lags behind, campaigns like Trevor Cooper’s petition are pushing for a more compassionate and nuanced approach.
A future legal framework that treats pets as sentient beings—worthy of care and consideration, especially during family breakdowns—would not only reflect the emotional significance of pets but also promote their welfare. It’s time for the law to catch up with how society sees its four-legged family members.
Lucy Buttle is an Associate at Blackfords LLP
One Response
Great Article Lucy, great foresight.