Who Gets the Dog? Insights from FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)

The recent case of FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B) has garnered attention for its nuanced approach to pet ownership disputes in divorce proceedings. Traditionally, pets have been treated as personal property (chattels) under UK law. However, this case highlights a shift towards considering the welfare and emotional bonds associated with pets when determining their placement post-separation.
Background
FI and DO were married in December 2010 and separated in November 2022. They have two children, born in 2011 and 2017, who reside with their mother, DO. A significant point of contention during their financial remedy proceedings was the custody of their golden retriever, N.
The Dispute Over N
FI claimed to have purchased N for £1,200 and later registered her as a disability support dog to assist with his mental health challenges. He sought a declaration of ownership and a shared care arrangement. Conversely, DO contended that N was a joint family purchase, with contributions from herself and their daughter. She emphasized her role as the primary caregiver since the separation and expressed concerns over an incident where FI forcibly took N from her mother during a walk, leading to police involvement and reported injuries to the dog.
Court's Considerations
District Judge Crisp evaluated several factors:
- Primary Caregiver: DO had been the sole caregiver for N for 18 months post-separation.
- Emotional Bonds: N's close relationship with DO and the children was evident, especially when N ran back to the family home after the aforementioned incident.
- Welfare of the Dog: The court prioritized N's well-being, noting that uprooting her from her established environment would be detrimental.
The judge remarked, "The dog's home is with the wife, and she should stay there. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter."
Outcome
The court ruled in favour of DO retaining custody of N. Additionally, DO was awarded 69.23% of the net proceeds from the sale of the family home, reflecting her primary role in caring for the children and the dog. The court also acknowledged the unnecessary legal costs incurred due to FI's actions, particularly concerning the dispute over N.
Implications
This case underscores a progressive approach in family law, recognizing pets as integral family members rather than mere property. It sets a precedent for considering the emotional and welfare aspects of pets in divorce proceedings, aligning legal decisions more closely with the realities of modern family dynamics.
For individuals navigating similar disputes, this case highlights the importance of demonstrating a consistent caregiving role and the emotional bonds shared with the pet. It also emphasizes the court's willingness to consider the broader family context, especially the impact on children, when making decisions about pet custody.
For Family Law Advice and family court representation contact Stephanie Heijdra Family barrister via sheijdra@winvolvedlegal.co.uk or 02071014682









