Kari M. Marchant, Esq.

What Will Happen to Our Pets?

Animals are often tragic victims of divorce. All too often euthanasia of a once beloved pet is the result of family turmoil, either during the process or down the road when a new spouse has other philosophies and step-pet-parenting breaks down. Domestic violence often involves threats or even injuries to pets. Pets have been used as pawns in child custody fights.

An extreme case of abuse of the system happened a few years ago in California. A wife in San Diego went to the department of child support and in vindictive rage made a fraudulent claim for child support, naming the animals. By the time the legal dust settled husband had not only lost possession of his dogs, but he had seen his wages garnished for a few months for their support. In the ultimate indignity, as part of the property division he was ordered to pay the vet bill, the bill that included terminating the innocent animal’s lives when wife had decided they were too much bother and no further benefit to her.

In one case it came out at trial that neither party really wanted to keep the expensive show-quality Yorkshire terrier, but each wanted credit for the other party getting the retail value paid for the dog in the property settlement. The judge asked them to produce the animal in court. It turned out that the dog had never been effectively housetrained. He made the dog a ward of the court, took him home and bought a dog training book and housetrained the little Yorkie himself! Animals usually are not that fortunate.

Lawmakers in Wisconsin have introduced legislation in 2007 outlining how divorcing couples and judges should resolve disputes involving pets. This landmark bill would allow couples to specify visitation rights, and the right to move an animal out of state.

A noted veterinarian and attorney, John Scott, DVM, JD of Amarillo, Texas, supports the idea of codifying animal law in the family courts saying that "the concept of what's best for the child could transfer over to what's best for the pet. I would expect veterinarians to be called upon to testify which spouse took better care of the animal, paid more for its care and so on. It would be analogous to how we handle custody of children."

Under the proposed Wisconsin legislation when the judge can't pick a spouse to send the pet home with the judge can order the pet to be sent to a local humane society. Then whoever gets to the humane society first can then adopt the pet. That's crazy, especially if both show up at the same time. The humane society now has the problem instead of the court. Apparently, this part of the drafted law may require some change.

You may think that these types of situations are rare, and that pet custody is a non-issue in real life. Well, consider that a San Diego woman spent almost $150,000 in legal and professional fees during a divorce to win custody of her dog, "Gigi." A feuding couple in Maryland finally agreed to visitation only after a judge threatened to sell their 9-year-old Keeshond and split the proceeds.

Isn't it a shame that these situations have to be addressed in life at all? In the Bible, Malachi 2:16 lays it out: "I hate divorce," says the Lord God of Israel. Just as the children are often hurt in the process of divorce, so go the pets.

It's a crying shame.

While the reasons for marital discord are irrelevant in jurisdictions such as California that have no-fault divorce (unless it involves domestic violence), I always want to know the reasons the partners are breaking up, and inquire as to my client's openness to try and salvage the marriage, if it could be tremendously improved. Several times over the last 13 years I have received calls or email from clients whose marriages I saved saying how very lucky they are to have a friend like me - "not only a great attorney, but a great counselor as well."  Sometimes they even send flowers.

I am not a therapist and certainly do not practice psychology or therapy without a license, but legal, social, emotional, relational and even spiritual issues impact the strategy of a legal case.  My job is to help my client get what they really want at the deepest level, not just what they think they want at first blush.  Sorting through the layers of history, my clients values and the law helps determine how to approach the problem.

Right up front I normally tell my potential clients that I refuse to take part in a divorce that I feel is unnecessary. The person often decides to work towards reconciling when I show them something they are doing that is unreasonable, not good for the children, or actually causing problems. I refer them to workshops and retreats such as Retrouvaille or other successful well-respected organizations rather than counseling, as long as they have great followup help. In my experience most marriage and individual counseling actually makes divorce more likely rather than less likely.

There is nothing like the satisfaction of helping someone avoid a divorce that did not absolutely need to happen and have a happy marriage after all.