Who Gets Doggy Custody?

New York Law Journal published an article by Tania Karas, titled Divorce Judge Considers Pet to Be ‘More Than Property.’ The article mentions the case
Travis v. Murray, 42 Misc. 3d 447, 977 N.Y.S.2d 621 (Sup. Ct. 2013), which was recently settled in Manhattan Supreme Court.

In Travis v. Murray the divorcing couple were fighting over the ownership rights of their beloved dog, Joey. Justice Copper issued a decision suggesting that household pets should be treated more than just property and then called for a one-day hearing to determine who should have final possession of the dog. However, before Justice Cooper could set a hearing date, the couple agreed that Joey would go to Murray.

What makes this case unique is that the Court was presented with the issue of whether the dog should be treated as property, as is usually the case in a divorce settlement involving pets, or whether ownership should be decided through the kind of legal analysis applied in child-custody cases. Historically under New York law pets were always considered chattels or property during a divorce, however the article cites to matrimonial lawyers who say the case could help shape future disputes over canine custody.

Justice Cooper was quoted in the article stating the following:

“In a case such as this, where two spouses are battling over a dog they once possessed and raised together, a strict property analysis is neither desirable nor appropriate,” Cooper wrote. “Although Joey the miniature dachshund is not a human being and cannot be treated as such, he is decidedly more than a piece of property, marital or otherwise.”

Travis, the plaintiff in the case, was not awarded visitation rights, Justice Cooper explained in his decision that such arrangements in child custody cases are designed to keep both parents involved in the child’s life. Justice Cooper continued by stating that pets, while beloved to their owners, do not merit that level of importance. The standard that Justice Cooper would have used in determining who would get to keep the dog would have been based on what is “best for all concerned.” A showing of this standard would have require the parties to show who bore the more responsibility for Joey’s care and who spent more time with him on a daily basis, similar to the standard in a child custody dispute.

Justice Cooper cited several cases to support the use of this standard.

One of the cases, which Justice Cooper cited in support of his standard was Raymond v. Lachman, 264 AD2d 340. In this case the Court ruled that an aging cat, Lovey, should remain in the home where it had “lived, prospered, loved and had been loved for the past four years.” Justice Cooper wrote that this case was relevant to Joey’s case since the court took the cat’s well- being into consideration.

Although, the article noted that it is likely that pets will continue to be treated as property in future litigation, the article also stated that Justice Cooper’s suggestion for how to handle pets in divorce disputes could impact the way future cases are resolved. For example lawyer may now cite to Justice Cooper’s suggestion in order to persuade a court to apply a similar standard when deciding who gets to keep the family pet.