We love our pets dearly. They are members of our family and the idea of being separated from them is unthinkable. But in a Massachusetts divorce, they are still viewed as personal property. While there are bills pending (and even more recommended) in the state legislature that could change this, the fact remains that in a divorce, if the parties cannot reach an agreement as to the family pet, the consequences can be unthinkable.
We were in court one day waiting for one of our cases to be called when we observed two parties (neither represented by us) argue vehemently for the right to keep their Siberian Husky. The judge issued warning after warning, but the parties refused to agree. Ultimately, the judge issued an order that the dog be seized from the party in possession and sold. The poor dog!
Last year we tried valiantly to mediate a case in which the parties were at odds over possession of a gorgeous Golden Retriever who was, among other things, a certified therapy dog. Possession of the animal was holding up the parties’ divorce, and an absurd amount of time and money was spent by both on the issue. The dog died quite unexpectedly, and one would think the parties could then move on… but they didn’t. They couldn’t. Each hired a litigation attorney and as far as we know they are still not divorced.
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF PETS
There is a Massachusetts case that was heard in the Superior Court with further orders being issued by the Appeals Court that required separating parties to share possession of their dog. But the parties were not married and the Appeals court made it crystal clear their order would NOT apply to divorce cases heard in the Probate & Family Court. In that case, entitled Lyman v. Lanser the Court found the parties had acquired the dog jointly and there was an oral agreement to share possession, so it ordered the parties each have time with the dog – two weeks on and two weeks off. Last week, the Appeals Court heard a similar case entitled Tuck v. Domigan, but this time, in the best interests of the dog, ordered one party to have sole possession. Clearly the law is evolving.
At Newburyport Family Law, we are presently representing a party in the Superior Court in a similar case – the parties bought the dog when they resided together, but now that they are separated, they cannot agree who should have her. It is a costly case for both parties, and the dog has no voice of her own.
DIVISION OF PETS – MASSACHUSETTS DIVORCE
But the terms of the Lanser case and the Tuck case are not applicable in divorce cases. At least not right now. Our recommendation as to pets is that the parties find a way to share time with them. Our animals have short life spans, and it is incumbent upon us to make their time with us the best it possibly can be. If you and your spouse are arguing over the family dog (or cat, or goldfish), consider what is in the animal’s best interest and if possible, find a way to share both possession and costs. If you do not, you may both lose and so will your pet.