Disputes over pets on separation are becoming increasingly common and emotionally charged. For many families, pets are not simply property - they are companions, sources of emotional support, and, in some cases, central to the family’s daily life. Yet the law has traditionally lagged behind society’s emotional understanding of animals. A recent English case, FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384, has brought renewed attention to how courts approach pet ownership on divorce, and it provides a useful springboard for comparing the position in England with that in Scotland.
England: FI v DO and a subtle shift in approach
In England, pets are legally treated as chattels, being personal property akin to furniture or a car. Historically, this has meant that disputes over pets were resolved by looking at ownership, purchase receipts, and financial responsibility. However, FI v DO suggests that the English courts may be favouring a more nuanced approach.
The case involved a divorcing couple whose dispute extended beyond the usual financial issues to include their golden retriever puppy. Although pets are still legally property, the court acknowledged the emotional significance of the dog and considered factors beyond strict ownership. The case highlights that the court, looked at who the dog lived with, who provided day to day care, and the welfare implications of disrupting that arrangement under particular reference to the distress to the children as well as the dog. The dog had remained with the wife and children since separation for 18 months which the court accepted was a long time in the life of a dog. The court ultimately preserved that status quo.
While the judgment does not create any kind of precedent for similar disputes in Scotland it may reflect a judicial willingness to consider the practical and emotional realities of pet ownership. English practitioners have noted that this case aligns with a broader societal shift: pets are increasingly viewed as family members, and courts are responding albeit within the constraints of existing property law.
Scotland: a more rigid property‑based framework
Scotland’s legal position is, in many ways, more rigid. Under Scots law, pets are classified as corporeal moveable property. In a separation or divorce, disputes over pets are resolved in the same way as disputes over any other moveable asset. The court’s primary concern is ownership: who bought the animal, who holds the registration, and whether it forms part of the matrimonial property.
Unlike England, Scotland does not have a body of case law showing a shift towards welfare‑based considerations for pets. The courts do not apply a “best interests of the animal” test, nor do they generally consider emotional bonds or caregiving arrangements. Even where a pet is deeply integrated into family life, the legal analysis remains firmly rooted in property principles.
This can lead to outcomes that feel unsatisfactory to clients. A spouse who has been the “primary caregiver“ of the pet may have no legal claim if they are not the legal owner. Similarly, the court has no power to order “shared care” of a pet, even if the parties informally agree to such an arrangement.
Are the systems converging?
In England, FI v DO demonstrated a willingness to consider that the welfare of the animal and how that impacted on the welfare of the children without formally departing from the property framework which indicated some understanding of emotional realities of pet ownership.
In Scotland, courts remain anchored in ownership‑based analysis, with little judicial commentary suggesting movement toward a welfare‑influenced approach.
Client expectations
Clients in both jurisdictions often expect the law to treat pets more like children than property. English courts, through cases like FI v DO, are beginning to reflect this expectation in their reasoning. Scottish courts, however, have not yet shown similar flexibility.
Legislative landscape
Neither jurisdiction has enacted legislation specifically addressing pet disputes on separation. However, international trends, particularly in parts of the US and Europe, show a move toward welfare‑based statutory frameworks. It is possible that pressure for reform may grow here also especially as public attitudes continue to evolve.
Until reform occurs, Scottish solicitors must work within the existing property‑based framework. However, we can encourage consideration of the emotional importance of the pet, and how that might impact of the welfare of children at least in cases where the care of children is at issue. Otherwise disputes over pets may be resolved more constructively in mediation. In all cases clarifying ownership early by obtaining receipts, microchip registration and vet records is recommended. In some cases, parties may agree to offset the value of the pet against other assets.
Conclusion
FI v DO may not revolutionise English law, but it signals a subtle shift toward recognising the emotional significance of pets in family life. Scotland, by contrast, remains firmly rooted in a traditional property‑based approach. As societal attitudes continue to evolve, pressure for reform may grow on both sides of the border. For now, Scottish practitioners must navigate a legal framework that does not always align with clients’ emotional realities, making sensitive, informed advice all the more important.
Please do get in touch if you have any questions regarding your pet on separation – we must keep those tails wagging!
Contributor
Solicitor
