Why Does The Law Think My Dog Is Household Furniture?
All PostsSection 2 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) defines “family chattels” as inclusive of “household pets”. Family chattels, per ss 8 and 1C(3) of the PRA, are relationship property to be divided equally between the parties in the relationship. Your beloved pooch, therefore, has the same legal status as your laptop or bedroom rug. He or she is categorised predominately as a “thing”, despite also being a living creature. Prima facie this may appear strange, particularly as many of us have a strong emotional attachment to our pets and often treat them as if they are a human child who is part of the family. The law does not, however, attribute the value of the relationship property to emotional connections, instead, it is more concerned with the property’s financial worth. Many readers may not have been aware of the legal status of household pets, and may now be thinking: why does the law think my dog is household furniture?
To say that the PRA affords no protections or rights to animals in the same way that protections and rights are not afforded to inanimate household furniture would be entirely incorrect. New Zealand authorities have indicated that any division of pets (metaphorically, of course) as relationship property under the PRA will be subject to ss 9 and 10 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. These sections require that all persons who own or care for an animal must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in accordance with both good practice and scientific knowledge. Thus, as held in O'Brien v Tuer DC Waitakere FP-090-327-03, 9 September 2003, any decision made must uphold the animal’s welfare as the primary consideration. In Sydney v Sydney [2012] NZFC 2685, for example, Coyle DCJ held that it was in the best interests of Milo, an “outdoors dog” who relished in a country lifestyle, to remain with the respondent who lived in a rural area as opposed to the applicant who lived in the city. This decision was made despite the applicant emailing Milo via the respondent “my little dog, I love you so much and I cry at night thinking of you” expressing her emotional attachment to the dog. Moreover, the law is ordinarily uninterested in who has current possession of the pet, and instead will consider each case on its merits: C v D FC Auckland FAM-2009-004-265, 27 May 2011.
Slightly more difficultly, the PRA gives little direction on what classifies as a “household pet”. Standard household pets, such as cats, dogs, and budgies, would undoubtably be included. Issues arise, however, when you consider whether farm animals, such as chickens, cows, or lambs can be “household” pets, or whether a butterfly, tarantula or stick insect would qualify. Thus far, these debates appear to have been considered by authorities on a case-by-case basis, although some clarification in the future would not go amiss.
Those who are familiar with child custody disputes may notice that this stance on pets has some resemblance to the determination of care arrangements for children under the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA). Section 4 COCA provides that the welfare and best interests of the child in his or her particular circumstances are to be paramount when making decisions that will affect that child. This reflects, in some regard, the requirement to uphold the welfare of animals under the Welfare Act. The difference, however, in respect of the PRA, is that children, for reasons too obvious to mention, are not considered “property” whereas household pets are. There is some irony, though, in the fact that many individuals adopt household pets in replacement of having children or adopt those pets and refer to them as one of their “children” and as part of the family.
Ultimately, it is the welfare of the household pet that is the primary consideration when determining how that relationship property should be divided. Those who are unable to agree on custody have two options: to either attend mediation, or failing that, to make an application to the Family Court for the division of relationship property. Court should, however, always be the final option due to its expense, delay and emotional impact.
Section 2 of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (PRA) defines “family chattels” as inclusive of “household pets”. Family chattels, per ss 8 and 1C(3) of the PRA, are relationship property to be divided equally between the parties in the relationship. Your beloved pooch, therefore, has the same legal status as your laptop or bedroom rug. He or she is categorised predominately as a “thing”, despite also being a living creature. Prima facie this may appear strange, particularly as many of us have a strong emotional attachment to our pets and often treat them as if they are a human child who is part of the family. The law does not, however, attribute the value of the relationship property to emotional connections, instead, it is more concerned with the property’s financial worth. Many readers may not have been aware of the legal status of household pets, and may now be thinking: why does the law think my dog is household furniture?
To say that the PRA affords no protections or rights to animals in the same way that protections and rights are not afforded to inanimate household furniture would be entirely incorrect. New Zealand authorities have indicated that any division of pets (metaphorically, of course) as relationship property under the PRA will be subject to ss 9 and 10 of the Animal Welfare Act 1999. These sections require that all persons who own or care for an animal must ensure that the physical, health, and behavioural needs of the animal are met in accordance with both good practice and scientific knowledge. Thus, as held in O'Brien v Tuer DC Waitakere FP-090-327-03, 9 September 2003, any decision made must uphold the animal’s welfare as the primary consideration. In Sydney v Sydney [2012] NZFC 2685, for example, Coyle DCJ held that it was in the best interests of Milo, an “outdoors dog” who relished in a country lifestyle, to remain with the respondent who lived in a rural area as opposed to the applicant who lived in the city. This decision was made despite the applicant emailing Milo via the respondent “my little dog, I love you so much and I cry at night thinking of you” expressing her emotional attachment to the dog. Moreover, the law is ordinarily uninterested in who has current possession of the pet, and instead will consider each case on its merits: C v D FC Auckland FAM-2009-004-265, 27 May 2011.
Slightly more difficultly, the PRA gives little direction on what classifies as a “household pet”. Standard household pets, such as cats, dogs, and budgies, would undoubtably be included. Issues arise, however, when you consider whether farm animals, such as chickens, cows, or lambs can be “household” pets, or whether a butterfly, tarantula or stick insect would qualify. Thus far, these debates appear to have been considered by authorities on a case-by-case basis, although some clarification in the future would not go amiss.
Those who are familiar with child custody disputes may notice that this stance on pets has some resemblance to the determination of care arrangements for children under the Care of Children Act 2004 (COCA). Section 4 COCA provides that the welfare and best interests of the child in his or her particular circumstances are to be paramount when making decisions that will affect that child. This reflects, in some regard, the requirement to uphold the welfare of animals under the Welfare Act. The difference, however, in respect of the PRA, is that children, for reasons too obvious to mention, are not considered “property” whereas household pets are. There is some irony, though, in the fact that many individuals adopt household pets in replacement of having children or adopt those pets and refer to them as one of their “children” and as part of the family.
Ultimately, it is the welfare of the household pet that is the primary consideration when determining how that relationship property should be divided. Those who are unable to agree on custody have two options: to either attend mediation, or failing that, to make an application to the Family Court for the division of relationship property. Court should, however, always be the final option due to its expense, delay and emotional impact.