FI v DO

FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)

https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/384

Background

This case from the Family Court in Manchester concerned financial remedies following the breakdown of a marriage, but also involved the dispute over the parties’ golden retriever puppy. While the financial matters were largely agreed, the question of who should keep the dog became central. The husband argued that he was his disability support dog, whereas the wife claimed to be the primary carer and sought to retain him. The judgment therefore provides a useful example of how the courts may deal with companion animals in family proceedings.

Facts

The parties married in 2010 and separated in 2022, with two children remaining in the wife’s care. The family home was jointly owned, but both accepted that it would be sold.

In February 2024, the husband applied for declared ownership of the dog and for a shared care arrangement. He maintained that he had purchased the golden retriever, that he trained him and that she was his registered support animal, essential for managing anxiety and depression. However, registration was said to take place after the parties separated.

The wife sought the retention of the family dog. The wife claimed the dog was purchased jointly, that she was the registered keeper, had paid the veterinary and insurance costs, and provided her daily care.

Matters came to a head in December 2024 when the husband forcibly removed the dog from the maternal grandmother; the dog was later returned to the wife with an injured paw which was claimed to have happened from being dragged into the husband's car from the family home where the dog had run back to.

Legal Issues

In English law companion animals are largely treated as chattels, not as beings with independent rights. However, the court referred to RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam), which highlighted the importance of considering who has primary responsibility for their care.

Judgment

The court awarded ownership of the golden retriever to the wife. Although acknowledging that he was jointly purchased, the judge held that the wife had been her main carer and had consistently met his needs. The husband’s claim that he was a support animal was rejected, and his conduct in forcibly removing him was considered inappropriate. The judge also noted that the children’s lives would be better served by the dog remaining with the wife.

The relevant paragraphs in the judgment state:

Paragraph 70:

The final issue in this case is the ownership of the dog. This is a thorny issue between the parties. Both parties jointly purchased the dog. I found the wife’s evidence compelling when she said “I would not force a dog to come away when he didn’t know me “ when talking about the alleged abduction of the dog. She has lived with dogs all her life and they are an integral part of her’s and importantly the children’s lives. The husband has no inclination as to the upset that will have been caused to the grandmother, the wife and the children when he forcibly removed the dog from the grandmother outside of the family home. I do not accept that he did not take the dog forcibly as he suggested. Of course the grandmother would have been upset as she was responsible for the care of the dog, similarly the children as they will see it as their dog. Whilst I may understand the husband’s actions as he sees the dog as his right “I have more right than the grandmother” he fails to understand the implications of his action which impact the family and the dog . I also do not accept his evidence that the wife did not care for the dog after they separated, her evidence was far more in tune with someone who has the welfare of the dog at heart.

Paragraph71:

The legal authority to which I have referred provides assistance as to who has principally looked after the dog. Not who has purchased the dog, that fact in my view is not as important as who the dog sees as her carer. This is not who had previously looked after the dog, but who does now. It is an agreed fact that the parties separated and the dog has been cared for solely by the wife since that separation some 18 months previously. I accept what the wife says 18 months is a long time in a dog’s life. It was clear when the dog ran back to the family home after he had been taken by the husband that the dog considered that to be a safe place and where he belonged. The wife’s evidence as I have set out was compelling but more importantly in my view showed someone who understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog’s interests first. The dog’s home is with the wife, and she should stay there. It would be upsetting for both the dog and the children were those arrangements to alter. The husband has managed without a dog for 18 months and it does not therefore seem necessary for his support, even if that were the case which I do not accept was the position at the time the parties separated.

Commentary

This judgment illustrates the tension between the strict legal classification of animals as property and the more welfare and animal oriented approach that is required in practice. Although the court considered the property status, it plainly took into account who actually fed, insured, and looked after the dog, as well as the continuity the dog provided for the children. It also took into account the dog's wishes.

The decision also demonstrates how credibility is central in disputes of this nature. The husband’s late and questionable attempt to classify the dog as a support dog undermined his position, while his behaviour in seizing him from the maternal grandmother highlighted risks to his wellbeing.

The case reinforces the idea that courts are willing to move beyond strict property principles in favour of the care and welfare of an animal.

Getting advice

This post is not legal advice and should not be relied on as such. If you require legal advice on animal protection laws, please contact info@advocates-for-animals.com