Canine Custody Battle Focuses On Pet’s “Value”

You and your clients know that pets occupy an increasingly important place in the family, but in the legal realm, lawyers and judges view pets more like a car or refrigerator than a family member. Last year’s settlement for the 2007 Menu Foods pet food recall compensated pet owners for everything from medical treatment and burial expenses but offered nothing in the way of remuneration for pet owners’ pain and suffering. That attitude may be changing, though, as a New Jersey state appeals court recently ruled that a pet’s “special subjective value” should be taken into account when deciding on pet custody battles.

From the New Jersey Star-Ledger:

The three-judge panel ruled that money was insufficient compensation for a woman whose former fiance kept their dog after the breakup of their relationship, despite an oral agreement that she would keep the pet.

The canine in question here is Dexter, a seven-year-old pug. When Doreen Houseman and her former fiance, Eric Dare, broke up in 2006, they had an oral agreement that Houseman would retain custody of Dexter. Houseman went on vacation in February 2007 and asked Dare to watch Dexter. But when Houseman returned from her trip, Dare refused to give the dog back.

Houseman took Dare to court and eventually won $1,500 – the price the couple paid for Dexter back in 2003. But the court would not grant Houseman custody of the dog.

Houseman appealed the decision and found the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Lawyers in Defense of Animalsamong her allies. The appeals court disagreed with the earlier ruling and ruled that a pet has “special subjective value” that can’t be replaced with money alone, much like “a family heirloom or valued work of art.” The ruling still places pets on equal footing with all those precious tchotchkes Aunt Mildred gave you, but it at least acknowledges that pets and their people are extremely important to one another.