22nd January 2026 ❘ Legal News and Commentary

Family Law FAQs – “But who gets to keep the dog?” Commentary – FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)

Family Law FAQs – “But who gets to keep the dog?” Commentary – FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)

A big question that a lot of people ask in the realm of private family disputes is, in the event of a divorce, who gets to keep the family pet? The guidance on this point has been somewhat limited for many years and the view taken by the courts has always been to treat any family pets as ‘chattels’ under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (‘MCA’). A chattel under the MCA is a moveable asset and refers to the personal property of either party.

Should the parties to the divorce be unable to amicably agree as to who keeps any family pets after the divorce, then the issue can be dealt within financial remedy proceedings along with other assets which are defined as chattels. The Family Court’s approach in recent years to determine ownership of pets has been to consider certain factors such as:

• Who bought the animal?
• Whose name is the pet registered in?
• Was the pet gifted to a particular party in proceedings?

However, the case of FI v DO [2024] has provided further guidance and insight as to what factors the Family Court can consider going forward in financial disputes arising from divorce.

In this matter, both parties made claims that the dog should be kept by them as the husband argued that the dog was paid for by him and was a registered support animal to help with his anxiety. On the other hand, the wife argued that the original purchase price was met by the husband, herself and a child of the family. She also argued that she registered the dog with the Kennel Club, and that she paid for the associated maintenance costs.

Within the case, the Judge made findings that the dog was only registered as a support animal for the husband after the separation of the parties to reinforce his argument that the dog was a ‘support animal’ for him. The judge also made the findings that the dog had been jointly purchased by the parties with their daughter.

The judge also came to the determination during proceedings that the husband had forcibly removed the dog from the Former Matrimonial Home (‘FMH’), and that the dog had since run back to the FMH in December 2022.

In making their decision, the Judge referred to the previous case of RK v RK [2011] and stated that the main question to be determined in this case was not who purchased the dog, but who primarily cared for the dog now. The judge also considered who the dog saw as her primary carer now. The judge highlighted that in addition to the dog running back to the FMH, the wife had been the main carer for the dog for a period of 18 months between the separation and the hearing at the FMH. The judge had regard to the fact that this period was a long time in a dog’s life and that the wife was someone who understood what was involved in dog ownership. Based on this, the judge determined that the dog in this case should stay with the wife.

So, what does this mean going forward? This case signals that the Family Court is moving away from the approach that family pets are just chattels determined by who paid for them and that other factors should be considered when determining ownership of a family pet. The judge in this case was able to recognise that more consideration was needed to address the matter at hand given the passionate feelings from both sides. Given that an animal requires a certain level of care, any decision made should be one that provides continuity for the animal and also for the primary carer of said animal. While the MCA remains unchanged in how animals are treated as chattels in the eyes of the law, this case signals the start of a definite shift in how the Family Court is approaching this ever-developing area of law.

If you would like some initial advice on a financial dispute matter, then you can get in touch on 01228 552222 or alternatively email hello@burnetts.co.uk and we’ll be happy to help.