Is Your Pet a Family Member Subject to Shared "Parenting"?
We recently posted a story that was reported in the Naples Daily News, concerning a couple in Naples, Florida who had sued for a replevin action to recover their pet from a veterinarian. See here.
A writ of replevin is a prejudgment process ordering the seizure or attachment of an alleged illegal taking or wrongfully withheld property, goods or chattel (any kind of personal property).
We further noted that the attorney for the owners determined that it was necessary to file an action to demand the return of “personal property” if a pet has been wrongfully taken or detained.
In response to the story, a comment was received from Attorney Kysa Crusco of New Hampshire, wherein she wrote,
“Interesting blog! The personal property question relates to divorce issues many family law attorneys see- will the family court judge treat the pet as chattel or will the pet be treated as a part of the family with a shared "parenting" schedule?”
The interplay between pets and their status as family members or mere chattel is a continuing battle of legal theories and history.
Earlier this month, in Massachusetts, the Milford Daily News, reported that State Rep. Jennifer Callahan, D-Sutton, accompanied by Bailey, her yellow Labrador retriever, presented two animal rights proposals.
One new bill would allow judges to include pets in temporary restraining orders.
"Forty-eight percent of victims of domestic disputes say they delay leaving the situation because they are afraid of what will happen to their pets," Callahan said, citing 12 independent studies summarized in a 2007 article by F.R. Ascione in a collection of articles called Intimate Partner Violence, put out by the Civic Research Institute of Kingston, N.J.
Matt Kakley, of the Milford Daily News reported that the bill would not cost the state any money, as it simply allows judges to make defendants stay away from the animals.
Eight states (Vermont, Maine, New York, Nevada, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois and Tennessee) have already passed similar laws and 12 other states (Arizona, California, Georgia, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin), as well as Washington, D.C., have legislation pending.
The bill would apply to all pets and companion livestock.
Callahan also filed a separate bill that would allow the owners of pets who were injured or killed maliciously to sue for emotional distress and loss of companionship. See the entire article here.
Are they merely animals that live in our homes…or our they pets…our family members…with real issues such as domestic restraining orders… division as chattel property or treated as a custody schedule problem in a divorce proceeding…visitation rights...subject to inclusion in an estate family plans?
You, the legislatures and the courts are deciding these issues and more, even as I write.
Stay tuned for future revisions, updates and changes.
http://www.pettrustlawblog.com/admin/trackback/69115
