Community Chat

[feline groovy]

Alaska divorce courts will now treat pets more like children - giving judges the power to determine custody

• Lawmakers in Alaska have passed an amendment to the state's divorce statutes 
• Starting this week, judges will now have more power in determining the the custody of pets in divorce cases 
• Pets have for a long time been treated as property in divorce, to be split up among other belongings like cars 
• Now, judges will have the power to create joint custody agreements between separating partners, to determine what is best for the animal 
• Alaska is the first state to pass such a measure, elevating the status of family pets in divorces  

By ASHLEY COLLMAN FOR DAILYMAIL.COM

PUBLISHED: 15:25 EST, 24 January 2017 | UPDATED: 15:25 EST, 24 January 2017 

Alaska has become the first state to give pets special consideration in divorce cases. 

A statue took effect in the state this week that allows judges to assign pet custody agreements to separating partners. 

In every other state, pets are considered property, and are divided between couples in the same way they would real estate or cars. 

The new statute in Alaska considers pets more like children, so judges are required to take 'into consideration the well-being of the animal' when determining which owner the pet will live with, or whether it will split time between both.

It also allows pets to be included in domestic violence protective orders, and requires the owners of pets seized in cruelty or neglect cases to pay for the oast of their shelter.  

Kathy Hessler, the director of the Animal Law Clinic at Lewis and Clark College in Oregon, told the Washington Post that the decision is a step forward, since pets are now considered members of the family. 

There are special considerations to be made when determining where an animal goes. Hessler says that some argue that pets should stay with the children, if the couple has kids. Others say whoever bought or adopted the pet should get sole custody, while others say it was whoever was the primary caretaker. 

And when pets are purchasedor adopted with shared funds, rarely does one party want to be 'bought out' of their share

as they would when it comes to shared property like homes or cars.

'The relationship with the animal is what is important in the family law context, so the property law analysis tends to be a poor fit for resolving disputes, and in fact, many of the property settlement agreements are continuously disputed, making more work for the courts,' Hessler said. 

The amendment to Alaska's divorce laws was sponsored by former representative Liz Vazquez (R) and the late representative Max Gruenberg. 

'Our pets are members of our families,' Vazquez, who lost her bid for reelection in November, said last year. 'We have to remember that we’re sent here to Juneau to represent people; real human beings, many of whom have pets they love as much as their friends and family.' 

[GSPgirl]

Do the judges get to interview the animals?  How will this work, really?

[Spurt]

@feline groovy

Now if they'd only let people claim their furbabies as dependents on their  income tax.....

[feline groovy]

@Spurt

My dad was a CPA back in the 70's, and people whose pets had human names often did.  

[Spurt]

---

@feline groovy wrote:

@Spurt

My dad was a CPA back in the 70's, and people whose pets had human names often did.  

---

@feline groovy

did those folks ever get caught by the IRS.....???????????????

[garmer]

---

@feline groovy wrote:

@Spurt

My dad was a CPA back in the 70's, and people whose pets had human names often did.  

---

True. I know people who did, and got away with it. Don't think it would work today, this was before the computer age

[kitcat51]

What in the world has happened to common sense? There is no way a pet should be involved in a custody case, just sorting out the best interest of children is a daunting task. I have a cat & love her very much but she is not my furbaby or any other silly name you want to give the relationship. Simply put she is a pet that I have chosen to be responsible for. Tying up court time with  custody of pets is ridiculous.

[feline groovy]

Don't know, @Spurt; bet some were not, though.  ;-)

[Spurt]

@kitcat51

They should get the situation sorted out when they go through their divorce....otherwise some of them end up in civil court later on anyway disputing who has the right to possession of the animal....it's kinda do it now or do it later...

[CelticCrafter]

---

@garmer wrote:

---

@feline groovy wrote:

@Spurt

My dad was a CPA back in the 70's, and people whose pets had human names often did.  

---

True. I know people who did, and got away with it. Don't think it would work today, this was before the computer age

---

And now you have to get a Social Security number for your newborn within a certain amount of time after they are born.