Dog caught between warring ‘parents’ are nothing more than just part of the furniture
A WARRING couple who plunged their pooch into a bitter custody battle have learned their pet is nothing more than a piece of furniture — in the eyes of the law.
NSW
Don't miss out on the headlines from NSW. Followed categories will be added to My News.
A COUPLE who plunged their pooch into a bitter custody battle have been told their beloved pet is nothing more than a piece of furniture — in the eyes of the law.
In a decision sure to shock pet owners, the Family Court found that the dog, which can legally only be identified as “B”, could only be considered a piece of property.
The Sunday Telegraph can reveal Judge Paul Cronin informed the splitting de facto couple in a March 20 judgment that the Family Law Act, which legally defines what constitutes a family in this country, “makes no reference to pets”.
“Hard as that may be for the applicant, and perhaps other dog lovers to accept, the law here concerns the alteration of interests in property,” Judge Cronin said.
The owners, who can legally only be known under the pseudonyms Mr Graynor and Ms Tseh, had each made lengthy and emotional submissions as to why they should get the dog.
Mr Graynor dedicated 22 of the 52 paragraphs in his affidavit filed with the court to explaining that he “first met B in 2010”, which he said was prior to his relationship with Ms Tseh.
Ms Tseh, who has custody of the animal, told the court she met B for the first time about a year after her former partner did.
She told the court Mr Graynor was “seeking the dog’s return to further isolate, intimidate and punish her for pursuing a property settlement and spousal maintenance”.
Judge Cronin noted that both parties raised “considerable angst” about whether the dog was being treated properly.
Ultimately, he ruled there was not enough of a justification to change the dog’s living circumstances.
“It is also significant to note in determining whether it is appropriate to make an order here, the dog has been in the possession of the respondent for some time,” he told the court.
“There appears no logical reason why it is urgent for the court to intervene to protect property.”
Gabriella Arvanitis, specialist family lawyer at The Norton Law Group, said there had been similar disputes over parrots, exotic fish and cats.
“I have been involved in matters where a judge has separated pets and other cases where the judge has refused to separate two dogs due to the stress it would cause them,” she said.
“Where there are children, the pets will often follow the children. In one case the judge ruled that the family dog go between houses so as to facilitate and minimise the stress to the children.”
Ms Arvanitis said there was scope in the Family Law Act to allow “an asset such as a dog to be shared, effectively as a joint asset, though the court would prefer orders which sever all possible future areas of conflict”.
Animal Justice Party state MP Mark Pearson said the feelings of animals needed to be given greater consideration by judges.
“The sentience and vulnerability of an animal should be taken into account,” he said.
* Follow Brenden Hills on Twitter @BrendenHills and Ben Pike @benpike00
TEARS FLOW FOR DOGGIES OF DIVORCE
SHE’S still full of love but Chloe is another divorce refugee to come through the doors of western Sydney’s Animal Adoption Agency.
The one-year-old Maltese was this week dropped off by a tearful woman who is going through a marriage split.
Unable to afford a freestanding home and prohibited from bringing Chloe into her rental apartment, the woman was forced to give the dog up for adoption.
The adoption agency’s owners Fiona and Lee Amiti said about 150 of the 500 dogs that come through their shelter, north of Penrith, are from reluctant divorcees.
“Almost every single person doesn’t want to give them up,” Mr Amiti said.
“Many people have done their crying either the night before or in the car after saying goodbye, so when we see them they are just numb.
“But there are some who can’t hold back the tears.”
Mr Amati, 40, said he finds it very hard to deal with the older men who feel like they have lost everything.
“You have these mature men who, despite being taught not to cry in front of another bloke, are breaking up in front of you,” he said.
“That is the saddest part for me. Sometimes I have to get off my chair and give these guys a hug.”
RUFF JUSTICE: DIVORCE CASES WHERE PETS WERE CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE
* A JUDGE refused to separate two jack russell terriers because of the stress it would cause the animals. The brother and sister pooches were from the same litter and raised in a Sydney family with teenage children. The husband eventually got custody of both, despite the wife saying she deserved them because she “always cleaned up their poos”.
* STEVIE the parrot had been given as a gift to the son of a separating couple. The judge made orders leaving the parrot in the care of the wife and son, who had special needs, and primarily lived with her. When the father sought orders seeking access to the bird (for the purposes of breeding, he said), the judge declined.
* TWO exotic fish and some rare water plants are at the centre of an ongoing stoush between a childless ex-couple. The husband has applied for an interim order to get the plants and fish out of his wife’s possession because “she will probably poison them”. She accuses him of domestic violence. The case continues.
* A CAVALIER spaniel was forced to live at two locations because a young boy had trouble adjusting to his parents’ acrimonious divorce. The judge granted an interim order that the dog always travel with the boy. The judge treated the matter similar to one where a child may wish/need to travel with their favourite toy. The matter resolved itself and the dog ended up living with mum.
* A WARRING couple who owned a number of pedigree dogs made sure there was a dollar value assigned to the pooches when dividing up the assets. The judged ordered that the dogs, which were valued at $3000 each, stay with the wife. The husband got that money back in his share of the assets.
* THE family dog was found to have no monetary value attached to it during one case. The judge made orders that the dog was to live with the wife as the child of the relationship had a significant attachment to the dog. As the child was living with the wife, the court ordered that the wife keep the dog.
Source: The Norton Law Group and the Family Court of Australia