In November 2024, an independent Working Group on Pets on Divorce and Separation was established by a cross-section of family law professionals who had repeatedly seen the same problem arise in practice: when relationships break down, pets matter enormously to clients, but the law does not reflect that reality.
Under the current law in England and Wales, pets are treated as chattels. In principle, they are no different from a car or a fridge. Ownership disputes are determined largely by property concepts such as purchase and title. There is no statutory framework requiring a court to consider who primarily cared for the animal, whether a child is closely bonded to it, or whether there has been domestic abuse or cruelty.
For practitioners committed to a constructive, child-focused and welfare-aware approach (including many Resolution members), this gap in the law presents real challenges.
What practitioners are seeing
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory’s Fair Shares report highlights the emotional intensity pets can generate in financial remedy proceedings. Interviewees described rehoming animals they regarded as “the world to me”, and ongoing disputes about financial contributions for pets becoming mechanisms of control.
This reflects what many practitioners encounter: pets being weaponised in negotiations, used to exert pressure, or becoming the final barrier to settlement.
In July 2025, the Working Group surveyed family lawyers. Over 410 responded. Only 7% had never encountered a pet dispute. 76% said the lack of legal guidance makes such disputes harder to resolve. 89% believed further guidance is needed.
Notably, 98% said that who actually cares for the pet should be relevant; something that, as the law currently stands, is not determinative.
For practitioners striving to reduce conflict and promote sensible agreement, this uncertainty makes advising clients more difficult and can escalate otherwise manageable cases.
We are behind
Comparable jurisdictions have moved ahead. Australia, New Zealand, British Columbia in Canada, and several US states have introduced legislation recognising that companion animals require a distinct approach on separation.
Australia’s 2024 reforms set out clear criteria for courts to consider, including:
- the circumstances of acquisition
- who has cared for and paid for the animal
- any history of family violence or cruelty
- attachment of a party or child
- each party’s future ability to care for the animal
This is not a shared care regime. It is a structured, proportionate framework providing clarity. Practitioners there report that clearer statutory guidance supports earlier resolution and reduces litigation.
Why reform would help resolution
A constructive, non-confrontational approach – reflected in Resolution’s Code of Practice and widely shared across the profession – supports solutions that meet the needs of the whole family. Pets are part of many families.
There are now approximately 13 million dogs in the UK, alongside around 15 million children. Pet ownership has increased significantly since 2019, when it was at 9 million. The emotional and practical significance of animals in family life is undeniable.
Yet when clients ask how a court will approach the family dog, we must explain that the starting point is property law.
A modest statutory reform, modelled on Australia, would:
- provide clarity for advisers and clients
- facilitate earlier, informed negotiation
- reduce scope for tactical behaviour
- save costs
- ease pressure on court resources
Importantly, it would align legal outcomes more closely with lived family reality.
The road ahead
The issue has been raised in the House of Lords, and recent cases have attracted public attention. March is likely to be a key date for discussions about potential legislative developments.
The Working Group is not advocating radical change. We are proposing a simple, workable statutory list of relevant criteria.
Reform would be cost-effective, straightforward to implement, and consistent with the wider professional commitment to reducing conflict and promoting fair outcomes.
For practitioners who see the distress caused when pets are treated purely as property, there is clear room for improvement.
The question is no longer whether the issue exists, but whether the law should finally catch up with modern family life.
Emily Prince, Associate at Amphlett Lissimore Solicitors
Estella Newbold-Brown, Partner and Head of Family at Lester Aldridge
Diane Matthews, Senior Associate at MSB Solicitors
Karis Nafte, Certified Dog Behaviour Consultant, Founder Who Keeps the Dog Pet Mediation
