FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)

I blinked twice in disbelief. This subject. This case name. I checked the calendar, but it was not the first of April. It is a dog case called FI v DO, doubtless with a twinkle in the eye.

This was an application for financial remedy issued by H in 2023. In 2024 he issued a further application – for shared care of a golden retriever identified only as N.

The financial remedy issue is familiar territory to many practitioners: the sale of the family home and the division of net proceeds, the Court taking account of the needs of the children who lived with W.  Neither were able to rehouse in purchased accommodation from the proceeds of sale. Not a big money case.

H sought a declaration as to ownership of the dog and a shared care arrangement. W said she did not think it was in the dog’s best interests to spend time with H given H’s behaviour. That behaviour was when H was visiting the grave of a previous dog when (he claimed) he saw N (the dog) running off the lead. In cross examination he admitted that the dog had been with W’s mother (but that he had more right to the dog) and the dog had initially run off from him before he got her back. He said that he always kept a collar and lead in his car and that this was definitely not a planned event. He said he had a need for the dog for his mental health and the children need not be told about the dog-duction.

At times it seems to me that I was in the realms of a Children Act application which featured a dog when the W was cross examined about the dog’s welfare and shared care arrangements,’ DJ Crisp observed.

RK v RK [2011] EWHC 3901 (Fam) was argued, though the dog in that case was not the primary focus of the litigation. In that case Moylan J determined the ownership of the dog on the determination of the primary carer.

DJ Crisp followed this logic: it was not who had paid for the dog or even who had cared for the dog previously, but the fact that W had provided care of the dog from separation for 18 months. ‘The dog’s home is with the wife, and she should stay there,’ she concluded

Pets can represent substantial investments in financial terms and are also valued members of our families. As treasured and pampered family members, we want to argue that their welfare is a relevant concern in proceedings. People can be more passionate about their dog, cat or canary than about many things. We love our pets.

In this case, the decision about the dog did take account of her welfare. Consideration was given to the person who provided care and the quality of that care. The W provided a safe home and that is where the dog belonged. This is treating the dog as more than a mere chattel, though that remains the legal category for now. Perhaps this is opening a dog’s door to a new assessment of welfare.

Andrew Bailey