In my many years of practicing family law in Minnesota, there has been no statute that specifically addresses animals.   The only way they are covered is under the term “property,” although there is no mention in the law of animals at all. It is not even clear who owns animals at the end of a divorce proceeding, because the items of commercial value, like motor vehicles, are individually described, and otherwise, lawyers typically state that people are simply awarded the household furniture, furnishings and equipment in their possession. Presumably, animals fall somewhere in there.

Lawyers rarely mention pets in their pleadings. There is no space for pet food or veterinary care in the published monthly living expense forms that lawyers use for temporary hearings or pretrial conferences. The forms that divorce lawyers have their clients fill out rarely have space for the identity of nonhuman individuals.

It is an interesting phenomenon that they seem almost invisible in Family Law. Because about 2/3 of households have pets and spend in excess of 40 billion per year on them, and a majority of owners consider animals to be family members, should this continue?

When people divorce, sometimes both of them are in good physical and mental health, but often, there are serious problems like chemical dependency, long absences from the home, depression, anger, even domestic violence. Where are the animals in all this? Are their fundamental needs of food, exercise, even attention, being met? What animals mean to us and how they should be addressed in Family Law deserves serious consideration. I have drafted a model law on this subject and will do my best to initiate this discussion both in Minnesota, and nationally.