Beyond Property, Beyond Borders: An International Look At Pets As Family Members

A 2024 study from Financial Post found that 61% of young Canadians would rather have pets than children.[1] This reflects an overall societal shift in how we view the relationships we have with our pets. However, while we may consider our pets as family members, the law has struggled to keep up. 

Canadian Law & Pets

Much has been written about the current treatment of pets in Canadian law. Despite legal commentary  recognizing the deep emotional connection we feel for our pets, our courts still treat pets as property.[2]  Some provinces have made changes to how their laws view pets in response to the growing movement towards viewing them as family members. 

Québec recognizes animals as sentient beings in article 898.1 of the Québec Civil Code, and recent changes to the Family Law Act in British Columbia have allowed the courts to make orders about custody of a family’s animal companion when a marriage ends.[3]

There are a number of reasons why Ontario’s legal system has lagged behind Canadian society’s view toward pets. How property is historically viewed, how flexible our Constitution is to change, and how wary our Courts are, all contribute to why change is slow. 

However, there are other countries that have already made changes to reflect the modern acceptance of pets as family members. 

International Treatment of Pets As Family

To simplify the issue, we can look at the different ways countries can  incorporate pets into Family Law:

1. Pets are viewed as property. This is where Canada as a nation and many other countries currently sit.

2. Pets as sentient property. This is where British Columbia and Quebec have started to go, and where countries such as Spain, France, and Argentina have landed.

3. Pets as members of the family, and treated the same as children in separation cases. No country currently has reached stage 3. 

As Canada grapples with systemic barriers to sweeping legislative changes, let us look at the countries who have progressed to the next steps. 

Country	Current Codes	Effects of Codes	Case Law
United Kingdom	Pets are legally classed as “chattels” (i.e., movable personal property) but there is significant discourse around modernizing family law to reflect pets as family members.	Case law has seen a trend toward considering practical and emotional benefits for pets.	Leading case FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 centered around which party was entitled to their dog.  The judge  one spouse who was deemed “someone who understood about dogs, was compassionate and would always put the dog’s interests first.” [4]
Australia	While pets are legally categorized as property, The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 adds a framework for dealing with family pets in property cases.	Courts now have a working definition of a “pet” A “companion animal”, will now mean: an animal kept by the parties to a marriage or either of them, or the parties to a de facto relationship or either of them, primarily for the purpose of companionship Courts can also make interim and final orders about a pet. The court can make various orders:  One party can have sole ownership Sole ownership can be transferred to another person with consent Pet can be sold The court cannot make orders for shared ownership or shared care.[5]	In a 2024 case about dog ownership, the judge concluded that “”the dog may be property at law but is not a piece of furniture. It is a living being and should be treated with compassion” [6] Now with the amendments, we will see more cases investigating the relationship between owners and pets, and what custody arrangements are suitable.
France	Enacted in 2015, Article 515-14 of the French Civil Code states that animals are sentient living beings. However, they still  fall under the category of “property”, albeit with special treatments.	Since pets are still considered “goods”, the default in divorce is to apply property logic (i.e. who takes  the “item”).  However, Article 515-14 empowers judges to discretionarily factor in the welfare of a pet when making orders.	In a 2011 divorce case in Versailles concerning the placement of a dog, the judge considered the interest of the dog when it was noted that ‘the current living conditions [of the husband], who lives in a house with a garden, are more in line with the needs of this animal.’ [7]
Spain	Spain Civil Code was amended in 2022 to formally recognize pets as sentient beings Legislatures went beyond just adding a mere “pet clause”. There were legal changes to civil code, property law, and legal procedure.	Courts, since then,  consider best interest/welfare of pets Courts can also order shared custody/financial support of pets	A landmark case in 2024 awarded custody to one spouse and ordered the other to pay monthly support and contribute to major expenses.[8]
Argentina	While the civil code has not been formally amended, case law has led to important changes. In two 2022 cases, judges recognized animals as a “subject of rights” [9] Subject of rights, for our context, means a “legal person” or an entity which has individual rights and freedoms.	In 2024, the Supreme Court of Tucumán,a state in Argentina, ruled that family courts have jurisdiction to make decisions regarding pet custody. [10]	In 2022 a judge affirmed a visitation agreement for two dogs involved in a divorce, saying “"animals, especially domestic ones, are sensitive beings , who feel, who miss, who rejoice, who suffer and who acquire habits." [11]
Netherlands	A 1981 Dutch policy proclaimed animals to be “more than economic assets: they are living beings, individually embodying a value”.  This “intrinsic value” has led to a lot of legal discourse. [12] In 2013 the Dutch Civil Code was amended to add Article 3:2a(1) which states “animals are not things”, although it goes on to say provisions that impact things may still apply to animals. [13]	While the law recognises pets’ sentience and intrinsic value, they are not legally considered “family-members” and decisions are still made in a property context.  However, there is significant reference to the impact of decisions on the best interests of the pet.	In a 2013 case between two former spouses arguing over ownership of the dog, the judge wrote that “The court first considers that, in the context of the balancing of interests, the interests of the dog must be taken into account in addition to the interests of the parties.” [14] Many other cases have referred to the interests of the pets in cases where ownership is being decided.
United States	Legislation varies by state, but some states have notably introduced “best interest” legislation: Alaska - Amendment HB 147 [15] California - Assembly Bill No. 2274 [16] New York - NY State Senate Bill 2021-S4248 [17] Other states have unofficial treatments.	The legislation that is official requires custody/ownership orders that reflect the welfare of the pet, and in some cases can include ordering joint custody.	A 2014 case in Vermont, which centered on who would get the dog in a divorce, applied the “best interest” reasoning by deciding that ownership of the dog would be decided by what decision would have the least negative impact on the dog’s routine and well-being. [18]

These countries are not an exhaustive list of how other nations are transitioning to pets as family members as opposed to property. However, these examples are demonstrative of a global shift in how the courts incorporate the unique emotional connection people have with their pets into the rigid confines of property law. 

Conclusion - Toward Compassionate Family Law

It is worth noting that in all of the examples explored above, legislative changes have created frameworks within property law that allow the courts to apply a Family Law lens to these unique property questions. 

Perhaps these countries can provide useful guidance as Canada continues to move toward a modern acceptance of pets as family members. 

Authored by Ashley McAllister

Bibliography

[1] Cousins, Ben. “Young Canadians want homes and pets over weddings and kids: Survey | financial post”, (10 June 2024), online: Financial Post <financialpost.com/personal-finance/young-canadians-homes-pets-over-marriage-kids>.

[2] Daneshvari, Kim. “‘Who’s Keeping Fluffy?’ Understanding Ontario Pet Custody Laws Amidst Evolving Changes in BC”, (23 January 2024), online: Pet Dispute Clinic <petdisputeclinic.com/post/who-s-keeping-fluffy-understanding-ontario-pet-custody-laws-amidst-evolvingchanges-in-bc >.

[3] Provincial Court of British Columbia, "What you need to know about family pets and the Family Law Act”, (9 January 2024), online: <provincialcourt.bc.ca/news-notices-policies-and-practice-directions/enews/what-you-need-know-about-family-pets-and-family-law-act>.

[4] Fi v Do, [2004] EWFC 384 (B), online, <caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ewfc/b/2024/384#download-options>

[5] Australian Government Attorney-General's Department, "Family law changes from June 2025", (June, 2025), online <ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-02/family-law-changes-june-2025-information-for-professionals.PDF>

[6] Campbell, Jacky. “Pets in Family Law Proceedings: Who gets to keep Roxy? Why can’t we share the care of Charlie?”, (13 December 2024), online: Wolters Kluwer <wolterskluwer.com/en-au/expert-insights/pets-in-family-law-proceedings-who-gets-to-keep-roxy>.

[7] Kempers, Eva. “Transition rather than Revolution: The Gradual Road towards Animal Legal Personhood through the Legislature”, (13 April 2022), online: Cambridge University Press <cambridge.org/core/journals/transnational-environmental-law/article/transition-rather-than-revolution-the-gradual-road-towards-animal-legal-personhood-through-the-legislature/321523E062E9A3674804047908DC9A83>.

[8] Ensor, John. “Spanish court orders ex to pay pet maintenance after divorce”, (13 March 2024), online: EuroWeekly <euroweeklynews.com/2024/03/13/spanish-court-orders-ex-to-pay-pet-maintenance-after-divorce/?utm_source=chatgpt.com>.

[9] Davis, Jake. “Argentine court recognizes dogs as rightsholders”, (16 September 2022), online: Non Human Rights <nonhumanrights.org/blog/argentine-court-dogs-rightsholders/>.

[10] G A L vs J S J s/ Ordinary (residual) process, (29 February 2024), online <perma.cc/NGL8-DAFS>.

[11] Resio, Mara. “Pet Ownership: Unprecedented Court Ruling for Two Dogs and Their Divorced Owners”, (16 October 2022), online: Clarin <clarin.com/sociedad/kiara-popeye-perros-regimen-visitas-matrimonio-divorcio_0_ssUfCPAVWZ.html>.

[12] Eleanor Evertsen & Wim De Kok, “Legal Protection of Animals: The Basics” (April 2009) 5 Journal of Animal Law, online: <animallaw.info/sites/default/files/Journal%20of%20Animal%20Law%20Vol%205.pdf>

[13] Netherlands, Burgerlijk Wetboek (Dutch Civil Code), Book 3, online: <dutchcivillaw.com/civilcodebook033.htm>

[14] Rechtbank Limburg, 15 May 2013, ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2013:CA0058, online: <uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/details?id=ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2013:CA0058>

[15] Nicole Pallotta, “Alaska Legislature Becomes First to Require Consideration of Animals’ Interests in Custody Cases” (20 January 2017), online: <aldf.org/article/alaska-legislature-becomes-first-to-require-consideration-of-animals-interests-in-custody-cases/>

[16] Nicole Pallotta, “California’s New ‘Pet Custody’ Law Differentiates Companion Animals from Other Types of Property” (5 November 2018), online: <https://aldf.org/article/californias-new-pet-custody-law-differentiates-companion-animals-from-other-types-of-property/>

[17] Marissa Pullano, “Who Let the Dogs Out – Senate Bill S4248” (4 July 2021) New York Divorce & Family Law Blog, online: <nydivorceblog.com/2021/07/who-let-the-dogs-out-senate-bill-s4248/>

[18] Eugene Volokh, “Best Interests of the Dog” (15 Sept 2014) The Washington Post (Volokh Conspiracy Blog), online: <washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/15/best-interests-of-the-dog/>