Introduction
The end of a relationship is never simple, and for many couples today, it comes with an unexpected question: who gets the pet?
As more couples choose to raise pets together, the issue of pet custody has added new complexity to ancillary divorce proceedings. For couples who view their pets as integral members of the family, disputes over ownership have become both emotionally charged and legally intricate, requiring careful consideration of each pet’s care and placement.
Singapore’s Stance on Pets in Divorce Proceedings
Under Singapore law, pets are classified as personal property. This means that, during divorce proceedings, pets are treated similarly to other items within the matrimonial asset pool, such as furniture and vehicles, rather than as sentient family members. As a result, courts do not grant formal custody or care and control of their pets.
However, the case of Tan Huey Kuan v Tan Kok Chye [2011] 3 SLR 960 demonstrates that the process is not entirely devoid of consideration for the animal’s welfare. While pets are legally classified as property, the courts may still place some emphasis on the well-being of the animal when deciding on ownership and possession.
Considerations in Assigning Pet Ownership
In the case of Tan Huey Kuan v Tan Kok Chye [2011] 3 SLR 960, the High Court considered the following factors when determining which party to grant ownership to:
- Which party had been taking care of the dog?
- Which party was closer or more attached to the dog?
- Which party the dog was more attached to?
- Which party would be better able to take care of the dog and attend to all its needs?
- What the home environment for the dog was going to be like?
- What would be in the dog’s overall best interest?
Alternative Approaches
When couples are unable to reach an agreement regarding their pet, mediation with a neutral third party can be a constructive option. Mediation provides an opportunity for both parties to discuss their concerns and work towards an arrangement that considers the best interests of the pet. This approach is typically less adversarial and can help preserve goodwill even as the relationship ends.
Alternatively, couples may choose to formalise pet custody arrangements within their divorce settlement. Such agreements can address key aspects of the pet’s care and wellbeing such as living arrangements, visitation rights and responsibility for veterinary, food and grooming expenses. By establishing clear terms, both parties can ensure that the pet’s needs are consistently met and future disputes can be minimised.
Conclusion
Disputes over pet ownership can heighten the emotional strain of divorce. To mitigate potential conflict, couples are encouraged to discuss and establish clear arrangements for their pet early on, ideally before tensions arise. Such arrangements should outline the allocation of financial responsibilities, caregiving duties, and other obligations related to the pet’s wellbeing.
Unlike human children, an animal’s preferences cannot be directly expressed or taken into account. That makes it even more crucial for courts and couples alike to recognise the emotional significance of these relationships. As pets occupy an increasingly central place in family life, the law will need to evolve to reflect this reality. We look forward to seeing more comprehensive legal frameworks that acknowledge the complexities of pet ownership disputes in divorce and better safeguard the welfare of the animals involved.
Case Reference: Tan Huey Kuan v Tan Kok Chye [2011] SGHC 86
