Divorce proceedings often lead to a lot of emotional conversations and difficult decisions. Couples may have spent years establishing themselves financially and starting a family, only for everything to change in a matter of days.
Some issues can be much more difficult than others to address in a pragmatic manner. For couples who have pets, their companion animals may become a focal point during their divorce negotiations. Couples in Connecticut often have a hard time agreeing about what should happen with their shared animals. The three questions below can help people establish realistic goals when planning the future of a pet as part of their divorce process.
What are the animal’s needs?
Every pet has different requirements for interaction, exercise and veterinary support. Some pets are relatively easy for people to maintain. Others require grooming every few weeks and veterinary care frequently. The type of animal may also influence the best arrangements for the pet in the future. Cats typically need to remain in one location consistently and cannot travel between households. Dogs, on the other hand, tend to be a bit more flexible regarding their living arrangements. They can stay with dog sitters or travel with the children in the family without the moves provoking disruptive and destructive behavior.
Can the spouses agree on an arrangement?
Many people like the idea of shared pet custody, but they don’t understand such arrangements. In Connecticut, the courts typically treat animals as though they are property rather than parts of the family. The only possible way in which pet parents can share custody of a dog is usually through a consensual arrangement between the two of them. A judge typically treats pets as part of the marital estate for the purposes of property division.
Is solo ownership realistic?
In cases where spouses are unlikely to reach a settlement with one another, people have to ask themselves whether they can reasonably care for the pet on their own. Specifically, they need to look at their finances and their schedule to see if they can be present for the animal in the way that it requires. Those with careers that require long shifts, like medical professionals, and those who travel for work may find that owning a pet without a spouse to supplement their availability may not be a very practical goal. The animal could be happier and healthier at the other household because of its need for regular human interaction.
Taking the time to think carefully about issues that can prompt emotional responses can help people stay more reasonable and rational as they prepare for divorce. Those who understand how the state addresses potentially contentious matters, like pet ownership, are in a strong position to set specific priorities and goals that can help them avoid common divorce pitfalls.
