A Court of Alicante before the law came into force, he made the final decision in the province of guardianship and guardianship for a dog. animals All taken into account sensitive assetsthat is, they cannot be foreclosed, mortgaged, abandoned, abused, or separated from one of their owners. separation or divorce. And secondly, this is exactly what causes a couple from Sant Joan to confront each other in court over the pet as if they were a child.
It has been especially in Alicante Court of First Instance No. 6given by the magistrate dog protection and care also obliges the woman to pay court costs against her ex-husband’s claims.
This is a judgment of special importance because it deals with a subject that is halfway between two regulations and has become “fashionable” everywhere. law firms.
The sentence reached by this newspaper is final and there is no appeal against it, as the following statements are included in the decision. The dog is the “exclusive property of the owner, he can enjoy the right in question without exclusive limitation. and covers its maintenance and maintenance costs under its exclusive responsibility”.
The couple married under the property separation economic regime in 2010 and bought in a deal in 2015. hatchery elche A Westy dog gave it to him as a birthday present. From then on, both took care of the pet and took care of the “new member” of the family very much.. But the marriage experienced an emotional crisis, and in 2021 she decided to definitively spoil their relationship by formalizing the divorce.
Nothing animal-related was provided in the regulatory agreement proposal submitted by both parties. It was normal at the time because the regulations in force in Spain viewed animals as objects rather than as beings capable of feeling.
However, the spouses agreed verbally. Westie He would normally stay with her, having her with him on both alternate weekends and half-holidays. It was also decided that 50% of the costs would be covered. Both food and extraordinary—veterinary, vaccines, and others of a similar nature—provide documentary justification for them beforehand.
Although the verbal agreement was being carried out smoothly for a certain period of time, six months after the divorce the woman unilaterally decided to prevent her ex-husband from visiting and being with the animal with her, thus denying the existence of the joint property herself. most visit schedule and contrary to their own actions. And this prompted his ex-partner, who was unable to resolve the issue out of court, to sue. sue in the courts.
At this point, he completely opposed the claim and in turn formalized a counterclaim demanding that the dog be declared his exclusive property. no visit or stay regime and to be on the exclusive account of the costs of the care given to the animal. However, she requested that it be expressly stated in the sentence that if she was unable to take care of her in the future, the pet should be given to her ex-husband, relinquished its ownership and use, and compensated for its loss. your animal.
Plaintiff considered his ex-wife’s decision to be “abusive”. The same phrase he used to characterize his request, which consisted of enjoying the animal four days a month, put him off the rest of the responsibilities. While it is true that he allowed the animal to be with him for a few days after the divorce, he finally decided to put an end to the situation. “Dog got super nervous about change of address” and was once returned to him “with damaged paw pads”.
However, what prompted the defendant’s decision not to continue sharing Westy was, as the plaintiff stated during the trial, that he allegedly used the pet as a tool for control of his life and, as a result, he suffered from a worsening of his psychological state. She said that her ex-husband, taking advantage of the visits to the animal, entered the house with complete freedom and passed it off. disturbing situations”. Therefore, he asked the magistrate to attribute the exclusive ownership of the animal in favor of his ex-wife, if his counterclaim was not accepted. “not recommended” to keep in touch with him. Moreover, he did not want me to establish any visitation regime or obligation to contribute to any expense in his favor.
“Bad behaviour”
The sentence denies that her behavior could be labeled “abusive” because it doesn’t prevent contact between her pet and her ex-husband, “because this precaution doesn’t have to follow the rules. private desire to harm the other” as alleged by the defendant, even by reference to malicious intent, “but also, clearly and simply, able to respond to the legitimate desire to turn the page and ending a romantic relationship this could have become rare over the years”.
And with regard to the plaintiff’s continued relationship with the animal after the dissolution of the wedlock, “normally, breaking emotional ties It doesn’t usually happen from one day to the next, but in many, as a more or less convoluted process where one or both parties tend to hold on to common bonds – in this case a pet – tends to keep contact. Pointing out the legal basis of the provision of “situations where one of the parties desires more than the other”, it is not sufficient to conclude that “the fact that both parties undertake the alimony expenses during the period of living together is really existing. collection of goods created on the pet”.
For all these reasons, and after the dog was proven to be her exclusive property during the trial, the magistrate continued to dismiss the ex-husband’s claim in its entirety, “because he has no right to demand any visitation from the animal’s regime or stay against him beyond what the owner can tolerate.” .
“One more member of the family”
This Lawyer who assisted the defendant, Isabel Barcelo Herrerohenceforth “the dog or any other pet is one of the family, it is no longer legally considered a thing but a sentient being, and therefore warns that it must be included in the family. divorce agreement. You should also keep in mind that they are a great support for many people, as the lawyer emphasized. Especially for kids. In fact, pets have been shown to help minors when relationships break down. parentsOf course, it’s not an easy process for families”.