A court ruling from Alicante addressed guardianship and care for a dog, declaring that animals are sensitive assets that cannot be foreclosed, mortgaged, abandoned, abused, or separated from their owners in cases of separation or divorce. The decision highlights a clash between two regulatory frameworks and shows why pet custody has become a heated topic in many family-law discussions across Spain and beyond. The ruling confirms that the dog is the exclusive property of its owner, who bears the costs of maintenance and care under exclusive responsibility, a point stressed in the final order.
This case, decided by the Alicante Court of First Instance No. 6, focused on a West Highland White Terrier given as a birthday present in 2015. The couple, married under a regime of economic separation since 2010, acquired the animal together and treated it as a cherished member of the family. As the marriage faced an emotional crisis in 2021, the wife sought a formal divorce, which intensified the debate over who should keep the pet.
At the time of the initial proceedings, neither party had included any pet provisions in the property settlement drafted by the spouses. Spain’s then-existing framework often treated animals as objects rather than sentient beings, a view slowly changing in contemporary law. Despite the absence of a formal agreement on pet custody, the couple had an informal arrangement. The dog would stay with the wife, alternating weekends and holiday periods, and both sides agreed to share ordinary expenses, including food and routine veterinary needs, with documentary justification provided for larger costs in advance.
Two elements defined the dispute: a unilateral move by the wife to restrict the ex-husband’s access to the dog six months after the divorce, and a counterclaim by the husband seeking exclusive ownership of the animal and a clarified cost regime for its care. He also sought language in the judgment that would compel the wife to relinquish the dog if she could not continue to care for it, and to compensate him for the animal’s loss if that happened. The husband described the wife’s actions as abusive, arguing that the arrangement unfairly limited his relationship with the pet while imposing the burden of care on him. The dog, according to testimony, had experienced stress-related issues after the change in living arrangements, including a period of disquiet and a damaged paw pad when returned to the husband after a move.
The defendant described the husband’s use of the pet as a means to control his life, suggesting that access to the dog during visits allowed him to intrude into the household and create distressing situations. The husband requested that the court declare exclusive ownership in his favor and remove any visitation or shared-cost obligations from the wife. He also asked the court to state that if he could not provide care in the future, ownership should transfer to him and the wife would be compensated for the loss of the animal.
Bad behavior
The court rejected the notion that the wife’s conduct should be labeled abusive simply because it prevented contact between the pet and the ex-husband. It reasoned that the precaution taken by the ex-wife did not stem from a private wish to harm the other party but rather reflected a legitimate desire to move on from the relationship, a sentiment that can become more common over time in long marriages.
When assessing post-dissolution contact, the judge recognized that emotional bonds with a pet do not disappear overnight. A more complex process often unfolds, with one or both parties clinging to the shared connection. The decision emphasized that simply noting that alimony expenses were paid during the living-together period does not prove ongoing joint ownership of a pet created through that bond.
Ultimately, the court found the dog to be the exclusive property of the wife based on the evidence presented during the trial. It dismissed the ex-husband’s claim for visitation or shared custody of the animal, stating that there was no basis to compel a regime that would extend beyond what the owner could tolerate.
A broader view: family status of pets
A lawyer representing the defendant argued that a pet should be treated as part of the family, not as mere property. The attorney highlighted the growing perspective that animals are sentient beings deserving of inclusion in divorce agreements. Pets offer support to many families and can be especially meaningful to children during and after parental separation. While the case illustrates a specific outcome, it also reflects a wider shift in family law toward recognizing pets as family members rather than resources to be divided. This shifting view has implications for how courts and lawyers approach shared custody and maintenance obligations in future cases. (Source: Court records)