But Who Gets the Dog? Judges Explain How They Decide Pet Custody
"[T]he wife asked for custody of a hunting dog ... [but] did not hunt; the husband did," said Cobb Judicial Circuit Chief Judge A. Gregory Poole. "She was clearly asking for the dog out of spite."
January 23, 2024 at 11:57 AM
5 minute read
Family LawWhat You Need to Know
- With divorce, often comes to division of assets, including pets.
- In Georgia, pet custody is determined by a judge's discretion.
- Pet custody awards based on emotional attachment, financial investments and other considerations, per metro Atlanta judges.
As the new year ushers in an influx of clients seeking to cross "getting divorced" off their resolution lists, mediators gear up to facilitate civil splits, while judges and lawyers prepare to intervene in those that are contested.
But amid a national 35% divorce rate for those in the legal industry, some attorneys and jurists are preparing to dissolve their own marriages—and divvy up assets, including pets.
So, who gets the dog?
With the answer up to judges' discretion in Georgia, some are now revealing how they make their pet-custody decisions.
'Clearly Asking for the Dog Out of Spite'
With more than 20 years' experience on the bench, Cobb Judicial Circuit Chief Judge A. Gregory Poole told the Daily Report he'd encountered the scenario in his courtroom on more than one occasion.
Poole said that, because the Peach State lacked a statute outlining the division of pets in divorce proceedings, he based his award of pet custody on several considerations.
"I have had the occasion to determine to which party I would award custody of a pet, specifically, a dog," said Cobb Judicial Circuit Chief Judge A. Greg Poole. "I made my award taking into consideration facts such as which party took care of the pet's day-to-day needs, who usually took the pet for veterinary visits, which party had the strongest emotional attachment to the pet—to the extent I could tell—and other similar facts."
The Cobb County Superior Court chief judge said he also factored whether a minor held a bond with an animal. If he deemed a child to be "especially attached to a pet," Poole said he'd award custody of the pet to the parent he'd awarded custody of the child.
But Poole noted not all requests for pet custody are sincere.
"Now, I do recall one case, years ago, where the wife asked for custody of a hunting dog. The wife did not hunt; the husband did. She was clearly asking for the dog out of spite," Poole said. "The husband left with the dog!"
Argumentative and Self-Sufficient: Ever Wonder Why Some Lawyers Suck at Relationships?
'The Dog Went With the Children'
Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit Presiding Judge Asha F. Jackson has also had to decide pet custody.
In the absence of "hard and fast guidelines about who gets a dog in a divorce case," the DeKalb County Superior Court jurist said it's up to judges to make awards of property "on an equitable basis."
Jackson recalled a prior case in which a pet had been "the sticking point for the resolution of the divorce."
"It was unique because the dog was previously a military bomb sniffing service dog who retired from service," Jackson said. "The husband was allowed to keep the dog as a house pet with a disclosure and waiver from the military that the dog might require special handling."
But, over time, Jackson said the dog became a family pet for the husband, wife and the couple's two children.
When the parents separated years later and the husband accepted an out-of-state work assignment, Jackson noted that "the dog required special medical care, which was performed by the wife."
"During the divorce hearing, both parties vigorously argued that they should be awarded the dog, with the husband arguing that this had been his assigned work dog before it became the family pet and [the] wife arguing that, upon separating, she and the children kept and cared for the dog," Jackson said. "Ultimately, I awarded the dog to the wife as the primary caregiver for the children because in this compelling case for both parties, the children formed a bond with the dog. Therefore, the dog went with the children, and their primary caregiver was the wife."
The Tail That Wags the Dog: 'Pet Custody' Arrangements
The Daily Report also asked Clayton, Fulton and Gwinnett County superior court judges for their feedback on the considerations they factor when awarding pet custody.
As of midday Tuesday, neither Chief Judge Robert Mach and Judges Charles Eaton, Kelly Ellerbe, Shermela Williams nor Chief Judge Tim Hamil, respectively, had responded to the inquiry.
'Finding a Fair Solution'
Pet custody is a topic some lawyers have begun to prepare their clients to encounter in divorce proceedings. For instance, family law firm Hobson & Hobson in Marietta has made it a point to address the topic on its website.
In a section entitled, "Georgia's Legal Perspective on Pet Custody," spouses M. Sarah Hobson and Christopher F. Hobson reiterate that, in divorce proceedings, pets are equivalent to property under Georgia law, but that many judges consider the animal's wellbeing, living arrangements and who's been its primary caregiver when deciding pet custody.
"If one spouse bought or adopted the dog before the marriage, that dog belongs to that spouse individually. The courts do not consider pets acquired before marriage a part of marital property," read the married couple's firm website. "If you bought or adopted the dog during your marriage, it is marital property, and the courts will assign ownership equitably."
However, the husband-wife duo noted that, "unlike dividing up money or furniture, the court's main goal in deciding who gets the dog is to be fair and ensure both spouses are treated reasonably," according to their website.
"The court's focus isn't solely on who loves the dog more or who has a stronger attachment," the website read. "[I]t's about finding a fair solution that considers the best interests of both parties involved in the divorce."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Related Stories
View AllYou Might Like
View AllOral Argument Set: Justices to Weigh Constitutionality of Georgia's Equitable Caregiver Act in October
7 minute readPrecedential & Pro Bono: Maslon's Erica Holzer Defeats Sperm Donor's Paternity Suit
1 minute readGa. Appellate Panel Appears Hesitant to Reverse Custody Ruling Over Equitable Caregiver Statute
Cobb Judge Orders Unsealing of Divorce Case Involving Georgia Special Prosecutor Accused of Affair With Fulton DA
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Dog Gone It, Target: Provider of Retailer's Mascot Dog Sues Over Contract Cancellation
- 2Lululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
- 3Plaintiff Gets $500K Policy Limit Without Surgery
- 4Philadelphia Bar Association Executive Director Announces Retirement
- 5SEC Chair Gary Gensler to Resign on Trump's Inauguration Day
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250