- Disputes often arise where both spouses claim to have been the primary caregiver of a pet.
- High-value animals such as thoroughbred horses complicate matters where ownership and financial contribution differ.
- Mediation is frequently encouraged to avoid costly litigation over animals classified as property.
Divorce proceedings are increasingly giving rise to disputes over pets, with dogs and cats most commonly at the centre of conflict.
Family law attorney Bertus Preller says these disputes typically arise where both spouses regard themselves as the animal’s primary caregiver and are unwilling to relinquish care after separation. While pets are legally classified as property under South African law, Preller notes that disagreements over them can become highly contentious during divorce negotiations.
“I have seen cases where spouses fight over a beloved family dog with the same intensity as a child care and contact dispute,” Preller said. In many matters, one party relies on proof that they purchased the animal, while the other points to having handled the daily responsibilities of feeding, walking, training, and veterinary care throughout the marriage.
Under South African law, animals do not enjoy the same legal status as children and are not entitled to custody or contact arrangements. This means that disputes over pets are resolved within the framework of asset division. Preller says this legal position often clashes with how separating couples experience their relationship with their animals.
“The difficulty from a legal perspective is that animals are classified as property, not as dependents,” he said. According to Preller, while courts do not determine pet custody in the same way they decide care of children, the emotional attachment to pets is often acknowledged during settlement negotiations.
High-value animals and shared costs
Disputes become more complex when animals have significant financial value. Preller has dealt with matters involving thoroughbred horses, where both emotional attachment and monetary investment are at stake. He explains that complications arise when an animal is registered in one spouse’s name, but the other has contributed financially to its upkeep, training, or competition expenses.
“I have dealt with matters involving thoroughbred horses where there is both emotional attachment and significant financial value at stake,” Preller said. These cases require consideration of both formal ownership and documented financial contributions made during the marriage.
Multiple pets can also present challenges. In some matters, Preller has seen couples negotiate arrangements rather than allowing one party to take all the animals. “One case involved a couple who worked out an arrangement where they had alternate weeks with their two dogs,” he said, explaining that neither party wanted to separate the animals from each other or from both owners. Such arrangements, he stressed, are reached by agreement and not imposed by the courts.
Mediation favoured over litigation
Preller warns that disputes over pets can become expensive and time-consuming if they proceed to court. In high-conflict divorces, pets are sometimes specifically included in settlement agreements, with provisions addressing care, veterinary expenses, and agreed-upon access.
“I always encourage clients to try to mediate pet care and contact arrangements as part of their overall settlement,” Preller said. Based on his experience, the financial and emotional costs of prolonged litigation over a pet often outweigh any benefits gained from a court ruling.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
