Pets, Horses and Divorce: What FI v DO Tells Us About Ownership and Finances

What FI v DO Tells Us About Pet Ownership and Finances

There’s no denying it — pets are family. But in the eyes of the law, they’ve traditionally been treated very differently. The Family Court’s decision in FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), handed down in December 2024, has brought much-needed clarity (and sparked fresh debate) about how pets are handled when a relationship breaks down.

Background: Why FI v DO Matters

In FI v DO, the court was asked to decide on the usual financial issues following divorce — including the family home, maintenance and the division of assets — but also on something far more personal: who should keep the family dog.

Although pets are still legally classed as “chattels” (personal property), this case shows a clear shift in how the court approaches disputes involving companion animals. The couple’s golden retriever became the focus of detailed evidence about day-to-day care, attachment, routine and stability — not just paperwork or who originally paid.

The judge ultimately ruled that the dog should remain with the wife. A key reason was that, since separation, she had been the dog’s primary caregiver, the dog had lived with her and the children, and that home provided a familiar and stable environment.

Pets in Divorce: The Current Legal Position

Under English law, pets are still treated as property, and the court’s power to deal with them generally sits within financial remedy proceedings (as part of the overall division of assets). However, FI v DO shows that judges may look beyond the label of “property” when deciding what’s fair and workable.

• Who paid isn’t everything. The court may be less interested in who bought the pet and more interested in who has actually been caring for it.
• The animal’s living situation matters. Continuity of care, attachment to a particular household and day-to-day stability are increasingly relevant.
• Welfare is not a full “best interests” test (as in Children Act proceedings), but it can still influence how a judge uses their discretion within the property framework.

It’s important to add that FI v DO is not a binding precedent in the way a higher court decision would be — but it is highly likely to influence future negotiations and the way similar disputes are argued.

From Dogs to Horses: Broader Implications

For many clients — particularly in rural communities and among equestrian families — the implications go beyond dogs and cats. Horses, ponies and other animals can be deeply woven into family life, and sometimes into a family’s finances too.

If you’re separating, it’s worth thinking about:

• Are the animals central to daily life or income? Horses may have commercial value (competition, breeding, training or riding schools), which can complicate how they are treated within a financial settlement.
• Who actually provides the care? Evidence of feeding, mucking out, exercising, vet visits, farrier appointments and training can help show the reality of the caregiving role — just as it did in FI v DO.
• Do financial contributions reflect ownership? With horses, ongoing costs can be significant (livery, vet bills, insurance, transport, tack). But contribution alone may not determine who keeps the animal.
• Are children involved? For many families, pets and horses form part of a child’s routine and emotional wellbeing. While the court doesn’t make “child arrangements” for animals, this can still be persuasive when shaping an overall settlement.

In some cases, horses may be treated more like high-value assets than companion pets. Even so, the approach in FI v DO suggests the court is increasingly willing to look at the lived reality of the relationship between people and animals — not just paperwork.

Practical Steps for Clients

Whether you’re dealing with a family dog or a stable of horses, the best outcomes usually come from tackling the issue early and sensibly.

1. Encourage clarity early on.
   Discuss arrangements for pets and animals at the outset of separation — ideally before positions harden and conflict escalates.
2. Consider agreements in advance.
   A “pet-nup”, shared stewardship agreement or co-ownership document can help record your intentions. These aren’t binding in the same way as a nuptial agreement, but they can be persuasive evidence of what you both agreed.
3. Keep evidence of caregiving.
   Records of who provides day-to-day care (and who pays which expenses) can be crucial if the dispute becomes contested. Vet records, insurance documents, training invoices and livery agreements may all help.
4. Approach the dispute holistically.
   Just as with children and finances, animals should be part of the overall separation plan — not an afterthought.

Conclusion

FI v DO reflects how the law is evolving — slowly and pragmatically — to recognise the emotional and practical reality of pets in family life. While animals remain legally classed as property, the court is showing a willingness to look beyond strict ownership and towards the real-world bonds and caregiving arrangements that underpin modern families.

For anyone advising or going through separation, the message is simple: pets (and horses) matter. The way you handle those discussions — and how well you prepare — can affect not only the financial outcome, but also everyone’s emotional wellbeing.