Q: Should pet owners win lawsuits even if it isn't best for the pet?

August 9, 2009 | By Norrie | 3 answers | Expired: 1917 days ago


Obviously I love pets as do all Z2 members but I keep seeing so many blindly being on the side of pet owners that are being sued even if it isn't in the best interest of the pet.
When my parents divorced, I was 13 and although my dad was chasing women and looking for his lost youth, he fought my mom for custody, so silly, just wanting to win. I was given the choice, which was difficult. Should I live with my dad & have little or no supervision or w/ my mom who gave me many chores & had neighbors & family check on me when she was at work. I'm sure a dad's rights would have been all for my dad having custody but not childrens rights. I had to make my first grown up decision then but pets cannot and some pet owners don't seem to think things through in a mature way.

What's your opinion?

Readers' Answers (3)

Aug 10, 2009

I guess the hard part is a pet can't speak for itself and are stuck in the middle. When it comes to a custody fight for a pet, maybe the best way to decide would be to determine who took the pet for vet visits, fed and walked them. It would probably mean having material witnesses or affidavits from individuals who could give testimony as to who is better suited to care for the pet. As far as a home not being suited for a pet, I think they would have to determine if local ordinances are being followed or not. Those laws and covenants should already be in place, and if not, I don't know if there's much they can due unless it's a case of abuse or neglect.

Thumbs Up: 0 | Thumbs up!


Aug 11, 2009

it's unclear what lawsuits you're referring to. in some cases, it is to determine what is best for the animal, such as abuse and neglect cases. other times, the animal is somehow involved in a lawsuit that otherwise has nothing to do w/them. in those cases, although the animal's best interest should be a factor, human ignorance is only looking for justice to the entire problem. animals aren't often regarded as being valuable enough to need differences that could have been made. many people see them as possessions, even if they too love animals.

Thumbs Up: 0 | Thumbs up!


Aug 23, 2009

There are definitely some people who don't need to have pets. I know those cases are often hard to prove, especially when its neglect & not outright abuse, & pets often suffer a long time before enough proof is available for law enforcement to act. When animals are confiscated due to neglect or abuse, I don't think the owners should get their pets back. They shouldn't even be allowed to sue to try to get them back. As far as pets of divorce, that's tough. Sometimes, either person would be excellent caretakers. Other times, wanting custody of the pet is more about spiting the other person. The pets can speak for themselves to some extent & should be allowed to do so. Courts should have both parties in a room & bring the pet in & see who they go to. As Kavy said, testimony from vets & other witnesses should also be considered to determine who was actually the caregiver.

Thumbs Up: 0 | Thumbs up!

You might also enjoy:

Got a question about your pet? Get the answers you need from Zootoo's community of pet experts and owners.



See more ›
Know the Answer?

There are always new questions that need answers. Contribute your knowledge about pets.

Need to know | Zootoo Website