Animal law in the United States

See Animal law 2

Animal law is a relatively new area of study that examines—and often challenges—
how the law treats animals. Animal law was first enacted in England in 1822 with anti-cruelty legislation, which  prohibited the most blatant forms of cruelty. Other countries subsequently adopted a similar  approach, and criminalization of cruelty is the most common form of welfare legislation

In general, in the US, Australia and other countries, the law treats companion animals as personal property. “It is undisputed in the law that dogs and other domestic animals, commonly referred to as pets, are subjects of property or ownership. In fact, once any animal has been legitimately reduced to private control, confinement, and possession, it becomes private property.” (County of Pasco v. Riehl, 620 So.2d 229, 231 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1993)). Thus, general property laws apply to companion animals in proceedings running the gamut from criminal liability to civil ownership disputes.

Animal law, when promulgated, aims to protect the welfare of animals. The subject has three main components for academics. First, the history of the law of protecting animals generally. Second, the justifications of animal welfare law. Finally, current Animal legislation, regulations and general law which seeks to protect the welfare of companion animals and farm animals including those animals being exported for sale.

Topics covered include: consideration of animals in the context of morality, science and the law; the historical development of animal law as well as an overview of animal regulation; the prevention of cruelty; and the legal status of animals. The material is presented against the backdrop of the animal welfare and rights debate, encouraging students to consider and evaluate whether the current regime fosters accountability and ethical standards. In order to appraise United States’s regime more effectively, there are consideration of comparative law relating to animals.. The first relates to advances in animal welfare introduced by the European Union, and the second relates to the impact on animal welfare by the rules of the international trade law regime, as typified by the World Trade Organization.

Content

Topic 1 – Animals: Morality, Science and Justice
• Philosophical Approaches to the Moral Status of Animals
• Scientific Basis for Animal Welfare
• Animal Welfare as a Matter of Justice

Topic 2 – Historical Development of Animal Law
• Animals and Early History
• Liability for Harm Done by Animals
• Early Animal Cruelty Laws
• Animal Emancipation

Topic 3 – Legal Status of Animals
• Property Status of Animals
• Domestic and Wild Animals
• Issues with the Property Status of Animals
• Animal Welfare or Animal Rights?

Topic 4 – Overview of Animal Law in Australia
• The Nature of Animal Law; State Animal Welfare Laws and Codes of Practice
• What is an Animal?
• Concept of Animal Welfare in Legislation and Policy
• Criminal Liability
• Defences

Topic 5 – Regulation of the Treatment of Companion Animals
• Defining a Companion Animal
• Significance of Companion Animals
• Companion Animals in Custody Disputes
• Companion Animals and Estate Planning
• Can Animal Welfare Regimes Protect the Welfare of Companion Animals in an Effective Way?

Topic 6 – Regulation of the Treatment of Farm Animals
• What is a Farm Animal?
• Who is Responsible for Farm Animal Welfare?
• Evaluation of the Australian Regime; Notion of cruelty and Barriers to effective enforcement of law and policy

Topic 7 – Regulation of Wild Animals
• What is a Wild Animal; Wild animals as property
• Welfare of Wild Animals
• Wild Animals and Environmental Regulation
• Captive Wild Animals – Zoos and Circuses

Topic 8 – Regulation of Animal Testing
• Regulatory Framework in Australia
• What is a Research Animal?
• Codes and Ethics Committees
• State and Territory Laws

Topic 9 – International Context
• Comparison of the Approach of the European Union.
• Rules of the WTO (product/process). Do the Rules of the WTO Stand in the Way of Effective Regulation for Animal Welfare?

Topic 10 – Pets and Family law

• Pet custody law
• Pet custody in divorce
• Family code Section 6320 (2008), California
• Pet trusts

Pet custody in divorce
“A dog is personal property and while courts should not put a family pet in a position of being abused or uncared for, we do not have to determine the best interests of a pet.” (In re Marriage of Stewart, 356 N.W.2d 611, 612-13 (Iowa Ct. App. 1984)).

On the other hand, while the analysis has differed from the traditional model (employing no factored test), some courts have, in a round-about way, certainly allowed the companion animal’s best interest to enter their decisions as to which human caretaker should be awarded custody.

In Pratt v. Pratt, the court held that the best interest standard for children is inapplicable to dogs, but stated that the trial court can take into account the past mistreatment of the dogs.
In Vargas v. Vargas, a court awarded custody of the couple’s dog to the wife after considering testimony that the husband was not treating the dog very nicely and the facts that the husband’s home included both a scrap metal yard and a five-year-old child, despite the fact that the dog was a gift from the wife to the husband and the dog was registered to the husband with the American Kennel Club (A.K.C.).
In Juelfs v. Gough, the divorcing couple had agreed to a shared custody and visitation schedule for their dog, which the lower court initially granted. However, because the dog was being put in danger by fights with the wife’s other dogs and for reasons of contention between the two parties, it revoked the order. The wife appealed to the state’s Supreme Court, which agreed with the lower court and found no abuse of discretion in the revocation.
In a widely publicized Texas case, the court hearing the custody battle over a Gigi, a dog belonging to Dr. Stanley and Linda Perkins, considered such evidence as a canine bonding study and a “Day in the Life of Gigi” video.

Lanier v. Lanier in Pulaski, Tennessee involved a wife arguing for custody of a divorced couple’s dog based on evidence that she had kept him away from “ill-bred bitches,” ensured that he attend a weekly ladies’ Bible class, and prevented others from drinking alcohol in his presence; the husband argued for custody based on the facts that he had taught the dog numerous tricks, including to ride on the back of his motorcycle, and had himself refrained from drinking beer in front of the dog. The judge granted joint custody of the dog, ordering a switch in custody every six months (an order the wife violated by moving to Texas); for this case, the judge received national attention, including a segment on the television program 20/20.
In Juelfs v. Gough, the husband and wife had agreed to shared ownership of their dog, which the lower court incorporated into its order. Based on danger the dog faced by other dogs in the wife’s home and increased contention between the parties, the lower court next gave the husband custody with an order for the wife’s visitation, and finally awarded sole custody to the husband. The state’s Supreme Court affirmed the modified order, stating that, “The arrangement between Julie and Stephen assumed a set of facts, namely, cooperation between them, that proved not to exist, requiring judicial intervention.”
In Bennet v. Bennet, the trial court awarded the wife visitation of the dog, but the appellate court overturned the order based on the fact that the trial court lacked authority to order visitation with personal property, and remanded that the dog be allocated according to the state’s equitable distribution doctrine. The court there further illuminated its holding with comments that it was concerned with judicial economy: “Determinations as to custody and visitation lead to continuing enforcement and supervision problems (as evidenced by the instant case). Our courts are overwhelmed with the supervision of custody, visitation, and support matters related to the protection of our children. We cannot undertake the same responsibility with animals.”

In Desanctis v. Pritchard, the trial court dismissed a couple’s complaint asking it to enforce a settlement agreement that provided for shared custody of the dog, and the appellate court upheld the dismissal with comments that “[a]ppellant is seeking an arrangement analogous, in law, to a visitation schedule for a table or lamp,” and that “any terms set forth in the [a]greement are void to the extent that they attempt to award custodial visitation with or shared custody of personal property.”
The court in Nuzzaci v. Nuzzaci refused to sign an stipulation and order (prepared by the parties and signed by each of them and their attorneys) concerning visitation of the divorcing couple’s dog, stating that the court can only award the dog in its entirety to one party or the other, advising the couple to come to their own agreement, and reasoning that the court has no jurisdiction in the matter and further no way to side with one party or the other in the event of a future dispute.
The court bestowed special status upon companion animals in divorce proceedings in Arrington v. Arrington, classifying them as personal property but for which visitation should be allowed.
While the wife retained primary custody of the divorcing couple’s dog in the case In re Marriage of Fore, “the husband was granted access ‘with/to Rudy during the first seven days of every month.’ If the wife intended to board Rudy for any reason she was required to give the husband ‘the opportunity to spend the additional time with Rudy rather than putting him in a kennel.’” This arrangement was unsuccessful, resulting in “an ex parte order requiring the county sheriff to pick up Rudy from the husband and return him to the wife.”
“Just as with visitation schedules with children, people can also structure their visitation with pets to occur during a block of time during the year. In Assal v. Barwick, the husband was given a thirty day visitation period during each summer.”
In the case In re Marriage of Tevis-Bleich, the couple had agreed to a divorce settlement granting the husband visitation of their dog, which agreement the court incorporated into its order. [124] The wife later sought to have that provision removed, but the trial court stated that it lacked jurisdiction for such a modification, which the appellate court affirmed, leaving visitation intact.
In Fitch v. Eiseman, the trial court incorporated into the divorce decree the couple’s agreement for the dogs to remain with the children, which involved travel between the parties’ homes as part of the children’s shared custody agreement; when the wife failed to abide by the agreement, the state Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court to determine sole ownership by one of the parties.

Further reading:

• Unwarranted Discrepancies in the Advancement of Animal Law: The Growing Disparity in Protection Between Companion Animals and Agricultural Animals, EA Overcash – NCL Rev., 2012
• Who the Judge Ate for Breakfast: On the Limits of Creativity in Animal Law and the Redeeming Power of Powerlessness, M Liebman – Animal L., 2011
• Laying the Foundations for an International Animal Protection Regime, C Otter, S O’Sullivan… – The Journal of Animal Ethics, 2012
• The Rise of Animal Law, G Miller – Science, 2011
• A Global Justice Approach to Animal Law and Ethics, DG Tulloch… – 2012 –

See