Pennsylvania looks poised to complete the passage of legislation requiring judges to consider the welfare of “companion animals”—you know, pets?— in divorce proceedings. House Bill 97, sponsored by dog-loving Rep. Anita Kulik, D-Allegheny, is heading to the statute book unless Governor Josh Shapiro has the guts to alienate a rather passionate voting bloc by vetoing it.
The bill amends the state’s Domestic Relations statute to add a special category for companion animals, recognizing them as sentient, “living beings that are generally regarded as cherished family members” and not property to be treated as such. As of now, pets in Pennsylvania divorces have the same status as furniture or appliances. Under the new law, judges would decide which member of the dissolving union should get custody of pets based on…
- …whether the animal was acquired before or during the marriage.
- …the pet’s basic daily needs, and who is best able to fulfill them
- …which party was usually in charge of veterinary care and took care of the animals’ exercise and social interaction.
- …which party is most likely to comply with compliance with state and local regulations regarding pets.
- …who haa the greater financial ability to support the animal.
Reasonably, the legislation also presumes that a service animal should remain with the party who needs the service.
My late wife, an animal junkie who got far more upset over movies where a dog dies (as in “Turner and Hooch,” “Old Yeller,” “My Dog Skip”…actually, the dog usually dies in dog movies) than when, say, Ali MacGraw died in “Love Story,” would have loved that law. She never forgave Tom Cruise for treating his dog “like a piece of furniture” in “The Firm.”
Ethics Alarms 
Meanwhile, in NYC, there’s a bill to make having dogs indoors illegal. Because, apparently, Muslims consider dogs to be unclean. I want to ask if they mean unhygienic or spiritually unclean.
I cannot find any evidence of this bill in NYC (or NY). Do you have a source?
Perhaps it originated with this: Mamdani ally, Nerdeen Kiswani, said dogs should be banned as indoor pets in New York City because they’re “unclean & unIslamic”.
Probably. I can’t find anything either. I may have fallen for an inaccurate headline. It’s just hard not to believe this stuff now.
The conservative press and “new media’ is as unreliable as the Axis media. Verdict: true. Now what?
I wish I knew, man.
Given the dogs/muslims thing going on, that’s the story I expected you to write about. Anyway, this one is better.
Just curious, what did your wife think of A Dog’s Purpose?
She was so sick, depressed and miserable at that point that I couldn’t get her to watch it all the way through, because dogs dying always upset her.
I’m kind of surprised that this didn’t come up sooner.
The interesting situations will arise when the animals have more than nominal value, my first thought was to “pet” horses or something like that, but really… There are dogs out there that cost thousands if you’re picky about the breed.
I’m not sure I’ve ever recovered from reading “Old Yeller” as a twelve year old.
When I first started reading this piece, I was thinking our host was going to come down on the side of opposing the idea. I actually found most of the proposals quite reasonable and – given how pets are dearly loved by their owners in the vast majority of cases – logical. AS it turns out, I ended up agreeing with our host.
I do NOT think animals – even cherished pets – rise to the level of a human being. They are animals…we are not. And I type that as a person who still thinks about Bailey almost every day and misses her every time I do. But because animals are higher on the scale of importance than a piece of furniture or jewelry or the Jeep in the garage, they should get more consideration than those things in divorce proceedings.