What was once a relationship focused on love and mutual comprehension becomes a legal conflict, often abruptly concentrated on sharing of material possessions. Divorces can be stressful on the two parties involved, and will occasionally take years to put to rest. The psychological strain can, obviously, be huge. Particularly when kids are involved. As divorce becomes increasingly more common, so also does the trope of a kid with two households.
However, what about the pets? Children and monetary wealth are clearly the attention of a divorce, and with excellent reason. Pets, however, are often overlooked, and handled as a member of their material possessions. They are simply lumped in with all the automobiles, electronics, and other household products of value. But should this be the situation? Many will heartily disagree. And, lately, the courts are also shifting their stance.
Pets Aren’t Possessions
Many courts are no longer treating pets as material possessions. Directed by a few key lawmakers across the world, attempts are being created for pets to be treated along the lines of kids, instead of items. And, with people involved in divorce cases more frequently than not demanding this stance, courts around the world are adopting the strategy.
A number of cases are seen where pets are allowed shared custody, visitation rights, and what else which would be expected for a human kid. It is logical, given how attached many become to your own pets. And, clearly, the very best arrangement must clearly be hunted for living animals which were once part of a household.
If you love animals and can’t get enough of cute and cuddly cats or boisterous dogs, you need to check out Jackpot City casino online. There are several animal-themed games which are certain to keep you smiling!
Source: Pixabay
The Curious Case Of Gigi
Upon separating, the two were allowed shared custody of Gigi, but neither was happy with the outcome, and decided to take the matter further.
A court battle ensued that required over 2 decades, with Linda eventually being granted full custody of their dog. The legal war cost an estimated $150,000 bucks, which is far beyond what most will be happy to pay for custody of the pet. General consensus is that the situation was about much more than the pet, but, either way, it was Gigi that began changing how courts believed about pets.
Is Your Attitude Really Changing?
Gigi is one thing, but the simple fact that courts are usually starting to look at the best interest of pets is excellent news. But how many courts still treat pets like material possessions? A survey in 2014 conducted by the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers specifically stated there has been an increase of approximately 27% in court cases dealing with pet custody cases.
This survey covered the period before 2017, of five decades. But it should never be forgotten that there are those who simply cannot afford the legal fees involved in tackling such a circumstance. It might never be denied that people love their pets, but financial situations simply don’t allow for court conflict in many conditions.
Many lawyers state, frankly, it is best for couples to decide between themselves, beyond court, how pets should be dealt with. Settlements could be attained between couples without a court ever getting involved, ensuring that Fido or Fluffy has to see both parents alike, or one assumes full custody, and they don’t endure the ill effects of a nasty split.
Reference:
Southland Gaming & Racing Brings New Title and live table games
Nevada casino Earnings flat for February, tops $1B; sportsbooks View record handle
