The police were called to a residential address in Southeast Michigan. A man had barricaded himself and his dog in an attic. He refused to come down. The dog—his companion of over a decade, the creature he’d fed, walked, cared for, and loved through his marriage and beyond—was about to be taken from him by court order.
After the divorce trial, the judge had awarded the dog to his ex-wife. The dog was marital property. She got it. That’s what Michigan law said. And so, in desperation, he did the only thing he could think of: he took the dog and refused to let go.
The police removed the dog. He lost his best friend. The law called it equitable distribution of assets.
This isn’t a hypothetical. And while it happened years ago, it represents a legal reality that thousands of Michigan couples face every year: when your marriage ends, the law values your dog the same as your dining room table.
In our firm’s experience practicing family law in Southeast Michigan, we’ve heard this complaint countless times. Clients come to us asking, “How will the court handle Fido?” and we have to explain that under Michigan law, companion animals are personal property—no different than furniture, vehicles, or kitchen appliances. The emotional bond you’ve developed, the time you’ve invested in care, the way your dog depends on you—none of that matters legally.
It’s time for Michigan to fix this.
How Michigan Currently Treats Your Pet
Under Michigan law, companion animals—dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, and other pets—are classified as personal property subject to equitable distribution, just like any other marital asset.
When a couple divorces in Michigan, the court applies the equitable distribution framework under MCL 552.401 to divide all marital property. This includes pets. The factors courts consider include who acquired or contributed to acquiring the pet, each party’s earning abilities and financial circumstances, the standard of living established during marriage, and the conduct of the parties in limited circumstances.
Notice what’s missing? Any consideration of the emotional bond between you and your pet. Any analysis of who the primary caregiver is. Any assessment of the pet’s own welfare.
Courts divide pets the way they divide china cabinets and investment accounts. The animal goes to one party or the other. Joint ownership isn’t really an option—you can’t co-own property like you can co-parent children. One person gets the dog. The other gets something else of equivalent value.
And that’s it.
Why This Framework Is Broken
On the surface, treating pets as property seems logical. A pet is something you own. Why shouldn’t property law apply?
The answer is simple: companion animals are not inanimate objects. They’re living beings with emotional and physical needs. They form bonds. They suffer when those bonds are severed. They depend on consistent care, routine, and the people who love them.
Emotional Attachment
A dog isn’t a lamp. You don’t develop an emotional relationship with your dining room table. But you do with a pet. Pets are family members—sometimes the family member people are closest to. In a divorce, separating someone from a beloved pet causes genuine psychological harm, comparable to other significant losses.
The law recognizes this in other contexts. Service animals are treated differently because of their role in their owner’s life. Emotional support animals receive legal recognition. Yet in divorce, that emotional reality disappears.
Caregiving and Responsibility
Often, one spouse is the primary caregiver. They’re the one who walks the dog every morning, schedules vet appointments, pays for food and medical care, and provides the day-to-day nurturing. Under property law, that caregiving doesn’t matter. The pet is an asset to be divided, not a relationship to be honored.
Compare this to child custody, where caregiving history is central to the analysis. A parent who’s been the primary caregiver has strong claims to custody—because the law recognizes that continuity and stability matter for a child’s wellbeing. Why doesn’t the same logic apply to pets?
The Pet’s Own Welfare
Here’s the hardest truth: under Michigan’s current framework, the court doesn’t have to consider what’s best for the pet itself. The pet is property. Property doesn’t have interests—it has owners.
But pets do have interests. They need stability. They need their caregiver. They need suitable living conditions. Uprooting a dog from the home and family where it’s lived for years—where it knows the routine, the people, the environment—causes genuine suffering.
Nine other jurisdictions have recognized this basic truth. Michigan has not.
Michigan Is Behind the Curve
For decades, Michigan wasn’t alone in treating pets as property. Across America, the law was uniform: pets are stuff. You divide them like furniture.
But starting in 2017, that began to change.
Alaska: The First State (2017)
Alaska became the first state in the nation to require courts to consider a pet’s well-being when dividing animals in divorce. The statute doesn’t require joint custody or complex analysis—just that the court consider the animal’s welfare alongside traditional property division factors.
It was a small change. But it was revolutionary.
Illinois: A Detailed Framework (2018)
Illinois went further. In 2018, Illinois enacted a statute that requires courts to consider the animal’s well-being, who is the primary caregiver, the emotional bond between each party and the pet, and each party’s ability and willingness to provide care.
Illinois courts can now award sole ownership to one party or joint ownership and responsibility to both—an option that property law doesn’t allow. The pet goes where it’s best cared for, not necessarily where it generates the most value.
California: The Discretionary Approach (2019)
California took a different path. Rather than mandate consideration of “best interests,” California’s 2019 law makes the analysis discretionary—giving courts flexibility without creating a new framework as complex as child custody.
The Wave Continues
Since 2017, seven more jurisdictions have adopted pet custody statutes: New York (2021), Maine (2021), New Hampshire (2019), Delaware (2023), Rhode Island (2024), and Washington D.C. (2023).
What started as Alaska’s experiment is now becoming standard. Courts in nine jurisdictions have spent years applying these statutes. Judges, lawyers, and families have learned what works.
And it works.
What These States Are Actually Doing
If you’re worried that pet custody law means turning animal disputes into child custody battles—courts tied up for months debating whether Fido prefers mom or dad—relax. That’s not what’s happening.
Here’s what actually happens in states with pet statutes:
It Encourages Settlement
When couples know the court will consider caregiving history, emotional bonds, and the pet’s welfare—not just ownership—they’re more likely to negotiate. Many settlements include arrangements like one party gets the pet while the other gets equivalent value, joint ownership with a detailed care schedule, or one party buying out the other’s interest in the pet.
These arrangements would be difficult under Michigan’s strict property model. But they’re perfectly legal—and common—in states with pet statutes.
It Respects Caregiving Reality
When a spouse has been the primary caregiver for years, courts in these states can award the pet to that person even if they’d get less of the total marital estate in return. The logic: the pet goes with the person who’s been caring for it, which is better for the pet and often more efficient for the family.
It Addresses Abuse and Neglect
Some of these statutes allow courts to consider a history of animal cruelty or neglect when making pet custody decisions. This gives judges a tool to protect animals from abusers—something Michigan law currently doesn’t do.
It Works for Joint Custody
In cases where both spouses have been equally involved in pet care—or where they want to continue sharing responsibility—courts can award joint custody. This isn’t child custody with all its complexity. It’s a straightforward arrangement: you both own the pet, you both have obligations, you need to cooperate on care.
No courts are overwhelmed. No judges are spending weeks on pet custody trials. What’s actually happening is more sensible outcomes, more settlements, and less litigation.
A Framework for Michigan
So what should Michigan do?
We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Eight years of practice in other states shows what works. Here’s what a Michigan statute could include:
Core Principles
Scope would apply only to companion animals—dogs, cats, rabbits, birds, and similar animals kept primarily for companionship. It would not apply to service animals (which have their own legal framework) or livestock (which serve economic functions).
A pet acquired during the marriage would be presumed marital property, subject to the usual exceptions (gift, inheritance, prenuptial agreement). Pets acquired before marriage would remain separate property.
The Analysis
When dividing marital property that includes a pet, courts would consider:
- Who is the primary caregiver (who feeds, walks, grooms, and provides daily care)
- The animal’s well-being (physical and emotional health, minimizing disruption to routine)
- Each party’s ability and willingness to provide care (work schedule, finances, living situation)
- The emotional bond between each party and the animal
- The pet’s living situation (does one party have a suitable home, a yard, stability)
- Integration with minor children if applicable (does the pet’s presence benefit the children)
- Any history of cruelty, neglect, or abuse
Outcome Flexibility
Courts could award sole ownership to one party or joint ownership and shared responsibility to both—an option property law doesn’t currently allow.
Written Agreements
Parties could negotiate and courts could enforce detailed arrangements for shared care, visitation, and financial responsibility—options that don’t fully exist under pure property law.
Why This Matters Beyond the Attic
The man in the attic is an extreme case. But his desperation speaks to something real: the law is failing to recognize what everyone knows to be true—that pets are family, not furniture.
This matters for reasons beyond emotion.
- For abuse survivors: Abusers often threaten or harm pets as a control mechanism. Michigan’s domestic violence statute doesn’t specifically allow courts to include pets in protective orders in the same way some other states do. If Michigan adopted comprehensive pet custody law, courts could better address situations where an abuser threatens or controls the pet—a critical safety consideration.
- For children: Research consistently shows that pet ownership supports child development and wellbeing. When a child has bonded with a pet, separation causes real harm. A pet custody framework that considers the child’s attachment to the animal serves the child’s best interests.
- For efficiency: Couples who know the law will consider caregiving history and the pet’s welfare are more likely to settle. Fewer pet disputes go to trial. Courts get relief from cases that property law handles poorly anyway.
- For animal welfare: A framework that requires courts to consider the pet’s own wellbeing—not just ownership—results in better outcomes for animals. They go with their primary caregiver. They avoid homes where there’s a history of neglect.
What You Can Do Right Now
If pet custody matters to you—either because you’re facing a divorce and worried about Fido, or because you believe Michigan’s law should change—here are concrete steps.
If You’re in a Divorce
- Document everything. Save vet receipts, photos, records of who feeds and cares for your pet. If you end up in court, this becomes evidence of caregiving.
- Communicate in writing. If pet care arrangements are discussed with your spouse, do it by email or text. Courts can see this.
- Negotiate early. If possible, reach a settlement on the pet before trial. Courts have more flexibility if both parties agree than if they have to decide.
- Seek legal guidance. Call our office. We can help you understand your options and position your case to maximize the chances of keeping your pet.
If You Believe the Law Should Change
- Share this blog. If this resonates with you, share it. Awareness builds momentum.
- Talk to your legislators. Michigan state representatives and senators need to hear from constituents that this gap in the law matters. Personal stories—your story—are powerful.
- Support reform. Legal organizations like the Animal Law Institute track pet custody legislation. You can volunteer, donate, or simply stay informed.
Frequently Asked Questions About Pets in Michigan Divorce
Are pets considered property in Michigan divorce?
Yes. Under current Michigan law, companion animals are classified as personal property subject to equitable distribution under MCL 552.401. Courts divide pets the same way they divide furniture, vehicles, and other marital assets. The emotional bond between you and your pet, your caregiving history, and the pet’s welfare are not factors the court is required to consider.
Can I get joint custody of my pet in Michigan?
Michigan law doesn’t specifically provide for “joint custody” of pets because pets are property, not dependents. However, if both spouses agree, they can negotiate a shared arrangement as part of the divorce settlement. The court can enforce this agreement. Without mutual agreement, the court will typically award the pet to one party as property.
How do I prove I should keep the pet in a Michigan divorce?
Document your role as the primary caregiver. Gather vet records showing you scheduled and paid for appointments, receipts for food, grooming, and supplies, photos and videos of you caring for the pet, and text messages or emails discussing pet care responsibilities. While Michigan courts divide pets as property, evidence of your investment and caregiving can help in negotiations and may influence how the court views the pet’s “value” to each party.
What if my spouse threatens to harm our pet during divorce?
If you believe your pet is in danger, document the threats and consult with an attorney immediately. While Michigan’s protective order framework has limitations regarding pets, there may be options depending on your circumstances. If there’s immediate danger to the animal, contact local animal control or law enforcement. At Boroja, Bernier & Associates, we can help you explore legal strategies to protect your pet.
Which states have pet custody laws?
As of 2024, nine jurisdictions have enacted pet custody statutes that require or allow courts to consider the pet’s wellbeing, caregiving history, and emotional bonds: Alaska (2017), Illinois (2018), California (2019), New Hampshire (2019), New York (2021), Maine (2021), Delaware (2023), Washington D.C. (2023), and Rhode Island (2024). Michigan has not yet adopted similar legislation.
Should I include my pet in a prenuptial agreement?
Yes. If you have a pet before marriage or anticipate getting one, you can include provisions about pet ownership in a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. This can specify who keeps the pet if the marriage ends, avoiding the uncertainty of property division. Michigan courts generally enforce these agreements if they’re properly drafted and executed.
Protect Your Pet and Your Family’s Future
If pet custody concerns you—whether because you’re in a divorce or because you believe Michigan’s law should evolve—we’re here to help.
At Boroja, Bernier & Associates, our family law attorneys help Southeast Michigan families navigate divorce, including the difficult questions about what happens to beloved pets. We understand both the legal framework and the emotional reality.
To schedule a consultation with the Michigan family law attorneys at Boroja, Bernier & Associates, call our law offices at (586) 991-7611. We’ll help you understand your options, document your caregiving, and position your case for the best possible outcome under Michigan’s current law.
With our main office in Shelby Township and satellite offices in Troy, Ann Arbor, and Lansing, we serve families throughout Macomb County, Oakland County, Wayne County, and Southeast Michigan. We’re here to help you protect what matters most—your relationship with your pet, and your family’s future.
Your pet deserves better than the law currently provides. Let’s work toward that future together.
Resources
- National Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-799-7233 (pets and abuse)
- Animal Law Institute: animallaw.info (state-by-state pet custody law tracking)
- Michigan Coalition to End Domestic and Sexual Violence: Resources for survivors (including pet-related safety concerns)
- Boroja, Bernier & Associates: (586) 991-7611 (Michigan family law)
