Pre-nuptial agreements, known as “pre-nups”, have long divided the public imagination. For some, they’re an insurance policy – a pragmatic box-ticking exercise to guarantee a fair division of assets should a marriage one day dissolve.
But for others, they’re a no-no: at best unromantic, at worst a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy hovering cynically over the exchange of wedding vows supposed to last forever.
In recent years, though, a new dimension – in the form of pets – has arrived barking and growling into the increasingly complicated conjugal mix.
In Jersey, as in England and Wales, pets are treated as “belongings” or “chattel” – to be divvied up along with the dartboard, corner sofa, or flat-screen TV.
Judges have previously been invited to take into account standard family law provisions, which tend to lead to the pet staying with whoever’s name happens to be on the “proof of purchase” document.
But as our relationship with pets changes – with more couples raising animals in a fashion more akin to raising children – is there a case that our approach to their ownership should also evolve too?
To build a fuller picture, Express spoke to Peter Blandin – a Jersey solicitor at law firm Le Gallais & Luce – about all things “pet-nup”…
What’s changing?
Mr Blandin said: “It’s been a sort of simmering topic for a number of years in many respects, sort of like rumblings here and there.
“I just think it’s one of those where there is an increasing amount – or at least as I see it within my own social circle – an increasing amount of modern couples that are choosing, sometimes, to have pets instead of children.”
“Sometimes,” he continued, “it can be the case when the focus is on the big assets, as it sometimes can be, animals can sometimes slip through the gaps.
“[But] people often say you can get more attached to animals than anything else, even if they are somebody’s primary companion.”
Mr Blandin said that numerous jurisdictions – including Spain, France, and Australia – have reformed the law to recognise pets as a “different category” of personal possession.
He pointed to the 2024 case of FI v DO (“Fido”), in which a dog registered to the husband was transferred to his ex-wife on grounds of what was best for the pet.
“In that ‘Fido’ case they almost took more of a welfare approach,” Mr Blandin reflected.
“Not quite as far as they would in respect of children, but it’s definitely more in line with that.
“It could well be a shifting attitude; it’s just becoming a more poignant point of conversation.”
Shared custody?
While Mr Blandin was quick to point out the limited case law on “pet-nups” in Jersey, he told of “instances where pets have almost been used as a sort of bargaining chip in wider financial discussions”.
He added: “Hostilities can rise quickly if an agreement in relation to wider finances has been reached and all of a sudden pet discussions come into the fold.
“If hostilities were to rise, the worst-case scenario could result in agreements coming undone.
“I’ve seen prolonged arguments over pets lasting – in one case many, many moons ago – over the course of months.”
But a “pet-nup”, Peter suggested, might help to nip any festering arguments in the bud; especially if “shared custody” agreements can be put in place in relation to pets.
“In doing online research, I did hear of cases where schedules of contact are in place for the pets, and indeed I think one of my colleagues did a case a few years ago setting out a schedule of contact for a pet.
“Even recently, Brazil changed their law: judges can [now] make decisions regarding shared custody where there is disagreement over pets, so there does seem to be a gathering discussion for this on a global basis.”
How would a ‘pet-nup’ work?
Although a “pet-nup” is not legally binding, Mr Blandin stressed that it would still serve as a useful indication of “clear agreed intent” during a court dispute.
“Like pre-nups and post-nups, ‘pet-nups’ are more common law issues at the moment. There are no sort of statutory things surrounding them, [they are] persuasive rather than binding,” he explained.
“If you have something in place, that this is what you agreed should the worst happen, it’s – at the very least – an indication of intention as to what the parties wanted to do.
“As I say, there hasn’t been published any specific case law regarding pets only in Jersey, but should the circumstance arise, if a ‘pet-nup’ is in place, the court can take it into account.”
I’ve seen prolonged arguments over pets lasting – in one case many, many moons ago – over the course of months
Peter blandin
Mr Blandin said ‘pet-nup’ agreements between couples could be as “wide or as narrow” as they’d like.
“It’s quite an open topic. Ultimately it’s up to people. If they would like to do it if they have a strong emotional connection to a pet, and it appears that it’s going to be a long-term commitment, they could absolutely do that if they want to do.”
The solicitor confirmed: “I attended a seminar on it not too long ago that prompted me to investigate a bit more, and it does appear that some people will [now] do a ‘pet-nup’ as a separate document.”
A death knell for the romantics?
Like ‘pre-nups’, Mr Blandin acknowledged that ‘pet-nups’ might run counter to our more romantic notions of marriage.
“I absolutely take the point that it could be said to be taking away the romantic element,” he said.
“But it’s ultimately about trying to safeguard the practical, because it’s not just necessarily shared custody of a pet, it’s the financial side of it: the vet bills, a dog licence, paying for kennels, immunisation and things like that.
“If one party has more of an ability to meet the financial side, how does that factor in?
“As I say, it does get very subjective and it can be – forgive the phrasing – a bit of a rabbit hole.”
It is also worth noting, Mr Blandin added, that dogs and cats can often “live for the best part of 20 years” and “are not a short-term commitment”.
“The ‘pet-nup’ side of things,” he surmised, “is just trying to get arrangements in place.”
HAVE YOUR SAY…
Did you have a break-up involving a pet? Did you and your ex agree on who keeps your furry friend – or did things get complicated?
Share your experience with us by emailing editor@bailiwickexpress.com.