A Chilean couple's divorce has sparked a legal debate over who should keep their pet dog, highlighting the lack of clear laws governing such cases. Maite, who recently ended a five-year marriage, adopted Benito, a mixed-breed dog, with her former husband, Cristóbal, three years ago. The dog became a cherished member of their family, accompanying them through major life events, including weekends, holidays, house moves, and even difficult days. Despite having no children or shared property, they both deeply loved Benito and jointly cared for him during their time together. When the relationship ended, the couple faced an unexpected challenge: determining who would take care of Benito. This issue, once considered unusual, is becoming increasingly common as pets gain more significance within families. However, Chilean law still treats animals as movable property under the Civil Code, which classifies them as "semovientes", mobile things that can be owned. As a result, disputes over pets often fall into the category of property conflicts rather than emotional or familial ones. The legal framework does not specifically address post-divorce custody of pets. A previous case involving two dogs, Igor and Bambú, illustrates this gap. An ex-partner filed a lawsuit using a legal mechanism intended for shared property, arguing for joint ownership. Initially, the 8th Civil Court in Santiago ruled in favor of shared custody, acknowledging the emotional bond between the dogs and their caretakers. However, the decision was later overturned by the Santiago Appeals Court, which found that there was insufficient evidence proving both parties were co-owners of the animals. This ruling underscores the broader problem: current legislation lacks specific provisions for resolving pet custody after a separation. To pursue legal action, one must first establish that the animals were part of a shared asset, raising questions about ownership rights. The absence of a dedicated legal process means judges must rely on general property rules, which fail to account for the unique nature of human-animal relationships. In response to these challenges, Law No. 21.020 on Responsible Pet Ownership represents a step forward. It outlines obligations for individuals who accept the care of an animal, requiring them to provide food, shelter, proper treatment, and veterinary attention. While this law improves accountability, it does not directly resolve the complexities of post-divorce pet custody. Legal experts argue that the existing system fails to recognize the emotional and social role pets play in households. Without tailored legal mechanisms, couples facing separation often find themselves navigating ambiguous territory, relying on personal agreements or court decisions based on outdated frameworks. The growing prevalence of such cases suggests a need for legislative reform that acknowledges the evolving status of pets in modern society.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.
Become a Supporter
CL
