As pets become such a large part of our lives, some dishes begin to modify this analysis and are ready to treat animals more like children. So far, this is especially the case for dogs. The courts have considered the best interests of pets in determining who gets custody of them. They also awarded owners shared deposits, visits and sub-deration payments. When a court is not prepared to do so, owners often exclude a contract between them. In deciding cases that go beyond a direct real estate analysis, the courts create a common law that can be used to support arguments for similar treatment of pets in the event of divorce in other parts of the country. Currently, the law provides that pets are personal property and should be assigned to one or the other owner, just like any other object. The current climate in the field of animal conservation shows that this method of determining ownership has the potential to change in the near future. While the majority of courts continue to use real estate analysis to address such issues, more and more courts are going beyond that. If the law is extended in the future, questions such as which relationships and species are likely to receive better protection under the law will have to be answered. A good starting point for discussing a solution is the concept of animal law from Michigan State University College of Law Professor David Favre, which is defined as «physical, non-human living objects that have an intrinsic interest in their enduring well-being and existence.» (David Favre, Animal Law: Welfare, Interests, and Rights 36 (2008)). This approach would allow pets to remain in property status, but would require the law to take into account the welfare of the animal when making decisions about their future.
This agreement can be used to establish custody and care for any type of pet, such as dog.B. dog, cat, snake, lizard or an animal larger like a horse. Alaska, AS 25.24.160: Alaska was the first state to allow judges to oversee the «welfare» of pets in divorce proceedings. Governor Bill Walker signed HB 147 in October 2016 and came into effect on January 17, 2017. The act amends AS 25.24.160 in Chapter 24 on divorce and dissolution of marriage. The amendment states that «[i] n a judgment in a divorce action or an action annuls a marriage or, at any time after the judgment, the court may provide for it.» (5) when an animal is in possession of the animal, for the property or co-ownership of the animal, taking into account the welfare of the animal.» Courts in most states have limited the attribution of pets at the dissolution of marriage on the basis of traditional property classifications, with few cases taking into account the «best interests» of a pet. This law is unique in that it gives the judge the power to go beyond a traditional paradigm of pet ownership if he shares marital property. Some judges have begun to set precedents in the field of animal conservation, distinct from direct real estate analysis.