Lawmaker says pets should be given special consideration in divorces |

Lawmaker says pets should be given special consideration in divorces

Tom Davidson
State Rep. Anita Kulik, D-45, Kennedy, has introduced legislation that would provide guidelines for judges to consider in divorce cases where pets are involved.

In a divorce, deciding who gets a pet should be treated differently than deciding who gets a piece of furniture, according to a state legislator from Allegheny County.

But Pennsylvania law treats pets as chattel to be divvied up, said state Rep. Anita Kulik, D-Kennedy Township.

Kulik wants to change that. She has introduced a bill that defines pets as “companion animals” and says they should be given special consideration during a divorce proceeding.

On Wednesday, Kulik said she is hopeful the bill will be considered for a vote this year. It is in the House Judiciary Committee.

Kulik handled divorce cases in private practice and, as a legislator, decided it was time for the law to address how pets are treated in such cases.

The proposal is supported by animal rights organizations and her constituents, according to Kulik.

However, family law attorneys in the region have mixed opinions on the bill.

Fox Chapel attorney Gus Sunseri said it would be helpful to have some guidance on the books. As a pet owner, he also understands the attachment people have to their animals.

“I think that the ownership of the pet transcends the ownership of personal property,” Sunseri said.

But Sunseri added, “I haven’t had an issue yet where there was a custody fight over the dog. Generally they work it out.”

In cases where the parties involved aren’t able to come to terms over a pet, it would be good to have parameters set in the law as Kulik’s proposal tries to do, Sunseri said.

Philip McCalister, a Lower Burrell attorney who lives in New Kensington, said the proposed legislation doesn’t define “companion animals.” That means it could cover any animal from a “pig to a chicken.”

Some rare birds are more valuable than real estate, he said.

McCalister said one of the guidelines in the legislation is: Who can afford to care for the pet the best — something that’s rarely equal.

“Should Mary lose possession of a dog because Joe makes three times her income?” McCalister asked.

It’s also tough to decide who the animal is most attached to.

“How do you prove that?” McCalister said.

In addition to his work as an attorney, McCalister serves as a court-appointed master who works out divorce agreements in Westmoreland County.

“I actually do believe the masters have the wisdom to make that decision without this restriction,” McCalister said.

Sorting out custody of pets comes up regularly, but he said it has never resulted in further litigation “over the pup or the cat or the bird or the pot-bellied pig.”

Michael J. Stewart Sr., a Greensburg attorney who specializes in family law, said he would need to study the legislation further before forming an opinion on it but added, “I certainly think there is some need for it.

“Under current law, pets are treated like personal property. Like the lamp in your living room,” Stewart said. “ Typically, you’re not going to rotate the possession of your lamp.”

Tom Davidson is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Tom at 724-226-4715, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: Local | Regional
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.