Who Gets the Dog in a Divorce? Pet Custody by State

In most US states a pet is still property at divorce, and the court divides it the way it divides furniture. But eight states and the District of Columbia have changed the test, requiring judges to weigh the animal's own welfare when deciding where it goes.

So the answer to who gets the dog in a divorce depends first on which state you are in, and second on whether you can persuade a judge that you are better placed to care for it.

The default rule: pets are property

Are pets property in a divorce? In most states, yes. Marital property law classifies a pet as personal property. The judge's job is to decide who owns it, not who is better suited to keep it.

That produces outcomes that are hard to accept emotionally. If one spouse bought the dog before the marriage with their own money, many states will simply award it to them, even if the other spouse has done all the feeding, walking and vet visits.

Judges are often unhappy about this. Plenty of decisions show a court leaning as far toward the caregiver as the property framework allows. The problem is that the framework gives them very little to work with.

The eight states that changed the test

Pet custody laws by state now split into two groups. As of June 2026, eight states plus the District of Columbia have legislation allowing a divorce court to consider the animal's interests when awarding it. In order of enactment: Alaska (2016), Illinois (2017), California (2018), New Hampshire (2019), Maine (2021), New York (2021), the District of Columbia (2022), Delaware (2023) and Rhode Island (2024).

The wording differs but the direction is the same. Alaska and Illinois say the well-being of the animal. Maine says the well-being of companion animals. New York and Rhode Island say the best interest of the pet. California and Delaware say the care of the pet or companion animal. California's statute was enacted in 2018 and took effect on 1 January 2019, which is why both years appear in guides.

One distinction has to be stated clearly. These statutes let a judge consider the animal's welfare. They do not create custody rights for the animal. A pet remains property; the welfare of the animal becomes one more factor in how that property is divided.

What the statutes actually ask courts to weigh

Maine's statute is the most detailed, with seven factors: the well-being and basic daily needs of the companion animal; the amount of time each party spent with it during the marriage tending to its nutritional, grooming and medical needs; each party's ability to continue to own, support and provide adequate care.

The other four are each party's emotional attachment to the animal; the emotional attachment of any child in the household and the benefit to that child of the animal remaining in the child's residence; any domestic violence between the parties or in the household; and any history of animal abuse or other unsafe conditions for the animal.

Delaware's list is shorter, with three: each party's ability to own, support and provide necessary care; the attachment between the animal and each party; and the time and effort each party spent with the animal during the marriage.

Maine's statute also defines the term: a companion animal is one kept primarily for companionship rather than as a working animal or service animal.

Two items on Maine's list deserve separate attention. Domestic violence and a history of animal abuse are written into the test itself. That is not decorative language. It means a party with a record of domestic violence starts from a worse position on the pet.

The practical effect is smaller than the headlines

What these laws change is what a judge is permitted to consider. They do not turn a pet into a family member. The animal is not moved out of the property category.

None of these statutes reach unmarried partners. Pet custody in divorce runs through a divorce court, and a court with no marriage in front of it has no petition to decide. That gap is exactly what Illinois HB 4540 (2026) would close.

So you cannot claim visitation the way you would with a child. In the forty-two states outside the list, pet custody in divorce does not even arise as a question in court. It is an ownership question.

Joint custody of a dog after divorce is not something most courts will order. A pet custody agreement between the parties can go further than the law does: shared care, alternating stays, visitation arrangements, and who pays the vet bills. Once that is in a settlement agreement it is usually enforceable, and it beats leaving the decision to a judge.

What to do before it goes to court

If you are asking who gets the dog in a divorce, the first thing is to try to reach an agreement. That is the most effective route, and the only one that lets you design the arrangement yourself, including an alternating schedule.

The second is to build a record of who has actually been doing the caring. Veterinary records, who paid for the vaccinations and the spay or neuter, whose name is on the boarding and training accounts, who holds the pet insurance. In court these carry far more weight than a statement of feelings.

The third is to document your capacity. One of the core factors in the statutes is whether a party can continue to support the animal and provide adequate care, so income, housing and working hours all enter the assessment.

The fourth is not to give the animal away. Handing it to a friend, or surrendering it to a shelter during separation, will be treated in most states as disposing of property without authority, and that damages your position badly.

Outside the United States

British Columbia amended its Family Law Act in 2023 through Bill 17, giving parties three options: to own a companion animal jointly, to share possession, or to give exclusive ownership and possession to one spouse.

Australia's Family Law Act 1975 was amended with effect from 10 June 2025, creating a specific list of matters for family pets. It includes treating animal abuse, including threatening behavior, as a form of family violence, and the attachment of each party and of children to the pet. One feature is unusual: Australian family courts cannot make orders for joint ownership or for sharing arrangements.

Separately, the National Link Coalition's compilation lists France, Mexico, Portugal and Spain as countries believed to have divorce custody laws covering pets.

Where the law is heading

Among pending bills, Illinois HB 4540 (2026) would extend the existing pet custody rules to unmarried couples, which is a notable direction given how little legal machinery exists for separating cohabitants. Massachusetts H.1817 and S.1206, and Pennsylvania HB 97 (2025), are pursuing similar ground.

Plenty of bills have died, though. Arizona SB 1587 (2026), Georgia HB 582 (2019 and 2020), Indiana HB 1423 (2020), Michigan HB 4332, Tennessee SB 568 and HB 467 (2023), and West Virginia HB 2855 (2018) all failed.

The trend is slow and one-directional: another state or two every year or two. If you are in the middle of this now, check your own state's current position. This list may well have moved.

If there is domestic violence in the picture

Pets are often used as instruments of control in these relationships: threatening to harm the animal, actually harming it, or using the line that if you leave you will never see it again to stop someone going.

Maine writing domestic violence into its pet custody factors is a direct response to that reality. If this is your situation, the federal PAWS Act provides a separate route, because it brings pets within the scope of protective orders. We cover that in a dedicated article.

If your question is simply how to handle a divorce, the route is fairly clear: try to agree, build the care record, and find out which category your state falls into. We also have a checklist on the signs of animal cruelty, if the issue is not who keeps the animal but how it is being kept.