Dog Custody Battles
Last month, I was contacted by a lawyer that was disputing a dog custody battle. The argument that she needed me to make is that one dog does not replace another. I have to agree with that, but I also wanted to add my two cents, in terms of logic and in real life.
Let’s call these divorcing dog lovers Chris and Terry. At the time of separation, Chris and Terry had one dog, Fido, and decided to share custody. While they were separated, Chris got an additional dog, Spot.
Now, they are divorcing, and both want full custody of Fido. Terry’s claim to Fido is that dogs are interchangeable: Chris already has a dog, so Fido should go to Terry. Let’s dissect this claim, logically.
Terry’s claim is that Chris has replaced Fido with Spot. But the crux of that argument is that dogs are replaceable, so Terry could get another dog to replace Fido, too. Hence, there’s no reason to argue over Fido. He could be assigned a market value and split accordingly.
Restated, Terry’s battle for Fido seems to be based on the premise that Fido is unique, yet the basis of Terry’s argument, dog interchangeability, contradicts this. Dog interchangeability is not a logical argument in a custody battle for a dog.
There needs to be another argument about who gets the dog after their divorce.
Now I lose the logician and speak as a dog trainer. Custody of the dog should be based on what’s best for the dog and then, what’s best for the people.
Dogs are not televisions or cell phones.
I understand that, under the law, dogs are property, but I think whoever makes the dog the happiest should get the dog. If that’s both humans, then joint custody is great. If it’s just one human that makes the dog happy, versus shuttling back and forth, then so be it. A dog’s life is too short to put our happiness over theirs. If the dog is equally happy at both homes, then you can decide based on human issues, like who needs the dog most.
