Pet custody in divorce proceedings in Florida

 

Most people going through a divorce in Florida focus on the house, the finances, and the kids. The family pet tends to be an afterthought until both spouses want to keep the dog, or one person starts using the animal as leverage during the divorce.

As these disputes become more common, courts are beginning to look more closely at the role pets play within a family.

Florida now allows courts to consider pet well-being.

Florida is one of the more restrictirive states with regard to determining pet ownership in divorce proceedings and has a long history of treating pets as personal property in the context of a dissolution of marriage action. The ownership of a pet will be determined pursuant to the Florida equitable distribution statute, Section. 61.075, Florida Statutes, and a trial court has no authority to grant custody or visitation pertaining to personal property.

Although parties may enter into an agreement with regard to custody or visitation with their pets, if your pet was acquired during the marriage, the Court must award ownership of the pet to only one party as equitable distribution of marital assets. If you owned your pet prior to the marriage, you may be able to claim it is your separate, non-marital property.

In 2025, the case of Kraushaar v. Kraushaar, 424 So. 3d 522 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2025), recognized that generally in distributing pets pursuant to an equitable distribution of marital assets, courts must consider the statutory equitable distribution factors, along with any special needs or special circumstances, which may include a party’s sentimental interest in property, such as an ordinary attachment to pets. In Kraushaar, the Husband sought distribution of the dog, Dario, as an emotional support animal, arguing that the dog’s alieviation of his anxiety should be considered by the court as a special need, together with the statutory equitable distribution factors. He filed an emergency motion for return of dog explaining that dog provided therapeutic comfort for his long-standing anxiety condition, attaching letters from doctors stating his need of dog as companion animal. The appellate court determined that to the extent that the Husband sought to utilize the pet’s status as an emotional support animal “to prove a special need or circumstance tipping equitable distribution in his favor,” the Husband’s medical records would be discoverable subject to appropriate safeguards.

The 2026 case of Crossen v. Feeley, 430 So. 3d 100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2026), involved the parties’ purchase of Tucker, a golden doodle, shortly before they filed for divorce. The dog was selected by the Wife and had obedience training, but no specialized therapy or comfort dog training. Both parties sought ownership of Tucker, and after separation, agreed to share custody of the pet. At trial, each party testified to their close relationship with Tucker and why Tucker should be awarded to them. The trial court found in the final judgment that while both parties wanted Tucker, neither presented “competent or substantial evidence as to when the dog was purchased, who purchased the dog, how the dog was purchased and/or any value of the dog.” The trial court therefore awarded joint-custody of Tucker to both parties. On appeal, the appellate court recognized that even though a dog may be considered a member of the family, in Florida pets are still considered to be personal property. The court recognized that, “much of the testimony we have encountered on dog custody resembles evidence on child custody; but no authority allows a trial court to grant joint custody of a pet, which the trial court effectively did in this case by making the parties equal owners of the dog.” Where the trial court had sufficient evidence to assign a value to Tucker and distribute him to one party, the court should have done so.

These recent cases suggest that that judges can now consider special needs and circumstances, including emotional attachment, who primarily cares for the animal, who takes it to veterinary appointments, and which living arrangement is more appropriate for the pet, instead of focusing only on the pet’s value and who originally paid for it. Such cases reflect the reality that pets may be treated as part of the family rather than ordinary property.

What courts look at

Because Florida is rapidly expanding its laws intended to protect animals, courts are continuing to develop how these cases will be analyzed. Certain factors already tend to matter.

Feeding, grooming, veterinary care, training, and daily exercise can help establish who has acted as the animal's primary caretaker, regardless of whose name appears on paperwork.

Ownership records, who paid for the pet and when can also matter. A pet purchased before the marriage is more likely to be treated as separate property, while a pet adopted during the marriage is generally considered marital property subject to equitable distribution.

Courts may also look at which home is more suitable for the animal after the divorce. A large dog living in a small apartment presents different practical considerations than the same dog living in a house with outdoor space.

When children are closely bonded with a pet, keeping the animal in the same home as the children may also influence the outcome.

One Florida divorce dispute involved a Labrador adopted during the marriage. Although one spouse paid the adoption fee, the other handled most of the day-to-day care, including vet appointments, feeding, grooming, and training. The court placed greater weight on the caregiving history and the stability of the post-divorce living arrangement than on the original purchase itself.

What courts cannot do

Florida law does not require judges to create shared custody arrangements for pets, and for now, it is unlikely that courts will do so. Ongoing disagreements over schedules and exchanges often create more conflict than they resolve, and a negotiated written agreement between spouses is recommended. For pets acquired prior to the marriage, a prenuptial agreement, or “Pet-Nup” may avoid future legal disputes.

Courts also cannot enforce pet-sharing agreements the same way they enforce child custody orders. If one spouse violates the agreement, the available legal remedies are more limited.

What to do if your pet is part of the divorce

Start documenting your role in the animal's care as early as possible. Veterinary records, receipts, photographs, and text messages referencing the pet may all become relevant evidence. Records showing you as the primary contact can also help establish your role. Similarly, if your pet is a documented emotional support animal, your own medical records may be utilized to establish this role to the Court.

If you purchased the pet before the marriage, keep documentation showing when the purchase occurred. If the animal was specifically given to you as a gift, evidence of that may also matter.

It is also important to think realistically about long-term care responsibilities. Some people pursue pet disputes emotionally and later realize they are not in the best position to care for the animal alone. Others have a strong emotional bond with the pet and should be prepared to explain why maintaining that relationship matters.

If domestic violence or coercive behavior is involved, courts may also consider whether a pet has been used as a tool of intimidation or control during the relationship.

The earlier you address it, the better.

Pet disputes are usually easier to resolve before a divorce becomes highly contentious. If both spouses are still capable of reaching practical agreements, resolving issues involving the family pet early can prevent unnecessary conflict later.

If an agreement is not possible, entering court with clear documentation of your involvement in the animal's daily care places you in a stronger position.

At Roberts Family Law, we help clients navigate every aspect of divorce, including disputes involving family pets. Whether you are trying to protect your relationship with an animal or negotiate a practical agreement, we can help you address the issue strategically from the beginning. Call 407-426-6999 or contact us through the form on this page.