Can I keep the dog if I get divorced?
Dogs and other pets are often seen as a much loved member of the family but sadly when it comes to divorce, in the eyes of the law a pet falls into the same category as a TV or a toaster as nothing more than a person’s personal property. As such the court is likely to be more interested in who owns the dog by considering factors such as:
- who paid for the dog (ideally backed up with receipts)
- who is registered at the vet
- who is listed on the microchip database, and
- who is the provider of key supplies and food
This person is more likely to have a successful claim over the dog, even if the other party has a better emotional attachment and spent more time looking after the dog.
If it is unclear who owns the dog, a sympathetic judge may consider who is best placed to look after the dog but parties should be prepared for a fairly rough and ready decision. The court is often reluctant to deal with disputes such as pet ownership as it is more concerned with the bigger picture such as arrangements for the children and the overall financial division. It is therefore far preferable for the parties to reach an agreement themselves, perhaps with the assistance of mediation.
Read our recent article to find out more.
Related FAQs
Cancellation insurance usually covers certain expenses and loss of profit, as long as the reason for cancellation is not excluded. These exclusion clauses are often quite wide and exclude avian, swine flu, quarantine, and restrictions of movement as a result of communicable disease. This means that you may not be entitled to compensation under this cover.
The Government has introduced new regulations, which took effect on 14 May 2020, to relax the publicity requirements in respect of planning applications.
Planning applications are usually required to be publicised by way of site notices and local newspaper notices and applications are to be made available for public inspection. The Government has recognised that these actions may not always be possible in accordance with social distancing guidelines and in order that Councils do not delay applications as a result of an inability to comply with the publicity requirements, the Government has relaxed the requirements.
A Local Planning Authority is now required to “take reasonable steps” to publicise a planning application, which may be through use of online newspapers, social media, or other electronic measures. What is considered reasonable will depend upon the circumstances of an individual application and will be proportionate to the scale and impact of the development. A large development that has previously generated significant interest will require more steps to bring the application to the attention of all of those with an interest than a householder application. The guidance emphasises the role of the publicity requirements, namely to enable those with an interest to make representations and to effectively participate in the decision making process and therefore community engagement remains key. It is recommended that the officer’s report refers to the steps taken where a Council has relied upon the temporary publicity arrangements.
The requirement to make planning applications available for public inspection has also been temporarily suspended providing that the applications are available for online inspection. In reality most LPAs already provide such an online facility. Where individuals are unable to access an application online LPAs should make alternative arrangements, for example providing information over the phone or providing a hard copy set of documents by post.
The regulations however only amend the statutory publicity requirements. In addition to these, all LPAs are required to have a Statement of Community Involvement which may provide for additional publicity requirements and the LPA will be bound by these regardless of the temporary relaxation of any statutory requirements. Where a Statement of Community Involvement does go beyond the statutory requirements, the Government guidance suggests that LPAs update these to ensure that local communities can continue to be consulted in the current climate.
The regulations are currently due to expire on 31 December 2020.
The current situation with the coronavirus pandemic has presented obvious challenges to the effective and fair operation of the Court of Protection (COP). Remote access to the COP has therefore become a necessity to ensure that hearings continue to provide proper access to justice. All parties involved in such cases have a responsibility in achieving this primary aim.
If the duties are so fundamentally different from their contracted role, then yes. For example, if you are asking a frontline clinical member of staff to undertake administrative tasks in another area, then this will be a fundamental change to their terms and conditions for which you need their consent.
If there is a minor alteration to their duties, or the clause within their contract is wide enough to cover their amended duties, then arguably to do not need their consent but best practice would be to obtain their agreement.
There is less guidance in respect of whether an employee can refuse to go into the workplace as a result of health and safety concerns about their commute. An employer’s duties to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its employees only extend to the workplace or where an employee is acting in the course of their employment. This does not include the risks of travelling to and from work by public transport.
As there are various ways in which an employee can travel to work, it will be difficult for them to legitimately refuse to come to work due to their commute. Employers should discuss any concerns with the employee and seek to find an appropriate resolution. The government has published guidance on safer travel for passengers during the Covid-19 pandemic and employers should encourage flexibility as far as possible, such as allowing employees to travel at off-peak times and staggering workers’ hours.