Who Gets the Dog? Why Florida Courts Keep Saying No to Pet “Custody”

Pets have become family in a way the law hasn't fully caught up with. People plan vacations around their dog's boarding schedule, buy pet insurance, and post more photos of their cat than their kids. So when a relationship ends, it's no surprise that arguments over the family pet can get just as heated as arguments over furniture, bank accounts, or who keeps the house.

Every so often, a divorcing couple asks a Florida court to do what feels natural: split time with the dog the way parents split time with children. Florida courts keep giving the same answer, no. The most recent reminder came in Crossen v. Feeley, a 2026 Fourth District Court of Appeal decision involving multiple equitable-distribution issues, including the parties' golden doodle, Tucker.

Florida's Legal Answer: Pets Are Property

Under Florida law, pets are treated as personal property, divided the same way as a car, a boat, or the furniture, through the equitable distribution process in Fla. Stat. § 61.075. The statute doesn't mention pets by name, courts apply the same factors used for any other marital asset.

The foundational case is Bennett v. Bennett, 655 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), where Florida's First District held that a trial court has no authority to award “visitation” with a dog, reasoning that courts shouldn't supervise ongoing compliance with a personal-property arrangement. Three decades later, in Crossen v. Feeley, No. 4D2024-3024 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 11, 2026), the Fourth District addressed Tucker, a golden doodle, as part of a broader equitable-distribution appeal. The court reversed the portion of the judgment that left the former spouses as equal owners sharing custody and directed the trial court to equitably distribute Tucker to one party or the other. The remedy in a Florida divorce is allocation of ownership, not a parenting-style schedule.

What Courts Actually Look At

Property status doesn't mean judges ignore the human side of the dispute entirely. In Harby v. Harby, 331 So. 3d 814, 822-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), Florida's Second District affirmed a trial court's award of the family dogs to the husband, applying the equitable distribution factors in § 61.075(1), including each spouse's actual care for the animals and each party's desire to keep them, while recognizing that sentimental attachment to pets may be considered alongside the statutory factors.

The wife in Harby argued that one of the dogs was her emotional support animal, but the court noted that the evidence did not show she had a disability or that the dog alleviated an effect of that disability. The takeaway: comfort and companionship, however real, aren't the same as a legally supported emotional-support need, and courts still analyze even an ESA claim through a property, not custody, lens.

A Familiar Scenario

Consider a couple who adopted a dog together three years into the marriage. One spouse worked from home and handled daily walks, vet visits, and training; the other paid for the dog's food and insurance out of a joint account. When the marriage ends, both want to keep the dog, and neither is willing to simply hand it over.

Without an agreement in place, the outcome depends on the record each spouse can put in front of a judge: who actually cared for the dog day to day, who initiated the adoption, and whether either party can show a genuine, evidence-backed need beyond ordinary companionship. A judge can consider all of that, but the court will still end the case by giving the dog to one party, not by building a shared schedule.

Why a Written Agreement Still Matters

Courts won't supervise a shared custody arrangement for a pet, but that doesn't mean couples can't agree to one privately. Divorcing or separating couples regularly negotiate their own pet-sharing terms as part of a marital settlement agreement, covering who keeps the pet, how veterinary costs are split, and, in some cases, informal time-sharing the couple polices themselves rather than the court.

The same logic that applies to prenuptial and postnuptial agreements applies here: an agreement addressed before conflict starts, specific about who owns the pet and who pays for what, tends to hold up far better than expecting a judge to resolve it later under a property statute that wasn't built with pets in mind.

When to Address This in Writing

It's worth putting pet ownership in writing when:

A couple adopts a pet together during the relationship or marriage

One spouse brings a pet into a marriage that later involves shared caretaking

A blended household combines pets from more than one relationship

A couple is negotiating a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement and pet ownership hasn't come up

A separation is already underway and informal arrangements have started causing disputes

How Litigation Counsel Can Help

If a dispute over a pet is heading toward court, the practical work looks a lot like preparing any other equitable distribution issue: documenting who paid for veterinary care, food, training, and boarding, showing a consistent pattern of day-to-day responsibility, and setting realistic expectations about what a judge can and cannot order.

Because courts consistently favor a clean ownership award over an ongoing shared arrangement, settlement and mediation are often the more reliable path to an outcome that actually resembles shared time with the pet , something a final judgment generally won't provide on its own.

The Takeaway

Florida law hasn't caught up to how people actually feel about their pets, and appellate courts have made clear it isn't going to through case-by-case rulings, pets remain property, and custody-style arrangements remain off the table. For couples who want something different, the answer isn't waiting for the law to change. It's putting the terms in writing before the relationship ends, the same way a business owner protects a company or a couple protects a brand: clearly, specifically, and ahead of the conflict.

FAQ/Q&A
Does Florida recognize pet custody or visitation in a divorce?

No. Florida courts treat pets as personal property for equitable-distribution purposes under Fla. Stat. § 61.075. Bennett v. Bennett, 655 So. 2d 109 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995), rejected court-ordered dog visitation, and Crossen v. Feeley, No. 4D2024-3024 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 11, 2026), reversed an equal-owner/shared-custody ruling for a dog.

Does having an emotional support animal change how a pet is divided in a Florida divorce?

Not automatically. In Harby v. Harby, 331 So. 3d 814, 822-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021), the Second District explained that ordinary comfort from a pet is not enough; the evidence must connect the animal's support to a disability before that claim meaningfully changes the property analysis.

Can divorcing spouses agree to share a pet even though the court won't order it?

Yes. Courts won't supervise ongoing pet-sharing, but spouses can voluntarily include specific pet-ownership and cost-sharing terms in a marital settlement agreement, which tends to hold up far better than an informal understanding.

Attorney Advertising. This article is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Reading this article or contacting the firm does not create an attorney-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Every case is different.