Dogs & Relationship Break Up

[badboyz]

Being beagles they really should be kept together. They are a breed that must have company all of the time and will fret and possibly become destructive or escapists if they do not have the company they crave. Does he realize that, if he were to try to keep the boy, he would then have to get it a new companion for when he was not at home?

[Tay.]

Sounds like a tough situation. Hope you get your pups back asap, Beagle Mum.

[Nekhbet]

I can tell you my ex tried to claim a dog I had microchipped in my name, paid all food, vet bills, etc he claimed dog should stay with him because apparently I bought it for him (yeah right - he never walked it once)

magistrate said dog was mine, end of story.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Nekhbet

[Beagle Mum]

Thank you guys for all your helpful information and advice.

Just to give you an update, I am collecting the dogs on Boxing Day. Hopefully this goes ok. Although he has been awkward during this break up I know he would never hurt the dogs.

I have sat and thought long and hard about the whole situation and I am only trying to do what is best for my dogs. I strongly believe that they should not be separated from each other. I have tried to reason with him and even suggested that he could have 'visits' with the dogs so they can still see him. I also considered his comments of when I said I would not split them up he replied ' they will get over it, they are just dogs', however to me they are not just dogs, they are like my furry little children.

As he seems to think that the boy will be 'depressed' without him and miserable within a few weeks I have told him that if that was the case I would obvioulsy have to reassess the situation. It is only natural that the boy is showing him a fair amount of attention as he is aware I am not there,

I am not trying to be hurtful or selfish and at the end of it all I know he is close to the boy but it is not about me or him, it is about them. It makes it more stressful as he accepts I am taking the dogs but then he does a bit of a back flip.

Will keep you updated.

[yellowgirl]

I hope he holds up his end of the bargain. I don't know if it would be such a good idea for him to have contact or visits with the dogs, it would probably confuse them, especially if the boy does fret a little bit to start with. A clean break would be better all round (for you too).

Did you talk to him about getting a dog of his own from rescue?

[Annie99]

Good luck

Sounds like not a great situation to be in.

Hope it sorts itself out.

[rastus_froggy]

Hope all goes well for you today.

[OSoSwift]

Hope you get your dogs with no hassles.

[redangel]

I agree with the poster above, offer cash compensation to demonstrate is it not about one upmanship but that you desire the dogs to live with you. A cash payment now may offset anything more expensive in the future. I also agree to take the dogs asap...otherwise he could contend you 'abandoned' them...especially when you have no knowledge when the repairs to the new house will be done. Yes I agree for the dogs that they are best kept together. I hope all goes well and this is settled without too much argument.

[dogbesotted]

hopefully you have collected your dogs as agreed.

H

[poochmad]

A very difficult situation. I feel for the both of you, however, I can understand why you want to keep both dogs together. I can also empathise with your partner as it must be hard for him to end up with 'nothing' and most likely he would miss your male dog.

[Kempe]

Don't think the police will get involved as the dog/s have not been illegally stolen therefor no crime has been committed

I don't think Micro chipping is proof of ownership just a form of identification.

Possibly who has paid vet bills, licenses etc will hold the upper hand in a court making a decision similar to relationship breakups and children being involved

Might be easier to split them between the 2 of you, you have the girl and he has the boy

Edited December 27, 2010 by Kempe

[Pockets]

I don't think vet bills would come into it, as most monies in a relationship is share monies, so I would think unfair to use that against him when he has probably paid for other things :p

I think your putting your own emotions on to your dogs, I think you should just take your girl and he should keep "his" boy dogs will adjust

[Dog_Horse_Girl]

Any news?

BTW - my ex insists he misses the dogs...yet he won't take Ruby (his dog) even though he's living in a place which (with permission from the landlord) he could keep her.

I think as much as they protest about dogs belonging with a particular person, generally they give them up pretty quickly and without a fuss. I was stunned that he didn't want his own dog...but she's adjusting well, as are the other two.

My Brissy vet reckons that a lot of the time, the woman keeps the pets because she's always been the care-taker. I think that's fairly accurate.

[haven]

I don't think vet bills would come into it, as most monies in a relationship is share monies, so I would think unfair to use that against him when he has probably paid for other things

I think your putting your own emotions on to your dogs, I think you should just take your girl and he should keep "his" boy dogs will adjust

Correction. The dogs might adjust.

I'm not one to anthropomorphise, but I know my dogs well and I can see that my Rotti is still affacted a great deal by the passing of my GSD, even though over a year has passed since his death.

The dogs both belong to you, legally, go and get them.

[Parkeyre]

From what I've seen and heard of over the years; the mirchochip details have the final say.

It is a permanent identification forever. And if that says Jane Jones or Mike White, then that's who it belongs too.

[Staff'n'Toller]

Don't think the police will get involved as the dog/s have not been illegally stolen therefor no crime has been committed

I don't think Micro chipping is proof of ownership just a form of identification.

Possibly who has paid vet bills, licenses etc will hold the upper hand in a court making a decision similar to relationship breakups and children being involved

Might be easier to split them between the 2 of you, you have the girl and he has the boy

Microchip is proof of the actual owner, it's what would be used in court if ownership was contested. Canine Association papers may also come into play but as I understand it, the permanent ID is recognised first and foremost.

[RallyValley]

Don't think the police will get involved as the dog/s have not been illegally stolen therefor no crime has been committedI don't think Micro chipping is proof of ownership just a form of identification.

Possibly who has paid vet bills, licenses etc will hold the upper hand in a court making a decision similar to relationship breakups and children being involved

Might be easier to split them between the 2 of you, you have the girl and he has the boy

The police won't get involved as it's a civil matter - property division after a relationship break down.

[Lambo]

Hopefully your problem has been resolved amicably by now; but, just in case, I thought I'd add my two cents worth.

I recently bought a pup myself. Although strictly speaking I purchased the pup for both myself and my partner, our breeder indicated that only one name could be linked to the microchip. Given that experience, as a practical consideration I would say that the microchipping registration details do not necessarily reflect ownership.

There are also several legal grounds why it is unsafe to relying on the microchipping details as establishing ownership.

Firstly, as a general rule the "owner" of a thing (including a dog) is the person who paid for it. That generally establishes legal ownership; but the law looks also to beneficial or equitable ownership - in effect, for whose benefit was the item of property purchased. There are several principles that may come into play when resolving this issue. Regardless of who actually handed the money over to the breeder, the main issue is who provided the funds? You described your other half as your "partner" rather than as your boyfriend or husband. That being the case, I assume that you have probably been in a long term relationship and that in all reality your partner is in fact your de facto spouse. Whilst assumptions usually make asses of us all, I also assume that in the course of your relationship you and your partner shared the bills, if not an actual bank account. If you shared a bank account into which you both contributed funds and from which you sourced the funds to pay for your dog then I would say that it is fairly clear that your partner at least made a partial contribution toward the purchase of the dog in which case he shares beneficial ownership of the dog with you regardless of who is the "legal" owner. If you split your bills between you, it may still be possible for him to argue that he indirectly contributed to the funds you used to buy the dog by assisting you with your other bills - ie, but for his contribition toward your other bills, you would not have had the funds which you used to buy your dog. Whilst I would regard this as arguable, it is not as clear or forceful an argument as one based on a joint account. Of course, there is then the possibility that throughout your relationship you both paid your own bills. Whilst I could see this operating with say personal mobile phone bills and rent, I find it hard to comprehend how it would work in a long term relationship with more general expenses which benefit both parties eg groceries. Even things like utility costs I would have thought are not clearly capable of equal division given that one person may generate more of the expense than the other party to the relationship - eg longer hot showers, several computers on the go etc.

In short, it is far too simplistic simply to say "the dog is registered/microchipped in my name ergo it is mine". It does not work like that. If in fact you paid for it out of your own funds (together with all vet bills etc), the first thing you need to do is collate all the evidence that verifies your claims in this regard. Then you need to collate all the evidence that establishes that the funds you used to pay for the dog were in fact your own private funds and not joint funds. Then you need to rule out the possibility that your partner will claim some sort of beneficial interest by virtue of a claim that he helped raise the dog in question. The only way you are likely to prove this is to obtain witness statements from friends, neighbours and family members who can back up your own claim that you were solely responsible for raising the dog.

Notwithstand the prevailing sentiment on this forum, dogs are not children. That being the case, I doubt that the court will take into account issues like what is in the best interests of either of your dogs. Rather, dogs are items of property. It is primarily the principles of property law (as ameliorated by laws relating to de facto relationships) which will determine the outcome. Of course, I do not pretend to be a family lawyer, so there may be in fact be case authorities which contradict what I have just said although I would be surprised if that was the case.

Reporting the matter to the police will probably be fruitless. Your partner did not steal the dogs from you nor did he acquire possession by some deception. In fact, his possession is entirely lawful since you left them in his care. If he refuses to deliver up possession now, the question of who has the right to possession where ownership is disputed is a civil matter not a criminal one. Hence, I can't see the police intervening, although you never know.

I would support the view that possession is nine tenths of the law. If you can get your hands on the dogs lawfully, you obtain a distinct advantage in that it places the onus on your former partner to challenge your possession. That means he must spend the money obtaining legal advice and commencing legal proceedings; which he may not be prepared or financially able to do. I would stress, however, that you must obtain lawful possession. Entering your former residence without his permission will constitute trespass which will just bring the police down on you both for break and enter and possibly for stealing if you take the dogs with you.

Having said all that, let me make clear that this is only my two cents worth - off the cuff viewpoints. It does not constitute legal advice and I take no responsibility whatsoever (whether for negligence or otherwise) for anything contained in or omitted from it. If you want legal advice, go see a lawyer.

[di_dee1]

I hope it went well.

I too feel that if it is seen that the male misses the ex then he should be with him.

I think it is very egotistical to think our dogs will not be happy with anyone except us. They can and do adjust over time.

I may be facing my second fight with a very aggressive and sneaky cancer.

It is odds on that I will be dead in a few years or sooner.

I adore my dogs. I can't live without them, they are my sanity now my kids are grown and away. Two of them were only 3 months old when I started my chemo then radiation and they were with me all the way though it, along with their mother. There were days when having them next to me on the bed got me through.

My husband may feel that 3 dogs are too many after my passing.

I have assessed them and we have talked about which one/ones would cope better with rehoming should it come to that. A very good friend who does boarding in her own home and also rescues will take the dog/dogs and see that they go to a suitable situation if this occurs.

I do not want any of them to go but I will not be there so I have to hope and assume that they can and will be happy with someone else. I bet they will be when and if this happens. I too think that many project human feelings, thoughts, attitudes on to their dogs that the dogs just do not have.

It is US that have them.

Edited December 30, 2010 by di_dee1