People who live with pets (companion animals) in many cases see their pets as family members. Yet, in the eyes of the law, pets are still considered personal property. This is relevant to pet custody matters that may arise at the time of divorce or separation; pets fall within divorce financial proceedings. However, they have the unique nature of living and sentient property, which has interests. In this perspective, the best interest of the nonhuman animal should always be taken into account. Nonetheless, the law lacks definitive standards, and the ways in which courts construe contractual disputes involving nonhuman animals that relate to custody disputes in marital or other relationships do not always take into consideration the unique nature of this living and sentient property. This article provides an examination of the current Italian legal system and of Italian case law related to this matter.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
Bayvel, A.C.D., Rahman, S.A., & Gavinelli, A. (Eds.). (2005). Animal welfare: Global issues, trends and challenges. Revue Scientifique et Technique de l’Office International des Epizooties, 24, 463-813.
Bonafos, L., Simonin, D., & Gavinelli, A. (2010). Animal welfare: European legislation and future perspectives. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education, Spring, 37(1), 26-29.
Buchmeyer, J. (1998). A slight change of pace. Texas Bar Journal, 1089-1090.
Cao, D., Sharman, K., & White, S. (2010). Animal law in Australia and New Zealand (p. 63). LawBook Co.
Epstein, R.A. (2002). Animals as objects, or subjects, of rights. John M. Olin Program. Law and Economics Working Paper No. 171.
Favre, D. (2004). A new property status for animals. In C. Sustein & M. Nussbaum (Eds.), Animal rights: current debates and new direction (p. 236).
Favre, D. (2010). Living property: A new status for animals within the legal system. Marquette Law Review, 93, 1021. Retrieved from http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol93/iss3/3.
Gabbard, G.O. (2005). Psychodynamic psychiatry in clinical practice (4th ed.). American Psychiatric Publishing.
Hartwell, B.A. (2006). Bones of contention: Custody of family pets. Journal of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, 20, 1-22.
Hauser, M.D., Cushman, F., & Kamen, M. (Eds.). (2005). People, property, and pets. Purdue University Press.
Huss, R. (2003). Separation, custody, and estate planning issues relating to companion animals. University of Colorado Law Review, 74, 181-240.
Italia. Legge 20 luglio 2004, n. 189. Disposizioni concernenti il divieto di maltrattamento degli animali, nonché́ di impiego degli stessi in combattimenti clandestini o competizioni non autorizzate. Gazzetta Ufficiale n. 178, 31 luglio 2004.
Legislatura 16ª-Disegno di legge N. 1392/2009. Senato della Repubblica.
Lubinski, J. (2004). Introduction to animal rights (2nd ed.). Animal Legal and Historical Center, Michigan State University—Detroit College of Law.
Peck, E. (2003). Fido seeks full membership in the family: Dismantling the property classification of companion animals by statute. University of Hawaii Law Review, 25, 481-483.
Rollin, B. (2006). Animal ethics and legal status. In M. Hauser, F. Cushman, & M. Kamen (Eds.), People, property, or pets? (p. 38). Purdue University Press.
Serpell, J. (1996). In the company of animals: a study of human-animal relationships (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Sullivan, D., & Vietzke, H. (2008). An animal is not an iPod. Journal of Animal Law, 4(41), 44-45.
Sunstein, C.R. (2001, Jan. 29). Slaughterhouse jive. The New Republic, 40.
Szűcs, E., Geers, R., Jezierski, T., Sossidou, E.N., & Broom, D.M. (2012). Animal welfare in different human cultures, traditions and religious faiths. Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 25(11), 1499-1506.
Walsh, F. (2009). Human-animal bonds I: The relational significance of companion animals. Family Process, 48, 462-480.
White, S. (2009). Companion animals: Members of the family or legally discarded objects? UNSW Law Journal, 32(3), 852-862.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 673 | 65 | 14 |
Full Text Views | 30 | 10 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 37 | 9 | 0 |
People who live with pets (companion animals) in many cases see their pets as family members. Yet, in the eyes of the law, pets are still considered personal property. This is relevant to pet custody matters that may arise at the time of divorce or separation; pets fall within divorce financial proceedings. However, they have the unique nature of living and sentient property, which has interests. In this perspective, the best interest of the nonhuman animal should always be taken into account. Nonetheless, the law lacks definitive standards, and the ways in which courts construe contractual disputes involving nonhuman animals that relate to custody disputes in marital or other relationships do not always take into consideration the unique nature of this living and sentient property. This article provides an examination of the current Italian legal system and of Italian case law related to this matter.
All Time | Past Year | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 673 | 65 | 14 |
Full Text Views | 30 | 10 | 0 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 37 | 9 | 0 |