Last week, Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) truck driver Kenneth Duncan was ordered by a court to pay his ex-wife $200 a month in support payments for their St. Bernard, Crunchy. Had Crunchy been a child, Duncan would have been ordered to pay $691 a month, based on his $84,000 annual salary.
This is the first time a Canadian court has elevated a pet above chattel status during a divorce, but American courts have for a while been ruling on the joint custody of pets, visitation rights and support payments.
The $200 is supposed to cover about $80 a month in food, and $30 a month in rug shampooing to cover the dog’s numerous “accidents.” No word on what the other $90 is for, perhaps squeaky toys and trips to the beach.
Even apart from the ridiculousness of forcing the “non-custodial parent” in this situation to assume all of the expense of caring for this dog, the amount awarded is exorbitant, is Crunchy going to college? It irks me when we start treating animals like children.
Dogs and cats and ferrets and goldfish and rabbits and cows and all animals in the care of humans are property. Period. I have a dog and two cats. I own them. They belong to me. They are my property. If somebody came to my door and wanted to buy them, I’m quite certain there is an amount of money, far less than a king’s ransom, which I would accept in exchange for any or all of them.
In a divorce case, where an animal is involved, if the couple cannot decide on custody arrangements for an animal, then a judge should arbitrate and award custody based on fairness, but the animal(s) should be treated more like a piece of furniture than a child.
If the ex-wife walked dog every day then maybe she should get the animal, but the ex-husband should not be expected to pay the Dog Chow bill of the animal any more than the ex-wife should have to pay the docking fees for the yacht her ex got to keep.
It’s only a matter of time before the phrase “Pet Store” is entirely eliminated, replaced by “Adoption Center.” Rottweilers who bite the heads of small children will be acquitted of murder because they only acted in self defence. The ACLU will launch class action suits on behalf of chickens for forcible confinement. Of course it goes without saying that de-clawing Kitty will be illegal and don’t even think about whacking Fido on the nose for diddling on the carpet.
Now I’m all against people buying rabbits or ducks for the kids on Easter, and if you’re planning on locking your dog in the garage 24/7 then what’s the matter with you? But get real!
We had a Boston Terrier named Finnegan. One day we noticed one of its eyes had been probably poked with a stick, presumably due to an accident in the backyard. The cost to remove the eye, about $800. $2000 if we wanted to replace it with a glass eye to prevent half of its head from being permanently caved in. Not that I wouldn’t have wanted to have some slobbering sunken headed couch chewer with a two dimensional view of the world banging into walls running around, to make a long story short, poor Finnegan. Soon, putting mere money ahead of the health of your pet will be a crime.
Laws can be passed to protect the welfare of animals in the same way laws protect historic buildings, and yes, pets should be treated humanely; they are living creatures after all. But no, they should not legally be elevated above the status of a coffee table…well, OK, a very nice coffee table.
