A Unique Family Court Case: FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B)
In a recent and rather unique family court case, FI v DO [2024] EWFC 384 (B), the court dealt with a range of issues stemming from the breakdown of a marriage. The case involved not only the typical financial and property disputes but also an unusual dispute over the custody of a family pet.
Background
The parties, referred to as FI (the husband) and DO (the wife), were married in December 2010 and separated in November 2022. They have two children, AB and CD, who reside with their mother. The husband, a self-employed mechanic, and the wife, a part-time dental nurse, jointly own a family home which is subject to a mortgage. The couple had started their married life in rented accommodation before purchasing their home with assistance from both sets of parents.
Financial Disputes
The husband sought an equal division of the net proceeds from the sale of the family home, a pension sharing order, and the return of a sum of £544.37 from a split share account. He also sought a declaration of ownership and a shared care arrangement for the family dog. The wife, on the other hand, sought a 70% share of the net proceeds from the sale of the family home and the retention of the family dog.
The Dog Dispute
One of the most contentious issues in this case was the custody of the family’s golden retriever puppy. The husband claimed that he had purchased the dog and trained it as a disability support dog to help with his anxiety and depression. He argued that the dog should be returned to him. The wife, however, contended that the dog was a joint purchase and that she and the children had been the primary caregivers for the dog since the separation.
The court heard evidence from both parties, including an incident on December 12th where the husband forcibly took the dog from the maternal grandmother while she was out walking it. This incident led to the husband’s arrest and caused significant distress to the wife, the children, and the grandmother.
Court’s Findings
The judge found that the husband’s evidence regarding his income was not credible and that he had likely understated his earnings. The judge also found that the husband had used joint assets for personal expenditure and that his liabilities were not matrimonial debts. The wife’s evidence regarding the dog was found to be more compelling, and it was determined that the dog had been primarily cared for by the wife and children since the separation.
Judgment
The court ordered the sale of the family home with 69.23% of the net proceeds going to the wife to cover her legal costs and provide a financial cushion for her and the children. The husband was awarded 30.77% of the net proceeds. The court also ruled that the wife should retain ownership of the family dog, emphasising the importance of the dog’s welfare and the children’s attachment to it.
Conclusion
The case of FI v DO highlights the complexities and emotional challenges that can arise in family law disputes. It underscores the importance of considering the welfare of all family members, including pets, in divorce proceedings. The judgment reflects a balanced approach, taking into account the financial needs and contributions of both parties while prioritizing the best interests of the children and the family dog.