Separations

More agreements between exes on pets but few protections

The court cannot rule on violations of agreements because there are no rules governing custody and visitation rights

by Marisa Marraffino

20 August 2025

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Key points

The case
Two possible procedures
Significant Relationship

3' min read

The custody of pets is increasingly becoming part of divorce and separation agreements, with the regulation of visitation days and times as with children.

However, when there is no agreement and the matter ends up in court, the judge cannot rule, since there is no rule in our legal system that expressly regulates theright of access for pets. In such cases one must then resort to a separate judgement, of possessory protection, to decide whether the bond established is worthy of protection.

Considerations that also apply when the partners of a de facto couple break up: here too, if the agreements reached by the exes on pet custody break down, the only way forward is possessory guardianship.

The case

Thus, the Court of Rovigo, in its order of 15 May last, rejected the precautionary appeal for an urgent measure (based on Article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure) filed by a separated husband who complained that his wife was preventing him from seeing his labrador, acquired during the marriage but registered in her name only. Visitation rights in favour of the husband had been provided for in the separation conditions and had been respected at first. However, following his wife's hospitalisation, the visits had stopped until she transferred ownership of the dog to his mother.

The court first of all clarified that for our legal system, pets, although they are sentient beings, are considered 'movable things' in judgments aimed at establishing the existence of visiting rights. For the judge, the fact that the man had complained of severe stress from deprivation of the animal comparable to bereavement was not sufficient to establish the existence of imminent harm such as to legitimise recourse to the emergency procedure. Moreover, writes the judge, 'our legal system lacks a reference rule governing the custody of pets and the right of access to them, in the event of separation or divorce'.

Two possible procedures

A distinction must therefore be made between two different cases, depending on whether the procedure isconsensual or judicial.

In the first case, most of the case-law on the merits has applied the rules provided for children, ruling on custody and recognition of rights of access.

In contrast, in the case of judicial separation or divorce, this possibility has been ruled out altogether.

Thus, only the agreement of the spouses can define the fate of the pets; but if there is no agreement, it is not up to the court to decide on the allocation or access rights.

The protection that, however, case law now recognises for those who do not want to lose, with the end of the relationship, also the bond with the pet is the possessory one, which can be pursued when it is shown that the pet was attached to both exes. It will, however, be necessary to apply to ajudge other than the separation or divorce judge and to initiate an autonomous judgement.

Among the indices that are relevant for fostering of animals are above all the duration of the relationship, the possible cohabitation, the care given during the relationship. Also weighing in is the possible presence ofchildren who are minors: denying them the possibility of continuing to associate with the pet could cause serious harm that must be taken into account.

Significant relationship

The road ofpossessory proceedings is also indicated for former de facto partners. Thus, the Court of Pescara, by order of 15 February last, declared inadmissible the appeal filed by a woman who had requested urgent protection in order to have the right to visit the dog she had taken care of during her seven-year relationship with her partner, the last of which she had lived with him. The dog was only in the name of the man who, after a period of shared custody, had decided not to let his ex-partner see him any more.

The judge, while recognising the emotional bond with the woman, did not consider emergency protection viable. He did, however, state that there would be conditions for the exercise of possessory guardianship.

Underlying this there must in any case be proof of the existence of a 'significant relationship' between the person seeking the right of access and the pet. This was clarified as early as 2023 by the Court of Cassation, which, in Order 8459, had dealt with a woman's appeal against her ex-boyfriend with whom she had only been engaged for four months. The woman had requested that her status as co-owner of the dog acquired during the relationship and its custody be established. But the woman had been unable to prove that she had, despite the brevity of her relationship with her ex, created a stable emotional bond with the animal, which was owned by her partner.