Hannah Metzger
Audio By Carbonatix
When a couple splits up in Colorado, deciding who keeps their shared pets is treated the same as determining who gets the couch or the television. But that could soon change.
House Bill 26-1131 seeks to set legal standards for establishing pet custody in divorce and separation proceedings, distinct from those for distributing non-living property. Under the bill, courts are directed to consider the animal’s “best interest” when awarding sole or shared custody of a pet. The various factors to consider include each owner’s caregiving responsibilities, expenses accrued and emotional attachment to the pet.
“A pet is far more than personal property,” said Democratic State Representative Alex Valdez, who is sponsoring the measure. “We can create a better outcome, not only for the pet animal…but for the human beings that love it very much and don’t want to see it handled in an indeterminate way.”
The proposal narrowly passed its first committee hearing on Tuesday, February 24. Lawmakers voted 6-5 to advance the bill to the House Appropriations Committee, though it is likely to face a tough road ahead.
During Tuesday’s hearing, opponents raised concerns that the pet custody cases would overburden courts and cost the state too much money. An analysis by Legislative Council Staff estimated that the bill would result in 2,610 court hearings regarding pet custody per year.
“Unequivocally, this will clog the courts,” Kaela Zihlman of the Colorado Bar Association testified during the bill hearing. “Every moment that a judicial officer spends on a pet allocation issue is a moment that they are not spending on children, and a moment that they are not spending on domestic violence victims, and a moment that they are not spending on allocating financials between parties so they can go forward and live independently.”
The Colorado Bar Association registered in opposition to the bill.
Proponents of the bill disputed whether it would result in so many new court hearings, noting that courts already deal with pet custody disputes and the bill would simply provide a consistent legal framework for such cases.
Under the current system, pets are often “weaponized” during separations, according to Phil Arkow of the National Link Coalition. Arkow recalled a man who came into his Colorado Springs animal shelter to put his family dog up for adoption so his wife wouldn’t get the dog in their divorce.
House Bill 1131 would allow courts to issue emergency protection orders for pets, prohibiting the animals from being hidden, sold or harmed. The bill also requires courts to consider whether a person has been abusive to an animal or human when deciding pet custody arrangements.
“The solution to an overflowing justice system is not to continue to promote what I feel is an injustice when it comes to families,” Rich Harris of the Harris Law Firm said in support of the bill. “I’ve been doing this for three decades. Very often, beyond the children, the family pet is the most important issue to a family. It is absurd that we are in a situation where these pets are treated like chattel. …These are central parts of people’s families.”
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, Best Friends Animals Society, Humane Society of Fremont County, MaxFund and No Kill Colorado also registered in support of the bill.
Nine jurisdictions have already passed similar pet custody laws: Alaska, California, Illinois, New Hampshire, Maine, New York, Delaware, Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund.
But Colorado may not follow suit. The bill passed the committee by only one vote and with bipartisan opposition. On top of that, multiple lawmakers who voted in support on Tuesday expressed hesitancy and noted that they may not support the bill again if it gets to a full House vote.
“The whole idea of having a sharing agreement has been something I have really struggled with,” said Republican State Representative Matt Soper, who voted against the bill. “The whole point of divorce is to legally separate. …You want to have a clear break. You don’t want to continue to have fabric that binds the two. …We already struggle with this with children. This adds another connecting factor.”
Valdez argues that shared pet custody agreements already exist, and the bill will simply establish consistency and clarity for the rulings. He told Westword that the bill would not be retroactive and would only apply to pets acquired during the relationship. It would apply to all partnerships recognized by the law, not just marriages.
Some opponents took issue with the bill’s fiscal note, which estimates that the measure would cost the state nearly $900,000 in one fiscal year due to the increased court hearings. This comes as the state faces a roughly $800 million budget deficit this year, making it unlikely that lawmakers would approve such spending.
Valdez disputed the estimated cost, noting that other states with similar laws have not experienced financial burdens or gridlocked court systems. He said he is working with legislative staff to lower the fiscal note.
The bill now awaits consideration by the House Appropriations Committee.
