Full Case Name:  P.M.A c/ C.M.A s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia- Burke and Roma- Argentina

This case involves a divorced couple that shared two dogs, Burke and Roma. The divorced couple had an arrangement where they shared custody of the dogs. After a domestic violence accusation filed by the respondent that resulted in a restraining order, the petitioner was no longer allowed to see the dogs. The petitioner filed an injunction asking the judge to grant visitation rights (provisional communication regime in Argentina) so he could see the dogs. The petitioner argued that the capricious decision not to let him see the dogs caused him pain, anguish, and concern because Roma and Burke were his family. He missed them, and their absence made him deeply sad. He also expressed concern about the possibility of the respondent’s mother watching the dogs, as there was a prior accusation of animal negligence.

The petitioner stated that although he knew animals were categorized as movable property under the civil code, a changing paradigm considered their rights and sentience. Relying on existing domestic and foreign legislation and jurisprudence, the petitioner stated that He had a multispecies family of which Roma and Burke were a part and that they were not “things” that could be divided between the parties. Regarding the restraining order, the petitioner proposed that his mother or a friend could pick the dogs up at the respondent’s domicile to avoid any contact with the respondent.

Witnesses testified to the strong emotional bond between the petitioner and the dogs, emphasizing their well-being under his care. A psychologist’s report also highlighted the petitioner’s emotional distress due to the separation from the dogs.

The respondent, requested the denial of the injunction and contended that it was her who initially adopted the dogs, and therefore, she was their owner. She further states that Burke was adopted two years before meeting the petitioner. She accompanied adoption and health records as proof of ownership. The respondent further argues that since she is the sole owner of the dogs, the petitioner is not entitled to visitation, which is not even recognized by the law. Moreover, that there was no contract or document reflecting and agreement between the parties to share the dogs’ care and companionship.

The judge reviewed the parties’ legal and factual arguments. After acknowledging that under the civil code, animals are categorized as movable objects, and, as it was known, objects did not have rights, the court recognized that changing societal views included animals in current family dynamics. The court stated there is not the same living with an animal than to consider them a part of the family. To be deemed a family member, they must be acknowledged as a “legitimate other” that is treated with both respect and affection and now, companion animals are part of a multispecies family.

As such, it was inconsequential who adopted Roma and Burke, even if Burke’s adoption predated the relationship between the parties by two years. The judge continues by saying that since dogs are considered sentient beings with whom humans create emotional bonds, taking into account who adopted them becomes pointless.

The judge concluded that from a non-anthropocentric speciest view, Burke and Roma were non-human members of the family created by the parties and that the love for the dogs did not end with the divorce. On the contrary, it had transcended the relationship of the couple. Therefore, neither party could be forced to forget about their relationship with their dogs, severing the solid emotional bond based on years of living together.

A visitation schedule was ordered wherein Roma and Burke would spend every other weekend with the petitioner. Starting on Fridays at 6 pm, the dogs could be picked up by the petitioner’s mother, a friend, or a family member and returned on Sundays at 8 pm. During weekends when the dogs were not with the petitioner, he could pick them up on Monday at 6 pm and return them on Tuesday at 8 pm.

This case joins the growing list of cases in Argentina and Latin America where judges recognize the existence of multispecies families and aim to protect the emotional relationship between humans and their non-human family members.