I. AN INTRODUCTION TO ANIMAL LAW IN LATIN AMERICA
“Nature…where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions, and evolutionary processes.” Constitution of Ecuador, ch 7, art 71. In 2008, Ecuador became a catalyst for widespread environmental policy change when it gave nature legally recognized inherent rights. Ecuador’s ratification of the rights of nature provided a new pathway for other countries within Latin America and beyond to begin to recognize nature as an invaluable entity worthy of legal protection.
Through recognizing the inherent value of nature, Ecuador, joined by nations such as Chile, Argentina, Peru, Mexico, and Colombia, has begun to move away from the human-centered, or anthropocentric, idea that only humans have inherent or intrinsic value. These countries are paving the way for advocates worldwide to consistently defend nature and all of its comprising parts.
By recognizing that flora and fauna have inherent value, Latin America has set a new standard for the legal protection of nonhuman living things. The continent has produced both case law and legislation giving animals autonomous rights; protecting the animals’ welfare during handling, treatment, and transportation; as well as ensuring the health of nature overall. Nearly every Latin American country’s constitution contains “the right to a healthy environment” as a fundamental human right, in which all people are entitled to “a clean, healthy, sustainable environment,” including the surrounding flora and fauna. What is the Right to a Healthy Environment? United Nations Human Rights, Office of the High Commissioner, 2023.
Regarding fauna in particular, the courts in Latin America have made a distinction between wild animals and companion animals. Wild animals are generally considered to be those that are non-domesticated and live without human support or companionship. Companion animals, referred to as “pets,” commonly, are domesticated animals such as cats, dogs, rabbits, cattle, and so on. The courts, too, recognize both companion and farm animals as movable property of their owner. The concept of movable property, to be contrasted with immovable property such as land and houses, is seen within Latin American countries’ civil codes and has profound roots in Roman law. Other examples of movable property include, but are not limited to, automobiles, jewelry, and cell phones. However, many people who own companion animals do not see their pets as property; they see them as indispensable members of their own family. This idea has begun to gain traction in Latin American courts, and multiple countries have now officially recognized animals as part of a human family, thus giving rise to the multispecies family classification.
II. THE MULTISPECIES FAMILY
It is near certain that most people with a pet would agree that their pet is not simply property or a nonsentient being that lives in their home. Many people with pets think of their animals as full and valuable members of their family, despite being nonhuman. It is from this sentiment that several Latin American courts have recognized the importance of protecting families with human and nonhuman members, called “multispecies families.”
Through the courts’ recognition, multispecies families have gained unique legal protection across the continent. As an area of law, Latin American courts have expanded the plurality of the meaning of “family” and familial structures for both practical and cultural purposes in order to prioritize the well-being of all family members. For example, it is common in Latin America to have more than just parents and their children live in a home together. Their extended families, such as grandparents, cousins, and the like, may also cohabitate with one “immediate” family. These accepted expanded definitions of a “family” allow Latin America to continue to expand its definition and accommodate even more families across the continent.
Compared to the United States, Latin American law is considered to be a generally progressive system. It often times uses social-justice-fueled reasoning to advocate for ill-treated or marginalized groups and individuals. With respect to multispecies families, the court most often employs reasoning regarding “the right to free development of personality.” Multispecies Families in Latin America, Truyenque, 2023. The concept of “free development of personality” stems from the United Nations’ 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 22, in which “everyone is entitled to the realization of the rights needed for one’s dignity and the free development of their personality.” Universal Declaration of Human Rights, art. 22, United Nations, 1948. In short, it provides everyone, in the case of Latin America, legally protected rights to build one’s life, develop their own ideas, and receive respect for their individual preferences. This includes, now, the respect of one’s choice to have pets and to have their strong attachment to them recognized and protected, from which several court cases have emerged.
III. LATIN AMERICAN COURTS’ PROTECTION OF MULTISPECIES FAMILIES IN PRACTICE
A. M.J.G.G. v. La Policia Nacional, 2024 - Colombia: the tutela action
This recent and groundbreaking case was commenced by a seven-year-old plaintiff whose father, a policeman, worked far away from where the girl lived in rural Colombia. The girl was cared for by her grandmother, and the two lived with several animals to whom the girl had given names; including two dogs, a cat, a group of ducks, and some hens. M.J.G.G. v. La Policia Nacional, 2, 2024. She did not get to see her father very much as he worked in a city a considerable distance away from their home, and returning to his daughter was difficult and rare. Id. The girl told the court that she had suffered psychological and educational harm because of the absence of her father at their home, and wished for him to be transferred to a closer police unit. Id. The police unit responded stating that her father’s transfer had to meet several criteria before it could be considered. Id. at 3-4. The parties discussed having the girl move to the city with her father, but she refused as if she did so, she would likely have to abandon the animals that she kept in her rural home. Id. at 4, 36. In a previous decision, the father had been transferred once one year prior out of respect for the girl’s right to family unity, but he still worked far away from her. Id. at 4. The girl brought this tutela action against the police department to bring her father closer while keeping her multispecies family united, thereby protecting her fundamental right to a multispecies family unit. Id. at 7, 20.
Interestingly, the girl was permitted to bring this action herself as a tutela action. Id. at 8. A tutela action is, in Colombia, “a protection mechanism that allows any person to go before the judicial authorities to obtain immediate protection of his fundamental rights…” ABC de las Acciones de la Tutela, Personería de Bogotá, D.C., 2, and is inadmissible when there are other judicial means of defense. M.J.G.G. at 8. Given the girl’s very young age, she did not have standing nor any ability otherwise to bring her case in any other manner and proceeded with this tutela action. Id.
The present court discussed the prior holding and reiterated that asking the girl to move from her established rural home to the city would disrupt her multispecies family, headed by a single caregiver, the grandmother, and therefore would “completely disregard” her physical, psychological, social, and economic interests. Id. at 4.
The court discussed several legal concepts, including res judicata, judicial discretion with regard to intervening in one’s rights, and labor regulations. However, with respect to the girl’s case, the court recognized her individual autonomy, intellectual ability, and unique needs as a minor, including her right to family unity. Id. at 16. Minors, who are developing children, have different physical and psychological needs than adults. They are developing crucial reasoning and social skills that can be negatively impacted if they are denied one or more of their needs. The court here made clear that a developing child has the right to have their family unity protected in order to preserve and encourage their positive physical and, in particular, psychological development.
In addition, the court introduced the idea of a minor’s “fundamental right to love”; meaning, that minors, especially as a vulnerable group, have the “dignified” right to have a family and to not be separated from it. Id. at 16, 19. In fact, from this, this court devised the phrase “right to be rooted.” The court emphasized the loving and caring aspect of families and the important role they play in the child’s development, including animals’ roles within a home. Although they are nonhuman, people nonetheless form immeasurably strong bonds with their animals, and for most, it would be devastating to be separated from them in any capacity. The court discusses that a family is not just one comprised of humans related by blood, but one comprised of deep bonds. From this, the court deduced that animals are often integral members of any given family, which benefits both the people and the animal(s). According to the court, a family extends beyond traditional notions, and is “united by bonds of solidarity, love, and respect, and characterized by unity of life or destiny.” Id. at 23.
As far as the animals themselves being subjects of rights, the court acknowledges that although this case does not warrant placing autonomous rights upon animals, it does not negate their important place in a human family, including recognizing humans’ inherent dignity and right to make their own choices for their lives. Id. at 29.
The holding from the prior year was modified, as the police had violated the principle of best interest to minors, “in order to protect the fundamental rights to equality, human dignity, human and multi-species family unity, and the rootedness of the minor plaintiff…,” and the father’s employers will have to reconsider the girl’s request for transfer. Id. at 37, 38-39.
The court in this case takes a progressive, humanistic approach to the multispecies family by emphasizing and protecting the crucial role of love between humans and animals. Using an anti-anthropocentric analysis, it thoroughly discusses the important roles animals play within a human’s life through means of love. Animals provide humans immeasurable benefits by way of companionship, and the bond created between owner and pet is likened to that between a parent and their child. The court recognized this and effectively expanded the legal definition of “family” to include animal companions.
The court also very clearly acknowledges minors’ capacity to understand, choose, and rationalize as separate and autonomous persons, as opposed to simply extensions of their parents. The girl decided, at only seven years old, that her animals were undoubtedly a part of her family and that if they were separated, several of her aforementioned rights would be violated. This point provides an important expansion within Colombian law. It includes, within Colombia’s core human rights, the recognition, presence, and vitality of a beloved animal companion in the human’s life as fundamental.
B. Arotaipe v. Aguirre, 2022 - Chile: Munay
In this Chilean case, the plaintiff’s hybrid-breed dog, Munay, was attacked and seriously injured by the defendant’s two large rottweiler dogs after Munay had barked at them, allegedly provoking them. Resolución N° 10, 2022 (Case of the dog Munay, Peru). The rottweilers were unleashed, unmuzzled, and, apparently, aggressive. Id. at 3. Munay was considerably injured and required substantial veterinary care. Id. at 1. Munay’s owner, the plaintiff, was distraught during and after the attack and was terrified she was going to lose her beloved companion. Id. at 2.
Chile, along with several other Latin American countries, considered rottweilers to be a “potentially dangerous dog breed.” Id. at 3-4. The dog breeds considered “potentially dangerous” almost always include rottweilers, pit bulls, German Shepherds, and Doberman Pinschers, for their large size, strength, and heightened potential to cause serious harm if improperly trained or treated. The defendant in Munay’s case had paperwork to establish that she was aware of the risks associated with keeping potentially dangerous dogs and that she was responsible for their training, handling, and consequential actions. Id.
The plaintiff brought this action to obtain damages for the harm suffered by herself and Munay by the defendant’s negligence. For the plaintiff and Munay’s physical and emotional harm, the court discussed the appropriate amount of moral and consequential damages, using factors such as the extremity of harm suffered, to place upon the defendant for her failure to abide by relevant legislation and control her dogs. Id. at 9-10, 12. The court stated that the emotional damage suffered by the plaintiff is constituted of the “pain, suffering, and subjective affliction experienced in the face of an adverse event” as the result of a member of her family being severely harmed. Id. at 6. The court reasoned that “[Munay] cannot be equated only as an object or property of the plaintiff…under the rule of real rights…it must be understood that there is a bond of different meaning between people who have a bond with domestic animals….” The court here explicitly mentions the multispecies family, and makes clear their intention to recognize animals as “incorporated” members of a human family. Id. at 2.
The court awarded the plaintiff damages amounting to roughly 472 USD for the suffering she experienced when Munay, her dog and a member of her family, was attacked by the defendant’s dogs and had to be hospitalized for emergency surgery. Id. at 12-13.
The court, in this case, took the concept of a multispecies family further than recognition and protection and punished a defendant on its basis by imposing substantial fines. Not only did this court acknowledge that the bond between humans and their animals is fruitful to the humans, and in turn comprises an essential aspect of their lives, but confirmed companion animals’ value by ordering the defendant to pay fines for inflicting suffering on such an animal.
C. Pedroni v. Capello, 2023 - Argentina: Burke and Roma
This case regards a divorced Argentinian couple and their two dogs; Burke and Roma. After the end of their eight-year relationship, the pair made an arrangement in which they shared custody of Burke and Roma, as they both still loved the dogs and felt bonded to them despite their failed marriage. P.M.A c/ C.M.A s/ Medidas Precautorias – Familia- Burke and Roma- Argentina. However, after a domestic violence dispute, the respondent filed a restraining order against the petitioner, thereby ending their arrangement and prohibiting him from seeing Burke and Roma. Id. at 2.
The petitioner brought an injunction, here, requesting that he be able to see the dogs and that his being unable to see them caused him pain, anguish, and worry as he considers the dogs part of his family. Id. at 3.
Argentina categorized animals as movable property under the civil code, and the petitioner acknowledged this. However, through means of other relevant case law, he asked the court to also consider the dogs’ sentience and rights by recognizing Burke and Roma as members of his multispecies family. Id.
The respondent argued that she adopted Burke before she and the petitioner met, and her name is the only one present on Roma’s adoption and health papers, thereby naming her as the sole owner of the dog. Id. at 4. The respondent referred to the dogs as her “doggy children” and stated that she loved them very much. Id.
This court acknowledges that animals, although considered property under Argentine law, are not simply “things” and require special consideration, given that they are sentient beings capable of self-awareness and feelings. Id. at 7. The court then discussed the idea that families, in essence, consist of bonds of love. Referencing another similar Argentinian case regarding two dogs, Popeye and Kiara, the court quotes, here translated from Spanish,
It is known that animals, especially pets, are sensitive beings, that feel, miss, rejoice, suffer, and acquire habits, so it is undoubtedly that the change that will produce the separation of the spouses, will also affect them and their owners will be in a better position to look after their interests.
Id. at 10, quoting Onocko, Sebastian G., "El divorcio en la familia multiespecie", Regimen de visitas para los perrijos,” 29 de septiembre de 2022.
Like much of Latin America, this court also recognized that a family can take many forms, and not just what is commonly considered to be immediate family. The petitioner consistently referred to Burke and Roma as his “babies” and clearly loved them very much. Id. at 13. He had tattoos of the dogs, took impeccable care of them, and brought them everywhere with him. Id. The petitioner reported suffering substantial psychological harm since he had been prohibited from seeing the dogs. Id. at 3, 18.
This court noted that, from an anti-anthropocentric, or anti-human-centered, view, Burke and Roma were nonhuman members of the family that was formed between the couple and has transcended past the divorce. Id. at 15. The court could not ask either party to give up their relationship and “mutilate” the bond formed. Id. The court held that the parties were to share custody of the dogs via a pre-planned schedule so that no members of the multispecies family suffer the separation of the family. Id. at 16-17.
The court in this case took the issue of custody of mutual pets similar to the treatment of children after divorce or separation. The court imposed upon the parties a court-ordered predetermined schedule to fairly share custody of the dogs. By recognizing the familial bond of love and companionship that the parties formed with the dogs, the court treated them, in essence, as if they were the parties’ human children.
It also noted how animals, and not just their human counterparts, suffer harm when they are separated from their owners, especially if they have a strong bond. Id. at 16. Through this, the court acknowledged animals’ human-like capacity for sentience and consequential emotional harm, thus signifying the importance of allowing multispecies families to remain together, for the wellbeing of both the humans and the involved animals.
D. Baeza v. Gonzalez, 2022 - Chile: Igor and Bambu
Similar to the previous case, the plaintiff and defendant here were previously in a relationship and had adopted two dogs, Igor and Bambu. Causa Rol C-1533-2021, 2022 - Igor and Bambu- Chile. During their five-year relationship the pair adopted Igor, and roughly three years later noticed that he seemed quite lonely. Id. at 2. Through assisted fertilization and using Igor’s DNA, they conceived a puppy to keep Igor company, Bambu. Id.
Sometime after Bambu’s birth, the parties terminated their relationship and disagreed about what to do regarding the custody of the dogs. The defendant was in possession of the dogs and refused to let the plaintiff see them, allegedly causing the plaintiff much anguish. Id.
After a failed attempt to somewhat share custody, the plaintiff brought this action claiming that he had suffered adverse consequences due to the close bonds he formed with the dogs and no longer being allowed to see them. Id. at 2-3.
The court treated this situation as if the dogs were similar to property, and therefore applied several concepts of property law to the case. Id. at 7-8. However, the court was adamant in making the distinction that animals although considered movable property for legal purposes, are not simple objects. Id. Animals, including pets, are considered tangible, movable things under Chilean law and as such, their human owners have power over them and may use the animal to their advantage, including companionship. Id. at 9-10. The court expressed the prominence of the close and unique bonds often formed between owner and pet, likening them to a parent-child familial relationship. Id. at 13. It further recognized, citing outside articles, that animals play an important role within a family and that this fact must be considered. Id.
The court held that the parties, having both created close familial bonds with Igor and Bambu, are both entitled to ownership of the dogs in community. Id. at 14. They were to share their custody by each possessing them for a period of three months, switching them off to the other for three months, and so on. Id.
Like the previous case, this court, too, treated the dogs similarly to children with respect to scheduled shared custody. By ordering the parties to share custody on a court-determined schedule, it recognizes the transcendence and prominence of the deep familial bonds created between pet and human, despite the human couple’s own relationship failing.
E. Gomez v. National Direction of Drugs, 2020 - Colombia: Clifor
The plaintiff, in this case, brought this tutela action on behalf of a beloved family dog, Clifor, whose owner calls him her “brother.” Tutela caso Clifor. Clifor suffered from idiopathic epilepsy, and can only be treated with the anti-convulsant drug phenobarbital, which could only be obtained with a prescription. Id.
During one attempt to fill Clifor’s prescription, the plaintiff stated that she was unable to fill it due to the government-based supplier being closed to the public. Id. at 2. The plaintiff then filed this tutela action, alleging that the government supplier had violated her due process, and asked the court to order the defendant to supply the medication within 48 hours to preserve Clifor’s life and allow him to live with dignity without suffering. Id. The defendant claimed that it did not violate any of the plaintiff’s rights as it acted in accordance with the relevant constitutional and legal mandates. Id. at 3.
The court deliberated regarding whether the defendant violated the plaintiff’s rights to family, due process, health, property, human dignity, and right to a dignified life. Id. It acknowledged the anti-anthropocentric Law 1774 of January 2016, which stated that although the Colombian constitution does not explicitly recognize animals as individual holders of rights, it should also not be read as their denial of such rights. Id. at 5. The court deduced from this that the Colombian constitution preserves both human and nonhuman species as part of the ecological environment, and protects them due to their capacity to reason. Id.
With respect to family unity as a fundamental right, the court further discussed Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), Article 10 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and, finally, Article 17 of the American Convention on Human Rights (ACHR). Id. These provisions relate to family relations, and refer to a “family” as “‘the natural and fundamental group unit of society,’” and impose on nations and society the “non-delegable responsibility to protect and assist it in order to achieve its integral development.” Id. at 5-6.
The court provided the Constitutional Court’s definition of family, as well. Translated from Spanish, “that community of persons related to each other by natural or legal ties, which bases its existence on love, respect, and solidarity, and which is characterized by the unity of life or destiny that intimately binds its members or closest members….” Id. at 5. It expanded further by explicitly acknowledging the plural and diverse nature of families and noted that, according to the Constitutional Court, “[familial] relationships…extend[]... to de facto [actual] relationships that arise from coexistence and are based on affection, respect, protection, mutual aid, understanding, and solidarity…” Id.
The court stated that animals, as sentient beings, are the owners of some rights, such as the right to seek treatment for ailments, and since they cannot do so themselves, it is the duty of their family to do so for them. Id. at 6. Therefore, the court held that a denial of such care constitutes a violation of the duty to protect animals by denying them a better quality of life. Id. In turn, the family is negatively impacted as their family member is left unwell. Through this, the court further held that the government supplier violated the “fundamental right of the preservation of the family unit” by putting Clifor at risk and the clear emotional bonds between him and his human family. Id. at 7.
In addition, the court pointed out that the right to have a pet constitutes part of the right to free development of personality and family intimacy. Id. From this, the court held that the government, which had a pharmaceutical monopoly, was obliged to guarantee access to necessary drugs and provide the required medication to facilitate Clifor’s care. Id.
This court took a non-anthropocentric view of the issue of pet health and medication by using the concept of a multispecies family to require a government entity to supply a dog with medication. It demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the unique familial bonds formed between humans and pets, and the distress both of them will likely experience if the pet is denied access to necessary care.
IV. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Cases such as the above-discussed illustrate the manners through which courts in several Latin American countries have begun to officially recognize the prevalence and importance of the multispecies family. However, the above cases are certainly not the only important cases to arise out of the concept of the multispecies family. See also: Resolución N° 13, Juzgado Civil, Sede la Merced, Petunia, the pig (2022) - Peru, C., M. M. M. s/ Denuncia Maltrato Animal; seguidos contra E. P. S., D.N.I. N° X- Causa Tita, PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA, EXPTE. N° 450237 - Bauty, the dog - Argentina., Sentencia 10013-103027-2023-00229-00 (0327) - Simona - Colombia (2023), and Sentencia STC1926-2023. Each of these landmark cases provides further information and analysis regarding family law, animal law, animal welfare, rights of nature, and the multispecies family. Below are brief summaries of each of the additional cases.
Petunia’s case regards the plaintiff’s right to keep Petunia, a pig, after an administrative removal order was entered against Petunia. The plaintiff argued for her rights to personal development and emphasized her strong emotional bond with Petunia. The plaintiff was allowed to keep Petunia, so long as she kept her conditions sanitary, and the court invalidated the administrative order. Resolución N° 13, Juzgado Civil, Sede la Merced, Petunia, the pig (2022) - Peru.
Tita was a beloved pitbull-mix family dog who, unfortunately, attacked a police officer. While she was walking away, the officer shot Tita in front of her family and, ultimately, killed her. The court reasoned that Tita was like a daughter to the family and that her loss was “irreparable.” This court, too, emphasized animals’ sentience and their right to life must be respected. The officer was sentenced to one year in prison amongst professional disqualification and fines. This court did not explicitly mention the multispecies family, however, it is certainly implied with their reasoning that Tita was, effectively, a “daughter” to the family. C., M. M. M. s/ Denuncia Maltrato Animal; seguidos contra E. P. S., D.N.I. N° X- Causa Tita.
The case of Bauty the Dog is similar to the above cases regarding the custody of dogs after a failed human relationship. The parties in this case, too, formed deep emotional bonds with Bauty and could not bear to be separated from their beloved pet. This court also viewed dogs as more than simple movable property, and that the parties would suffer if separated from Bauty. However, unlike the other cases, the court allowed the defendant to retain Bauty’s custody while the plaintiff kept the other assets in question. PRIETO, GERMÁN LUIS C/ COLONNA LUCIANA ANDREA, EXPTE. N° 450237 - Bauty, the dog - Argentina.
Simona’s case is similar to Bauty’s. The family in Simona’s case also went through a divorce, and the failed couple formed deep familial bonds with her. Simona lived with the defendant, and the plaintiff wished to be able to see Simona. The plaintiff argued that he and Simona had a special bond and that Simona had been suffering emotional harm after being separated from him. This court, a family court, dismissed the case, arguing that it fell outside their jurisdiction. The civil court argued that Simona was undeniably a member of the family and that her role as a sentient animal within the family must be considered, for both her benefit and the humans’. It made clear the importance of respecting and protecting families, and that although the court had not yet recognized the multispecies family, the parties would still be able to be adjudicated in family court based on the nature of the case. Sentencia 10013-103027-2023-00229-00 (0327) - Simona - Colombia (2023).
Lastly, Romeo and Salvador’s case also revolves around a divorce. Romeo and Salvador were two dogs that belonged to a couple after a divorce that ordered their foreclosure in the divorce proceeding. The plaintiff filed a tutela action to protect her rights to family unity, development of personality, and personal health. Additionally, she argued that the dogs’ foreclosure violated not only her rights but those of her children, who had formed close sibling-like bonds with the dogs. This court held that a tutela action was not appropriate in this instance; however, a dissenting opinion argued that the court missed an opportunity to officially address multispecies families and their treatment under Colombian law. The dissenting opinion further discussed that despite animals’ legal status as property, they are living, sentient beings that should be respected as such. Finally, the opinion suggested that issues of custody, visitation, and alimony should be discussed in situations regarding pets, similar to how they are discussed regarding children. SentenciaSTC1926-2023.
With respect to all of the aforementioned cases, Latin American courts’ expanded definitions of “family” and what it may mean to be a “family member” have revolutionized the way pets, in particular, are recognized and treated within the legal system. There are a multitude of resources consistently coming out of Latin American courts that provide detailed and distinctive discussions of both the multispecies family and animal law as a comprehensive area.
V. CONCLUSION
In sum, Latin American courts’ new, expanded definitions of “family” have sparked a new wave of development within animal law and animal welfare. Recognizing animals as integral parts of human families may open doors in the future for animals to continue gaining inherent rights and protections. Latin American courts are developing thoughtful and precise case law regarding animals as members of human families, and new, important, decisions are continuously emerging from the continent’s courts.
Latin American courts have been evolving and expanding the accepted notions of “family” to include animals as core members of human families. Through this, these courts have moved away from anthropocentrism and stimulated courts across the continent to officially recognize animals’ crucial roles within families and affirm that families, in effect, are indeed comprised of love.