Best interests of the dog

I frequently complain about the BIOTCh, but this case is so ridiculous it sounds like a joke. UCLA law prof. Eugene Volokh writes:

Generally speaking, family courts have been quite reluctant to consider “pet custody” arguments; they much prefer to treat pets as property, to be allocated as part of a property settlement (like a car or a house), than as akin to children, for whom a custody decision should be made. But Hamet v. Baker (Vt. Apr. 25, 2014), from the Vermont Supreme Court, essentially endorses a “best interests of the dog” standard, much like the best interests of the child standard used in custody cases, albeit in the context of a property division. (The court also endorses consideration of whether the dog was one spouse’s property before the marriage — mentioned in a passage that I exclude from the excerpt — and the emotional connection between the dog and each spouse, but those seemed to be equally applicable, or equally inapplicable, in this case, as they would be in many cases.)

I wonder, though, whether the court’s decision was really based on any objective evaluation of the dog’s best interests (or how that could be determined, short of cases of outright abuse or neglect), as opposed to the judge’s personal view of how he feels a dog should be treated. Read it yourself, and see what you think:

At the conclusion of the hearing, the court awarded the dog to husband. It found that either party would provide the dog with a good life. It gave a slight edge to husband because the dog is accustomed to the routine of going to the clinic every day. The court balanced that factor against the dog’s familiarity with the marital home, which the parties agreed wife would receive as part of the property settlement.

It found that husband “treats the dog like a dog,” while wife is more doting and treats the dog like a child. The court concluded that the dog would do better with husband’s balanced attitude towards the animal.

Of course the judge was applying his personal prejudices, with Vermont supreme court endorsement. It is like saying, "The boy is black, and the dad treats him more like a black boy while the mom treats him like a white boy, so I am giving custody to the dad."

The Vermont supreme court explains:

Because a pet is property, the family division must assign it to one party or the other. Like other aspects of the property division, the assignment is final and generally not subject to modification….

An order of property division is final and not subject to modification. In contrast to enforcement of other kinds of property division orders, enforcement of an order requiring ongoing sharing of a family companion animal would require the power of modification, since the animal’s well-being in the context of changing circumstances could be a substantial factor in the analysis.

Unlike child custody matters, there is no legislative authority for the court to play a continuing role in the supervision of the parties with respect to the care and sharing of a companion animal.

The term "sharing of a companion animal" is only used by the animal rights crowd. It sounds as if the court really wants the authority to take over the best interests of the dog as if it were a human child.

Under the law, the dog is just a piece of property. The usual way to divide an indivisible property in divorce court is to give each party an option to buy out the other's interest. They should also have the opportunity to agree to a contract to share the property if they wish, as presumably a contract to share a dog would be enforceable with the possibility of a civil lawsuit. But the judge did neither of those things. He quite literally ruled in the best interest of the bitch.

Notice especially the court complaint about a lack of "legislative authority for the court to play a continuing role in the supervision of the parties". I say that the court should have no such authority over parents, either. The way I read the law, the judge is supposed to make a final child custody determination, and then the parents are supposed to go about their lives with full authority as parents.

Apparently not. Parents under the jurisdiction of the family court are like prisoners on parole, with some bossy judge having a continuing role in their supervision. I am talking about supervision of the parents here, not the kids. The only free parents are the single parents with sole custody.

This case is very revealing for its attitudes towards parents and dogs. It also helps convince me that the system is not reformable. Do any politicians, judges, or other authority figures even object to the family court exercising a continuing role in the supervision of parents? We are doomed.

Women prefer small dogs over kids

The NY Post reports:

America’s next generation of youngsters should be called “Generation Rex.”

If you’re wondering why playgrounds around the city are so quiet and dog runs are packed, a new report has an answer: More and more US women are forgoing motherhood and getting their maternal kicks by owning handbag-size canines.

Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that a big drop in the number of babies born to women ages 15 to 29 corresponds with a huge increase in the number of tiny pooches owned by young US women, reports the business-news site Quartz.

Dog-crazy New York ladies told The Post that they aren’t surprised by the findings — and that they happily gave up diaper changes, temper tantrums and college funds for the easy affection of their doggy “child.”

The Spearhead agrees that this is a trend.

Sometimes I see a mom or a nanny take tender loving care of a child, and I marvel at the maternal instinct. And then I see a woman do the same with some stupid mutt that looks like an overgrown rodent.

I don't want to bash the dog-lovers. They seem completely normal, compared to the cat lovers.

Meanwhile, the other New York newspaper caters to the kind of rich people who obsess on dogs. The NY Times reports:

Not to brag, but we may have a little genius on our hands. Our 6-month-old is up before dawn playing brain games. She knows her way around an iPad and practically devours puzzles, and I’m teaching her to read. Just recently, she mastered an advanced chess toy.

I am talking, of course, about our dog. ...

In the last decade, Mr. Hare informed me, we have learned more about how dogs think than in the last century. As he explained, his own research shows that dogs read our gestures, like pointing, more flexibly than any other animal. Other investigators from Hungary, using functional magnetic resonance imaging, recently announced that the canine brain is sensitive to cues of emotion in human voices. When you pet a dog, another study concluded, both human and canine oxytocin levels increase.

Other findings are hairier. A research article in Frontiers in Zoology last December asserted that dogs align their bodies along a magnetic north-south axis when urinating or defecating, though nobody knows why. My favorite was the classic study conducted in France on why a stranger’s crotch is more interesting to a dog than its master’s.

More curious still was the crowd-funded effort this past winter by a group of Scandinavian designers and “optimistic dreamers” calling themselves the Nordic Society for Invention and Discovery. The team claims to be developing a small gadget called No More Woof, a prototype that uses “the latest technology in microcomputing and EEG to analyze animal thought patterns and spell them out in human language using a loudspeaker.” A dog barks, and the electronic translator will say things like, “Em, why are you guys leaving?”

If someone else printed this, I might suspect a joke.

Expanding domestic violence law

The London Daily Mail reports:

Forcing your spouse to wear particular clothes, deciding which friends they can see and ‘excessive jealousy’ could become crimes as part of changes to domestic violence laws, it emerged last night.

Ministers are considering whether to make forms of ‘psychological abuse’ which do not involve violence into criminal offences punishable by law.

It follows a campaign from women’s groups who say there is too much focus on specific incidents in which someone was hurt by their partner.

‘Before you know it you could be in a Police State where a little bit of aggro could lead to the police being involved and someone being carted off to the police station.’

The proposals were published yesterday by the Domestic Violence Law Reform Campaign, which said existing laws fail to take into account ‘power and control’ in relationships.

It is calling on ministers to criminalise ‘coercive control’ and behaviour which causes psychological harm. ...

A survey of abuse victims carried out by the campaign group found 94 per cent of those surveyed said mental cruelty could be worse than physical violence.

The Home Office’s own definition of domestic violence already includes ‘coercive control’ - but until there has been no move towards making them a criminal offence.

This coercion can include being excessively jealous, stopping someone from seeing family and friends or controlling what the victim wears.

So if you hear about someone with a domestic violence conviction, maybe he just gave his girlfriend a dirty look about the outfit whe was wearing.

Meanwhile, here is some domestic violence with a cat:

The Oregon owners of a 22-pound housecat that trapped them in their bedroom after attacking their baby say they’re not giving up on their pet and are getting it medical attention and therapy.

Two days after police arrived to subdue the 4-year-old part-Himalayan cat, owner Lee Palmer of Portland said he’s taking the feline to a veterinarian. A pet psychologist also is due at the house to see the cat, named Lux.

“We’re not getting rid of him right now,” Palmer said. “He’s been part of our family for a long time.”

Palmer says the animal attacked his 7-month-old child after the baby pulled its tail. The child suffered a few scratches on the forehead.

On the 911 call, Palmer tells the dispatcher he kicked the cat “in the rear” to protect his child. Palmer says the animal then “just went off over the edge” — leading Palmer and his girlfriend to barricade themselves, their baby and the family dog in the bedroom for safety.

Someday the cops will be required to arrest either the cat or its owners, and maybe get a restraining order.

Divorce battle over dog custody

A reader sent this NY Post story, saying it reminded her of me:

A pair of divorcing women are about to fight it out in court over a miniature dachshund named Joey in what will be New York’s first matrimonial pet-custody case.

“People who love their dogs almost always love them forever,” Manhattan Justice Matthew Cooper opines in his ruling granting the women oral arguments. “But with divorce rates at record highs, the same cannot always be said for those who marry.” ...

The only bone of contention in their divorce is who will get sole custody of their 2-year-old pet.

Travis bought Joey as a 10-week-old puppy from a pet store and gave him to her then-girlfriend as a gift and “a consolation for her having to give away her cat at Travis’ insistence,” according to court papers.

Murray is fighting to keep her best friend, who always slept on her side of the bed.

“I consider this puppy, my little angel Joey, the love of my life,” Murray told The Post.

“He is my little soul mate, and there was no way in this lifetime I could ever live without him.” ...

While some state courts like those in Kansas declined to stick their noses in a custody cases, others have leaped at the chance to treat canines like humans in legal proceedings.

An Alabama judge awarded a dog named Preston to one spouse over the other by taking into consideration the pet’s “best interests,” a gauge typically used in child custody cases.
Instead of regarding Joey like a piece of property, the judge — who gives the full disclosure that he owns a 12-year-old rescued pit bull mix named Peaches — will schedule a hearing to determine his fate.

“This is a cutting-edge case for animal rights,” said Murray’s attorney Sherri Donovan. “It recognizes the special place of pets in our families.” ...

He will ask the pup’s mothers to answer questions similar to those posed during child custody trials such as: “Who spent more time with Joey on a regular basis?”

Our family courts have gone mad, when they consider the best interests of a dog.

Looking for bigfoot in Santa Cruz

The Animal Planet TV channel just broadcast an episode from the Santa Cruz mountains:

Surf's Up, Sasquatch

The team travels to Santa Cruz to visit the Bigfoot Discovery Museum. The museum's owner directs them to recent eyewitnesses and secret hotspots. Bobo hopes the smells from an authentic Hawaiian luau will be too much for nearby bigfoots to resist.

The local expert, who claimed his own bigfoot sighting was Univ. of Santa Cruz Psychology professor Walsh.

I cannot find "Dr. Walsh" on the UCSC Pyschology faculty page. I don't know whether the guy is an impostor, a promoter for the Felton Bigfoot museum, a gullible fool, or just took too much LSD.

I posted last year about weirdo UCSC psychology professors dropping dead.

Maybe I expect too much from this crazy little beach town. How can I hope for sane and honest court psychologists, when even the college professors are nuts?

Besides bigfoot, Santa Cruz has also been famous all over the world this week for pictures of toddlers snuggling with puppies.

Mom wants no dogs or private schools

Slate seems to have been taken over by oddball leftist feminists. Allison Benedikt writes:

A friend of mine once told me that before he had a kid, he would have run into a burning building to save his cats. Now that he has a kid, he would happily drown the cats in the bathtub if it would help his son take a longer nap. Here is how I feel about that statement: Velvel, avoid the bathroom.

It’s not that I don’t love my dog. It’s just that I don’t love my dog. And I am not alone. A very nonscientific survey of almost everyone I know who had a dog and then had kids now wishes they had never got the dog. This is a near universal truth, even for parents with just one child, though I have more.

She also got a lot of attention with this:

You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.

I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. ...

I went K–12 to a terrible public school. My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book. There wasn’t even soccer.

So she wants her kids to get the same mediocre education she got. She also whines about postponing childbearing, and not having much money left for kids after spending it all on their yuppie Manhattan lifestyle.

I will post more on different parenting philosophies.

Dead dog after split

This Wash. Post story sounds ridiculous. The dog Delta was sleeping with the husband, but the 67-year-old wife took it to Virginia:

But in the bitterness of separation after 38 years of marriage, Charles said, she insisted on bringing Delta with her as she moved out east. “My family said, 'just let it go' when she said she wanted the dog.” So, he did.

Eleven days later Delta was dead.

Her legal troubles began when she told Costco why she was returning the dog food!

After Cathryn returned to the vehicle, investigators say she went back inside the Costco and returned the dog food, bedding and treats she had purchased. At that point, she told Costco employees the dog was dead, authorities said.

A worker followed Cathryn out to her car and saw what appeared to be a dead dog. The store notified Frederick Animal Control, ...

Wow, I thought that Costco employees never cared why anyone was returning anything. But I guess that the employee thought that it was suspicious that woman would buy dog food and then immediately return it because the dog was dead.

A woman has been charged with animal cruelty after her yellow Labrador retriever died in an overheated car while she shopped at a Costco in Frederick, authorities said.

The way our society is headed, we will soon have people saying that this could have all been prevented by having the family court appoint a dog psychologist to do an evaluation of the best interest of the dog.

Blaming the lawyer

A reader thinks that I am being too hard on the kids lawyer, James Ritchey. The reader says that the lawyer may be less biased against me than the judge, and that if I had offered to get a dog then maybe the lawyer would recommend that I get another chance to visit my kids. The lawyer had previously said that my not having a dog was a terrible thing.

I would get a dog if that were really necessary to see my kids. But my problems are not so easily solved. I don't even know how to reason with someone who would think that I have to have a dog to see my kids.

Another reader suggests that I rent a dog! So does this list of tips for dads in family court:

31. Get yourself a pet. Especially a dog. There's nothing like the unconditional love and affection of a faithful pet when you return home from work at the end of an exhausting day. That wagging tail, affectionate gaze and total lack of attitude can do wonders for you. And the walk it will demand every night will be good for your mind and body too.

The best interest of the dog

A reader sent this story, and said "Now judges determine the best interest of the dog".

IN RECENT YEARS, Dr. Amy Marder, a veterinarian practicing in Lexington, has found herself called upon to decide which human "parent" a pet prefers.

Pet custody disputes have become an increasingly common fixture in divorce cases and Marder, an animal behavior specialist, has consulted in several. To do a proper evaluation, she likes to spend at least an hour and a half with the couple and the pet. She asks the owners a barrage of questions: which of the two spends more time with the animal, who plays with it more, who feeds it. She asks about the pet's upbringing, its temperament, how much it exercises.

Marder frowns on so-called "calling contests," a method used by lawyers in some custody cases, in which the owners stand at opposite ends of a room and call the pet to see which way it will go. She prefers to observe the animal's body language as it interacts with its owners. She looks at whether it sits closer to one or the other, and how it reacts when each pets it.

At the end of the session, Marder makes her recommendation, based not only on who she thinks would take better care of the pet, but whom she has decided the pet has a stronger bond with -- the same sort of considerations that would go into deciding a child-custody case. Sometimes she recommends joint custody, but only if she thinks the animal can handle it.

"Some animals think it's terrific to go live in two homes," she says. "Others have separation anxiety and splitting time would only make it worse."

At first, I thought that this was some sort of parody or joke. But this appears in the Boston Globe, a reputable newspaper.

I don't even agree with those idiotic custody evaluations when they are applied to (human) children. I just heard from a woman who lost a custody evaluation because of her appearance. Or maybe it was some other prejudice, as you can never be sure. All she knows is that the report cited her clothing and other trivial factors negatively.