New York Law Journal, January 8, 2024 ●
On May 19, 2018, my family’s golden retriever (Scarlett) of 13 years, collapsed. 30 minutes later, after I had told my children to say their tearful goodbyes, Scarlett was at the veterinarian’s office, put to sleep for good.
The imagery around the series of events leading up to the end does not go away, and I’m confident that anyone reading this who has been through the heartache of knowing when your pet has nothing more to give also remembers the details of that last day.
As I went back through the emails and text messages of May 19, 2018, nowhere did I find language along these lines: “Today we are saying goodbye to a wonderful piece of chattel.”
Indeed, that would be ridiculous. Instead, I found emails and text messages that included this phrase: “She was a part of our family.”
It is that sentiment—whether for those of us who have owned (or own) dogs, cats, or other pets that become part of our daily lives—that brings us to a discussion of Judge Edmund M. Dane’s recent decision in C.M. v. E.M., 2023 NY Slip Op 23369.
C.M. concerned whether or not the euthanasia of a family’s dog during the pendency of a matrimonial action is violative of the automatic orders. The court held that euthanasia of a companion animal without the other party’s consent is not violative of the automatic orders (“While the defendant may have other remedies at law—both civilly and criminally—the narrow and drastic remedy of contempt of court…is not one of them”).
The parties were married in 2002, having two children in common. The defendant (husband) argued that “B.” was an emotional support dog “whose custody had not been determined” and that his wife (plaintiff) “did not discuss B.’s medical condition nor provide the opportunity for the defendant to spend time with B. before the dog’s death.”
Plaintiff argued that B. “was not an emotional support animal, could no longer walk without a severe limp, had ‘too many’ masses to count, and was on significant pain medication since July 2023…she was given a prescription for a tranquilizer for the dog, transported the dog to the vet, and at the vet appointment, the dog lunged at the vet…the vet recommended euthanasia.”
The defendant claimed he was never informed of the vet’s recommendation, and there was “no urgent need for B.’s euthanasia.”
Read more on our website.
