We suppose the pet "custody" issue was just a matter of time in California, due in part to animal activists, HOWEVER, before everyone runs to gain "custody" of a pet, be forewarned that under normal laws, animals are still considered property.
Animal activists have, in the states, long tried to give animals-- "human" status...a case in point being, the whale lawsuit at Sea World, and the current case where activists are suing to have a horse be able to sue the former owner for abuse. If the status of animals was changed to having the same rights as humans, all hell would break loose in the USA with activists running to court to sue for many animals incessantly and relentlessly. It would essentially cause the tort system to grind to a halt in short order.
Attorney herein can easily make this statement, as attorney has worked in animal law field for many years, and is extremely aware of what animal activists do. In fact, attorney was actually attacked by an animal activist in the federal courthouse (Eastern District) while working on a national case involving illegal seizure of horses. The horses were NOT abused. The activist that was trying to attack attorney was guilty of many things, but was promoting misrepresentation to the media. The case was moved to Los Angeles and in the end the activist failed to show for trial, lost the non profit, the free 600 acre ranch lease, and everything else. Activist was also sued by bank attorney who used the non profit to take the animals improperly.
So for the 2019 "custody" law, which attorney briefly reviewed--it appears if an issue with a pet is disputed as to which person should be taking the pet, then we have the question-- who is to be awarded the animal? Generally, a judge is not likely equipped to decide WHO should keep care of an animal in general. HOWEVER-- under
the NEW PET LAW FOR 2019, California judges will have authority to consider subjective factors and help find a resolution to the quandary.
Example of science related article on humans/pets
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0148296307002214
Supposedly, attorney imagines that inquiry might revolve around acquisition of the animal-- was it a gift to one person? Is it actually the pet of one of the kids? Is it licensed to only one person? Is the animal only bonded to one person? Does one person take care of the vet visits, training, feeding, etc? Has there been any alleged domestic violence in the home? Has the animal been injured or abused by a party?
Is the animal being used as a tool to further another objective? Was the animal subjected to harm previously? Does the animal have dangerous propensities? Bitten people? Allowed to run at large? [*pets are specifically named in the California DV TRO forms, and any actual abuse to animals by one party should be noted on the form where applicable]
Attorney has seen/read many animal cases, and researched a large amount of animal cases-- there is unlikely an attorney in the local county that has done more animal law cases or worked with experts on such cases. Additionally, attorney prevailed on a post seizure hearing in Hollywood CA, which is not only rare, but virtually unheard of....
Having a background in animal law gives attorney a decided positive background for nearly any animal case.
Attorney has worked closely with the expert (who helped the amicus parties) in the First Amendment case of
U.S. v Stevens, 559 U.S.460 (2010) -- a national landmark Supreme Court case involving a dog owner being sued under a statute which punished harm to animals when they are used in so
called crush videos-- which was completely inapplicable to the issue at hand
[which was the sale of videos covering the history of dog fighting]... ( the statute used re the videos, was related to a fetish of a sexual nature involving animals being crushed by a female wearing high heel shoes; that law was completely unrelated to the case they prosecuted.....that statute was a product of the Humane Society of the United States, which has been found guilty of racketeering in the case involving the Barnum and Bailey circus which activist kept going for 14 long years....)
--- By the way,
do not donate your money to the Humane Society of the United States---they are basically fleecing the public and spend more on telemarketers than helping animals; case in point, during Hurricane Katrina, they "raised" about $30million from their TV ads for the animals--and could only account for about $7million when audited. Need I say more???
Holding: A federal statute that criminalizes depictions of animal cruelty in videotapes and other commercial media is unconstitutional. Judgment: Affirmed, 8-1, ...
Apr 20, 2010 - The government may not ban depictions of animal cruelty for commercial gain because this law is overly broad under the First Amendment in ...
Apr 20, 2010 - Syllabus. NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the ...
Stevens was prosecuted for selling videos depicting dog fights. Stevens claimed that § 48 violates his First Amendment right to free speech and is therefore ...
Apr 20, 2010 - UNITED STATES v. STEVENS. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR. THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 08–769.
