C.Chan=Winning Results! AFFORDABLE! 4.7/5 Ratings by Clients Friendly+Affordable!CHICO NEW PH.#530.497-0777

Saturday, August 15, 2020


It is true, California courts can adjudicate cases involving animals in divorce cases........

Because animals are considered property (generally speaking), when marriages break up, 
many times the former spouses each want to take a specific pet--thus both spouses
 are fighting over which party will have physical custody (for lack of a better term), 
over that pet. In most instances, the pet is either a dog or a cat, but the type of
 animal itself is usually not the issue.
However---since race horses or performing animals can obviously be owned by a married couple, it would be interesting to see how a court would divide up the horse, and even if the horse wasn't partial to either party as an actual pet, I do not see the judge using the best interest of the horse as a judgment method of awarding the animal to one party??  I know people personally that train horses at the Olympic barn in So Cal, and they can all tell you, owners don't just part with their horses, especially ones that are highly trained.  

The court can allegedly  decide what is in the best interest of the "pet" basically by using the same criteria that is used for looking at the best interests of children.

Attorney herein has been an animal law attorney for many years,
and has many years invested in
 the study of animal law and cases statewide, including federal and state court cases--

However, attorney does not necessarily believe that family law courts
 have the relative knowledge 
required to determine "pet custody" simply due to the fact that 
animal activists have long patterned animal laws 
after child custody laws--- on purpose.  

The reason that animal activists simply
 push legislatures to pattern such laws
 by cloning child welfare laws, is done for one reason only:  

animal activists believe that animals are not property

despite all laws designating that animals, are in fact, property.  

Thus  animal activists do not want pig wrestling, rodeos, pet zoos, petting zoos, aquariums, horse carriage rides, horses pulling farm equipment, breeding of animals of any type, cows used for milk products, any animals raised for fur, trapping of any animals, killing of animals for food, eating animal meat of any type for food, and the like.......keep in mind that the rabid animal extremist group PETA actually filed a federal lawsuit in San Diego years ago, claiming that the animals used by Sea World were slaves?   [Note: animal activists include groups such as PETA]        

PETA contended in court that SeaWorld’s orcas have been enslaved. John Gastaldo • U-T
PETA contended in court that SeaWorld’s orcas have been enslaved. John Gastaldo • U-T
GREG MORAN A federal judge dismissed on Wednesday a lawsuit filed in San Diego by PETA against SeaWorld, alleging the park’s performing killer whales are being held in captivity as slaves, in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s 13th Amendment, 2012.....
Despite the obvious federal case result, which did not prove that the animals were "slaves" since the animals are not people, animal activists eventually forced Sea World to curtail the use of most dolphins or whales by continuing to protest outside of Sea World without cessation.

The sales or even the breeding of animals is interstate commerce, and although not many people think of this on a daily basis, when one does animal law cases, one must realize that animals are in fact, PROPERTY. Animals are not humans and no amount of word wrangling will turn an animal into a human!! The AETA (Animal enterprise terrorism act) is a FEDERAL statute; violation of the statute can create exceptionally long prison sentences!**     

                                         ............................. REQUISITE COVID HUMOR FOR
                                                                            ANIMAL LOVERS EVERYWHERE.............   



When we consider that Hitler saw fit to kill humans-- but claimed he was vegan--
let's hope you can put 2 and 2 together and figure out that vegans, 
who don't consume animal meat or maybe animal products in general-- 
are typically the proponents of most animal related laws in the USA;
and that animal worship is undeniably something that has gone on since biblical times.  

However, to have laws published which put animals on the same par 
with children is, in this attorney's opinion, wrong. VERY wrong.

*this link pretty much explains how animal law attorneys work.....


 (overview of how animal activists purposely stifle commerce and force
people to take what activists want them to have, to eliminate freedom of choice, basically..)

https://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/ [temperament testing statistics]

    (straightforward explanation of animal activists purposely causing harm to farms and ranchers
and others, illegally in many cases, in order to cause both financial harm/damage a working
ranch or farm, for example...)

Attorney herein has experience in federal court cases involving animal law, particularly BSL laws (breed specific legislation) which were prevalent prior to 2010, including those laws in Denver, CO
which can prohibit certain breeds of dogs, typically APBT (American Pitbull Terriers/other types of ..