We guess this judge isn’t much of a dog lover…
Back in August, a Canadian judge issued a very controversial ruling on the case of a divorcing couple who couldn’t agree on the custody of their two dogs Kenya and Willow.
In the bizarre and incendiary decision, Justice Richard Danyliuk declared that animals aren’t akin to children and therefore can’t be handled in the legal system as such. Richard even went as far to compare the dogs to household objects like "butter knives" just to prove his controversial point!
The judge argued:
"Dogs are wonderful creatures. Many dogs are treated as members of the family with whom they live. But after all is said and done, a dog is a dog. At law it is property, a domesticated animal that is owned. At law it enjoys no familial rights."
Obviously, this did not sit well with the wife in the case, who wanted primary custody of the animals with her ex only getting visitation rights.
Despite the exes’ plea for some formal resolution, Richard sarcastically theorized:
"Am I to make an order that one party have interim possession of [for example] the family butter knives but, due to a deep attachment to both butter and those knives, order that the other party have limited access to those knives for 1.5 hours per week to butter his or her toast?"
Well, that seems to be taking it a tad too far… He’s making it sound like pets are worthless objects!
To make his point to the feuding couple clear, Danyliuk threatened to pull a Solomon and have the animals sold by the court if they didn’t resolve their disagreement, saying:
"Both parties should bear in mind that if the court cannot reach a decision on where the dogs go, it is open to the court under the legislation to order them sold and the proceeds split — something I am sure neither party wants."
You can read the judge’s full ruling HERE.
We have to ask… do YOU think animals should be treated as family members?
Are Animals Family Members?