Who gets the puggle? Illinois law is nation's first to help unmarried couples determine pet custody
When unmarried partners, relatives or roommates separate or move on, deciding who takes the couch or gaming system can be fairly straightforward.
But who gets the puggle?
Rosie, a senior dog, became the center of a battle when an engaged couple in Chicago split up. In March 2025, Rosie left the home with Tameer Siddiqui’s former partner, who had brought the dog into the relationship. Siddiqi says her mental health was harmed as her requests for visitation and contact went unfilled despite her years of caregiving and paying the dog’s vet bills.
Because the couple was not married, there was no legal recourse available.
Siddiqi, a clinical psychologist, says she used her frustration—and artificial intelligence—to draft state legislation recognizing that pets are not like other pieces of property and that a court may consider the well-being of the companion animal regardless of the marital status of the parties.
With the support of Illinois State Rep. Barbara Hernandez, D-Aurora, who brought the legislation to a vote, the Companion Animal Custody Equity Act was signed by Gov. JB Pritzker, and it becomes effective Jan. 1.
Though there are many states where pets are included in separation and divorce agreements, there had been no legislation guiding what happens to companion animals when unmarried partners, roommates or family members split up.
“These types of cases are becoming more common as family dynamics change and more couples cohabitate without being married,” says Kathleen Wood, Animal Legal Defense Fund senior staff attorney, adding that a vast majority of people consider their companion animals to be family members.
Jeremy Cohen, founder of Boston Dog Lawyers and an ABA member, says the legislation is exciting. “This is really what makes the life of a judge so much easier. Here, the legislature in Illinois is saying, ‘Here’s how you should think in a modern way.’”
Nontraditional division of property
Courts typically apply to pets traditional property law frameworks that were intended for inanimate, interchangeable pieces of property.
But “these standard considerations partitioning property and applying a monetary value doesn’t really work,” Wood says. “Those laws were never really intended to apply to cases involving sentient beings and complex emotional human-animal bonds.”
Some courts have found creative remedies for unmarried couples.
For instance, in Callahan v. Nelson in Delaware, a unmarried couple went to court to determine who would get Tucker, a goldendoodle. The case was tied up in court for three years before being decided.
“Both parties told the court, ‘This is the most amount of money I would be willing to pay to keep Tucker,’” Wood says. “And whoever bid the highest got to keep the dog and paid that amount to the other partner. It was a way of applying that partitioning property structure.”
She adds that family court judges increasingly are ruling that the animal becomes community property during the marriage “so that they can then assign ownership of the animal in a more equitable way.”
Oral agreements
Teddy Bear. (Photo by Liz Mugavero)In Massachusetts, an unmarried couple adopted a Pomeranian named Teddy Bear and, without making a formal legal agreement, vowed they’d share custody if they broke up.
And when they did split, they created a regular routine of swapping. “But suddenly—and this happens in so many cases—someone gets tired of it, or someone gets a new partner and that new partner says: ‘I don’t want you doing that anymore,’” Cohen says.
In Lyman v. Lanser, in the Appeals Court of Massachusetts in 2024, a three-judge panel reinstated a preliminary injunction enforcing their oral agreement to share their pet, Cohen says.
“Because a pet’s life is finite, the contract to share didn’t need to be in writing under the statute of frauds because it could essentially be completed within a year if the pet were to die,” he adds.
Not only did the court see the irreparable harm, “but we also got the court to recognize that we needed this equitable distribution, equitable relief of sharing the animal, because money is not an adequate remedy at law in these cases. You can’t say, ‘Here’s the money, go get another dog.’”
The Illinois ruling makes these types of cases easier to resolve, he says.
And Siddiqi hopes the law will expand. “I am so interested in taking this nationally because I feel like what we have with the act is something that is already drafted, already written, it already worked, it is already proof of concept.”
As for her access to Rosie, the dog, now 14 years old, is living with her former partner’s family and has been diagnosed with cancer. Siddiqi had the chance to spend a few minutes with the dog “as a sort of goodbye,” she says.
Despite her six years of living with the dog, continuing to appeal for custody, paying many of the dog’s medical bills and the legislative fight, the short visit showed Siddiqi that Rosie appeared attached to her current caretakers, and she believes staying there would be best for the dog.
“I’m not about to uproot her again,” Siddiqi says.” I’m not about to reenact the trauma.”
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
