Judge in pet custody battle misses the point

[Catherine]

There has been a bitter custody battle over a dog in Winnipeg. The dog originally belonged to the  man. When he lived with the woman the dog became part of her life and her family. The man left the dog with her when they broke up. Then he sought custody and it ended up in court.



http://news.google.ca/news/url?sr=1&ct2=...t=1&at=dt0

I think the judge missed the point when he said the best interests of the dog don't matter. He missed the point when he considered allegations of animals abuse against the man to be a separate issue ad not part of the case.

The judge's decision might be technically right under the law, but it is not right for the dog. The dog is not a  piece of property that is being fought over. The dog is a living being and his feelings and needs should have been considered before any decision was made. This is the 21st century. The judge made a 19th century decision.

[Tobi]

Oh my goodness! "The best interests of the dog don't count"?

That has to be one of the most stupid statements I have heard in a long time. This person obviously has a piece missing in their brain and certainly in their Heart!

I guess a dog is considered to be 'property'. Well, let's all not forget that it's not so long ago that women were also considered as 'property'....

[Catherine]

We have judges that are definitely "last century". No judge should fail to consider the best interests of the dog in a custody battle.    Sadly sometimes they fail to consider the best interests of the child in some cases.

It is very worrying that the judge was aware that there might be an abuse issue and didn't address it right away. It will be too late if the dog gets hurt.