An Ultimate Guide to Pet Custody Shared Care Agreements 

Pet Custody Shared Care Agreements 

You’ve separated from your partner, and you want to share your pet – how does this work? 

A shared care agreement is a great way to formalise arrangements for sharing your beloved pet. With help of a shared care agreement, you can avoid disputes and prioritise the welfare of your pet. 

This ultimate guide will explain: 

  • What is a shared care agreement
  • Who does it apply to 
  • What can the agreement include 
  • Benefits of a shared care agreement 
  • Frequently asked questions 

What is a shared care agreement for a pet? 

A shared care agreement is a document, signed by all owners involved in the pet’s care, that sets out the arrangements for sharing custody of a pet. 

Here at Blanchards Law, we work with you to draft a shared care agreement that gives you peace of mind, knowing that the arrangements for your pet are clear and understood. 

Going through a breakup is difficult, and fighting over your pet can be heartbreaking. A shared care agreement is a way to bring disagreements to a mutually satisfactory conclusion; i.e. a settlement which you can both accept. A written record of exactly how you will share your pet, to which you both agree, allows you to move on and enjoy the time you have with your pet. 

Whilst a shared care agreement is not a legally binding document, it is a way of setting out exactly how care of your pet is going to be organised between you.This means no constant back and forth with your ex-partner about whose turn it is to have the dog. You can have a record of what has been agreed between you, to refer to at any point should a question or dispute arise. 

We can help you draft an agreement that is fair and takes into consideration any issues that may arise with ownership of your pet in the future. 

Who does it apply to? 

A shared care agreement can be used by anyone who is willing to agree shared care arrangements with their ex-partner, so that both owners are able to spend time with their pet following a breakup. 

A shared care agreement is suitable for any pet of any age, or multiple pets. It is not just for those who have been in a romantic relationship. Some share pets with their parents, siblings or friends and a written agreement will help you understand how the arrangement will work in the long term. 

What can the agreement include? 

A list of things that be covered within your agreement include, but are not limited to: 

  • Who the pet will be with, on what days.
  • Who will pay for the day-to-day expenses in relation to your pet. 
  • Who is to be involved in or responsible for health care for your pet. 
  • Arrangements for doggy day care or boarding facilities 
  • Who will pay the vet bills or insurance? 
  • Who is responsible for dog grooming? 
  • The procedure agreed for changing the arrangements e.g. for a holiday 
  • What you would like to happen if one owner becomes unable to care for your pet

Benefits of a pet custody shared care agreement                                      

They can help prevent future disagreements regarding care of your pet and make custody after separation clear. You have a document to which you can both refer whenever there is confusion or disagreement about the arrangements for your pet. 

Whilst a shared care agreement is not legally binding, if the arrangements break down and a dispute takes place about custody of the dog, the shared care agreement can be submitted as evidence to a small claims court to demonstrate there was a mutual written understanding that the pet is jointly owned.           

You can use the agreement to set out how communication about your pet should take place. When a couple has separated, it may be best to avoid direct communication. You can provide within your pet custody agreement that communications should take place through a third party or using a parenting app; such as a human parenting app called ‘Our Family Wizard’ (OurFamilyWizard | The Best Coparenting App). This can provide peace of mind during difficult break ups. You and your ex-partner can share your dog, without having to directly talk to one another. 

Having a shared care agreement ultimately makes it much more likely that you will be able to successfully and amicably share the care of your pet, and therefore much more likely that you can both be actively involved in your pet’s life on a regular basis. Without this, costly and expensive litigation may be necessary to determine who gets to keep the pet, and one party may be left without any chance of seeing their pet again. Whilst shared care can only work if both owners are willing to compromise, having a written agreement in place makes it far less likely that the shared care arrangements will break down due to a disagreement. 

FAQs: 

Are there situations where a shared care agreement may not be suitable?

Geographical distance between the owners can be a hindrance to effective shared care, and can make it impossible for such arrangements to work. If someone is insisting on something that is impractical, you can mediate your dispute with an independent third party, or ultimately, an application to court could be made.

If there is a history of domestic abuse, a shared care agreement may not be suitable as any contact with the other person could be a risk for the victim and sharing care may take an emotional toll. 

Are shared care agreements suitable for any type of pet? 

Yes! Shared care agreements can work for any type of pet. 

Should we attend mediation? 

Mediation is a great way to discuss shared care of your pet and come to an agreement about sharing care and how the arrangement will work. A mediator can help facilitate these discussions, so that when it comes to drafting your shared care agreement, you and your ex-partner can be content that you have both considered what is best for you and your pet. 

How much do they cost? 

The amount of correspondence between you and the other party involved in the shared care agreement and the complexity of the agreement will affect the cost. Much of the work on your shared care agreement can be done by our pet custody paralegals at an hourly rate of £215.00 + VAT, supervised by our in-house barrister at an hourly rate of £290 + VAT.

                                                                                 

 


An ultimate guide to Pre-Nuptial agreements

Pre-nuptial agreements (often known as “Pre-nups”) are an increasingly used legal tool to attempt to provide protection and clarity in the event of a separation following a marriage or civil partnership. It is never a bad idea to be organised about your finances, and to start your marriage or civil partnership with peace of mind. 

In this Ultimate Guide, we will explain everything you need to know about pre-nuptial agreements: 

  • What are pre-nuptial agreements 
  • Who can have a pre-nuptial agreement 
  • What can be included in a pre-nuptial agreement
  • Benefits of a pre-nuptial agreement 
  • The legal process 
  • Alternatives
  • Frequently asked questions 

What are pre-nuptial agreements?

A Pre-nup is a document which sets out what should happen to assets held by the couple in the event of divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership. Pre-nups are not legally binding in England and Wales; but they can be important evidentially to show what the couple intended when they embarked upon their marriage. It is not possible to oust the jurisdiction of the court.

It can apply to all current and future assets and income, to include property, income, debt, inheritance and more. 

Upon getting married, any assets you own can become matrimonial assets. What this means is that in the case that the marriage comes to an end, these assets can be shared between the spouses, regardless of who owned them prior to the marriage. Both parties can claim any of the assets. What a pre-nup can do is prevent certain assets from becoming ‘matrimonialised’ meaning that upon separation, your ex-spouse would not be able to claim a right to them.  Any assets can be protected in this manner, they do not need to be high value assets. 

Who can have a pre-nuptial agreement?

Anyone can enter into a pre-nup, they are not reserved for the rich and famous trying to protect their assets from a less wealthy spouse. 

Anyone looking for future certainty, and to avoid the stress of determining the allocation of financial resources in the event that the marriage is to come to an end. 

A pre-nuptial agreement can be particularly useful for those in situations where: 

  • One of you have substantially greater income or capital than the other 
  • One of your is expecting significant inheritance that you wish to protect 
  • One or both of you wishes to protect assets owned prior to the marriage or civil partnership 
  • In your situation it would be beneficial to define what is considered to be ‘matrimonial property’ or ‘non-matrimonial property’, for example where there are business assets owned by one of you prior to the marriage or civil partnership. 
  • One or both of you have children from a previous relationship and you wish to protect assets for inheritance planning 
  • One or both of you have property or assets in another jurisdiction. 

Where one of the above situations apply, a pre-nup can be particularly useful as one spouse stands to be greatly affected by a divorce, if it was to occur. 

What can be included in a pre-nuptial agreement?

Some things you may want include within a pre-nuptial agreement are: 

  • What will happen to property that either of you have brought into the marriage or civil partnership 
  • What will happen to the family home 
  • What will happen to any property given to you or inherited during the marriage or any income or assets derived from trusts 
  • What will happen to any money or property held or purchased jointly 
  • What will happen to personal belongings owned prior to the marriage or acquired during the marriage 
  • What will happen to any money saved or earned during the marriage 
  • What will happen with your pension 
  • How you will deal with any debts 
  • Whether either of you will pay or receive maintenance, and for how long 
  • Any events that may require the agreement to be reviewed 
  • If you would like the agreement to be confidential (save for the purpose of taking legal advice) 
  • What kind of arrangements you may wish for your children 
  • What kind of arrangement you would like to make should either of your die during the marriage and whether you intend to enter into a will to make provision for each other in the event of death 
  • Who will pay the costs regarding the preparation of the pre-nuptial agreement. 

The great thing about a pre-nuptial agreement is it can largely be tailored to what is important to you and your spouse, depending on your own financial situation. 

What are the benefits of a pre-nuptial agreement? 

Everyone has their own reasons for entering into a pre-nup, you may simply want to be as organised as possible about your finances, it may be for peace of mind – it does mean that you are any more likely to separate. It simply gives clarity if a separation were to arise. 

The process of resolving financial matters upon divorce can be lengthy, and expensive. Many who have been through this process will attest to the benefit of doing anything you can do to avoid it. This process can involve multiple court hearings, where parties may need to pay for representation in the form of legal counsel, in addition to solicitor’s fees. The situation can be stressful, and it is easy to feel out of control, leaving the future of your finances at the large discretion of a judge. Things can become protracted, turning what may have been an amicable split into a tense disagreement. Whilst a pre-nup cannot guarantee the outcome of a financial settlement dispute, it can be very persuasive, and give you back control. It means that your finances may be able to be dealt with without ongoing acrimony, and without substantial costs. 

The legal process 

As stated above, Pre-Nuptial agreements are not legally binding, but they will be taken into consideration by the court, and they can hold a lot of weight. The courts increasingly are holding couples to  well-drafted and fair pre-nups, provided that certain requirements are met. 

These requirements are as follows:

  • The agreement should be fully signed up at least 28 days before the nuptials. Although this is not an absolute requirement, it is relevant to the last item on this list.
  • Both parties have had separate legal advice about the agreement before entering into it. 
  • Full financial disclosure has taken place between the spouses prior to entering into the agreement 
  • Neither party was subject to duress or undue pressure to enter into the agreement  

Each party’s signature must be witnessed by an independent witness, when executing the agreement.

The pre-nuptial agreement must be entered into freely and willingly by both parties, it must be contractually valid (without undue influence or misrepresentation), it must be made by a deed and contain a signed statement by both parties that they understand that it is and enforceable agreement that will partially remove the court’s discretion to make financial orders. 

The agreement must not have been made within 28 days before the marriage or civil partnership. Both parties must have received disclosure of material information about the other party’s financial situation, prior to making the agreement. Both parties must have received legal advice, the terms of the agreement must not prejudice the reasonable requirements of children. 

Financial arrangements will likely be the main focus of the pre-nuptial. 

Whilst they are not formally binding, pre-nups are persuasive and even ‘decisive’ in the eyes of the court when resolving the financial affairs. 

The pre-nup will either form part of the circumstances that the court has a duty to consider or will be viewed as conduct it would be inequitable to disregard. 

A pre-nup must be fair in order for you to rely upon it in court. 

An agreement is less likely to be considered unfair if it is recent, or if circumstances have not changed since the agreement was entered into, and if both parties were fully informed when entering into the agreement of the financial and legal consequences, without any undue pressure being applied. 

It is common to incorporate into the agreement, a provision for the agreement to be reviewed, either after a period of time has elapsed or at the occurrence of a specific event, e.g upon the birth of a child or upon the retirement of an individual. 

It is possible that a court may uphold parts of the agreement, and disregard other parts that it views to be unfair. But the likelihood of a court disregarding a pre-nup is significantly reduced where the pre-nup is drafted by an experienced family lawyer who can help ensure the agreement is fair and that both parties are sufficiently aware of its consequences. 

Legal formalities help to show that upon entering into the agreement, both parties intended it to be binding upon them. This will help a pre-nup be persuasive in the event that it must be assessed in court. 

Alternatives to pre-nuptial agreements

If you don’t have a pre-nup, then the assets of you and your spouse will be divided according the law in England and Wales, the court will look at various factors, such as the length of the marriage, the needs of the parties and any children and the contributions made by spouses to the marriage. The court will act based on what is fair and equitable, but the courts have a lot of discretion, it can be difficult to predict how a judge will choose to divide the assets and you have little control over their decision. 

Alternatively, A post-nuptial agreement can be entered into after the marriage has taken place. A post-nuptial agreement is open to be scrutinised by the courts as to whether it is enforceable, to a far larger extent than a pre-nuptial agreement. It may be a lot easier for one spouse to argue against the upholding of a post-nuptial agreement, in claiming they were under undue pressure, than with a pre-nuptial agreement, in that the spouse may claim they had little choice but to agree, once they were already married. 

Frequently asked questions 

What happens if we have children? 

The important thing to note is that a pre-nuptial agreement cannot prejudice the interests of any children. Upon divorce, the needs of your children will always be the first consideration, regardless of what has been agreed in a pre-nuptial agreement. This means that you can enter into a pre-nup without the worry that you will be inadvertently affecting your future children as their needs will be considered prior to upholding any of the terms of your agreement. But this also means that you cannot use a pre-nup to ‘opt-out’ of providing financial assistance to any future children. Once children have been adequately and fairly provided for, the remaining assets and debts can be divided according to the terms of the pre-nup. So, it is still worth having a pre-nup, even if you intend to have children. 

What cannot be included in a pre-nuptial agreement? 

You cannot include anything that would be contrary to ‘public policy’ such as you cannot put that the court will not be able to consider financial issues should the need arise, and you cannot put that you restrict any financial provision for children. 

A pre-nup cannot include details about child custody or support, but it can protect your inheritance or specific assets in the favour of your children.  

The agreement will need to include a declaration that you have each provided the other with financial disclosure. Your family solicitor will be able to guide you through the disclosure process, the aim is to ensure that upon entering the agreement, you able to do so with full knowledge of the other party’s financial situation and therefore understand the implication of the agreement. 

The agreement only becomes effective upon you entering into a valid marriage or civil partnership. 

A pre-nup can provide a false sense of security, in that it is not possible to prevent the court from determining the allocation of assets upon divorce. You cannot use a pre-nup to create an unfair outcome. Whether you have a pre-nuptial agreement or not, once you enter into a marriage, if that marriage comes to an end your assets must be divided fairly in a way that ensure both parties have their needs met. 

How much does a pre-nuptial agreement cost? 

Whilst a pre-nuptial agreement will incur a cost, this must be balanced against the value of assets that could be lost by a spouse upon divorce, and against the cost of going through the court process upon divorce to resolve financial issues. The costs will vary greatly depending on the complexity of the issues you want to include within the agreement. It is always worth incurring the cost of independent legal advice for both parties, as without this the pre-nup may not be upheld by a judge, wasting any costs that were spent on its preparation. 

What if there are international elements? 

If either you, your proposed spouse, or both, have a connection with another country, either through assets, domicile, habitual residence or future plans, and your considering entering into a pre-nuptial agreement, it is very important to instruct a specialist family lawyer in each relevant county to advise you on the need for and effect of the agreement in that country. 

The approach of courts in the enforcement and validity of pre-nuptial agreements can vary dramatically between countries, and whilst your agreement may be considered fair by the court in England and therefore used to divide your assets upon separation, it may be entirely disregarded by a court in another country. This is why it is very important to seek legal advice from a lawyer from that country before choosing to incorporate any international issues into your pre-nuptial agreement. It may be that a separate pre-nuptial agreement will need to prepared in the country that you wish for it to apply, other than England and Wales, or you can confirm in your pre-nuptial agreement that you wish for it to be enforceable In another country in addition to England and Wales, if the agreement has been drafted comprehensively to incorporate international elements. 

What happens if one party no longer wishes to be bound by the terms of a pre-nuptial agreement? 

The person who no longer wishes to be bound may, upon a divorce, make an application to the court, so that they can explain to the court why an order should not be made in line with the terms of the agreement. It will then be up to the court to decide whether the reasons given for the pre-nup to not be honoured are sufficiently persuasive. The court may disregard this argument and honour the terms of the agreement, especially if it does not call into question the fairness of the agreement. Therefore it is important not to enter into a pre-nup if you do not intend to be bound by the terms. But this does also provide some peace of bind in that entering into a pre-nup can be worthwhile, as one party cannot simply choose not to be bound anymore, provided the agreement is fair.  


Re-evaluating Matrimonial Property: Insights from a Landmark Financial Appeal

Standish v Standish and its impact on the application of the sharing principle

Standish v Standish [2024] EWCA Civ 567 

The importance of source not title, the application of the sharing principle and the process of matrimonialisation. 

On appeal, the Wife’s award was reduced from £45m to £25m – one of the greatest reductions of a financial remedy award ever made on appeal. 

The first instance Judgment of ARQ v YAQ [2022], centred around the following facts: 

  • The husband made his fortune in finance, sold his company in mid 1980s and made A$127m, he became CEO of that company, owning 20%, this company was then acquired by UBS, at which point the husband was earning $1m per annum.
  • By 1999 the husband was chairman and CEO of regional division of UBS and by 2002, H was on the executive board of UBS, earning A$11M pa. 
  • In 2002 the husband purchased a large cattle and sheep farm (Ardenside Angus) for A$12m. 
  • The parties married in 2003
  • At the point of marriage Husband was worth £57m, whilst the wife’s assets were comparably modest.

 

There were two key financial events during the marriage: 

  • In 2017, the transfer from Husband’s sole name to Wife’s sole name of investment funds then worth £77m (‘the 2017 Assets’) – the intention was to avoid inheritance tax on Husband, and for the funds to be placed into a trust for the children. 
  • The issuing of shares in Ardenside Angus to the Wife – also with the intention of avoiding tax. 

 

The 2017 assets were never settled into trust for the children. The wife then wrote the husband out of her will without telling him. 

The first instance Judgment – ARQ v YAQ [2002] EWFC 128, Moor J: 

Moor J held that by reason of the transfer from Husband to Wife, ‘the only possibility is that the ‘2017 assets’ became matrimonial and were thus matrimonialised. – He concluded that the transfer must have transformed the character of the property. Similarly with the placing of the shares in Ardenside Angus in the wife’s name also matrimonialised those shares. However, in both instances, whilst the wife was entitled to a share in those assets as a result of their matrimonialisation, there was a departure from equality in the husband’s favour of 60:40, to reflect their non-matrimonial source. 

Both Husband and Wife appealed. The wife’s appeal was dismissed, and the Husband’s appeal was allowed. 

Both contended on different reasons that the 2017 assets were non-matrimonial property. 

The wife argued that upon transfer into her sole name, H’s non-matrimonial property became her separate property – that the source was irrelevant, the title of the property was determinative, and that the court should respect the parties’ autonomy to choose how they hold their assets. 

The husband meanwhile argued that the 2017 assets were, and remained, non-matrimonial, that the source of the assets (his 32 years of pre-marital endeavour) had not been given sufficient weight by Moor J in his distribution of the assets. 

Hence the Court of Appeal was forced to contend with the importance of source vs title in determining the character of an asset as matrimonial or separate. 

The Appeal Judgment contains helpful revelations. 

Whilst the Court of Appeal agreed with much of Moor J’s decision, they disagreed on Moor J’s reasoning that the only possibility was that the 2017 assets had become matrimonial property, because this conclusion was solely based on the fact that the assets were transferred by the husband into the wife’s name – making title the determinative factor in characterising wealth, rather than source. 

  • The unanimous Judgment emphasised the importance of source in determining the character of wealth, title is not to be the determinative factor. 

 

On the process of matrimonialisation: 

Standish v Standish emphasises that matrimonialisation is a principle to be applied narrowly. 

‘Matrimonialisation is the process by which non-matrimonial property acquires a matrimonial quality because of the way property has been used or treated’ (Calum Smith, Financial Remedies Journal). That how wealth is treated during a marriage can change a non-matrimonial asset into an asset that can be shared.

The consequence of matrimonialisation, is that matrimonialised property falls to be shared, not necessarily equally, but still to be shared. This represents an exemption to the principle that sharing only applies to matrimonial property, and not to non-matrimonial property – so this must be applied narrowly. 

Therefore, whilst it was concluded at appeal that the 2017 assets became matrimonial property, this was not determined by the transfer of title to the wife. The Court of Appeal found that Moor J should have assessed what of those 2017 assets could be attributed to the endeavour during the marriage – and apply the sharing principle only to that portion. Holding that whilst assets can become matrimonialised, despite their non-matrimonial source, and at the same time that characterisation of the assets as matrimonial or not is determined by source not title, matrimonialisation can be assessed to apply to only a part of the assets, with the sharing principle then applied to that part only. 

This meant in this case, Moylan LJ concluded that 20% of the assets had not matrimonialised, and the rest was shareable, because there was insufficient evidence to say that Moor J’s finding that much of the value of the shares may have been generated during the marital partnership, was wrong. 

All of this was justified as an application of the broad discretion conferred onto financial remedy Judges in pursuit of fairness. This case emphasises that broad discretion and reaffirms the definitions of matrimonial and non-matrimonial on which the sharing principle was built 

Standish shows that Instead of a reflection of a non-marital source in a departure from fairness, a better approach is to segregate by source which property has become matrimonial, and which has not, then reassess sharing on the equality principle of only that property which has ‘matrimonialised’.