Divorce and Dogs and Nobody Cares About the Cats

Pets are becoming the center of custody struggles among divorcing couples. That’s been happening for awhile, of course. This principally involves childless couples; I would imagine any pets go with the children otherwise. But the big mêlée I read about was featured in a New York Post 2013 article involving a lesbian couple fighting over a miniature dachshund.

One woman bought the dog as a consolation gift for the other after having insisted that her partner dispose of her cat. (Whatever the reasons, I do regard getting rid of the cat as a wise step.) For many couples, the dog—I have yet to hear of a custody battle involving a cat—sometimes becomes a surrogate for the child they never had or cannot have and the separation becomes deeply fraught with tension.

As one judge noted, “People who love their dogs almost always love them forever. But with divorce rates at record highs, the same cannot always be said for those who marry.” Prudent couples have gone so far as to include their animal companion in a prenuptial agreement. These are called, naturally, “pre-pups.” And while the term “pre-pup” in relation to dogs shows frequently on the web, I find very little for cats.

What is intriguing is that increasingly court cases no longer treat the dog as part of a property settlement. Instead, the case may be decided as what is in the “best interests” of the anamial (no cases I can find have bothered with the best interests of cats, and probably for good reason, but I’m only speculating here).When it comes to dogs, a number of decisions have been unnervingly based on which party is likely to be the better owner.

This is a can of worms. How could one ever live down the social humiliation (and possible headlines) of being adjudicated as an unfit “dog parent” compared to the winning spouse? Information of that kind may become public record, likely accessible to dog adoption centers everywhere. Applicants for dog adoption may come under some threat of penalty if they falsely assert they have never been on the losing side of a pet custody battle. I am leaving aside too the questions of visitation, support, and other matters too numerous to talk about, not to mention the many cases decreeing which half of the couple must take the cat. (Mohammed, if you didn’t know, is said to have preached with a cat in his arms.)

Even without the trauma of a break up, pet “parents” will do what they think is best for their dog. This increasingly entails buying pet food the owners themselves would like to eat.Pet food manufacturers long ago learned to market to owners. They do not market pet food for it’s quality; they target owners who appreciate an appealing label.At the grocery I find an array of “gourmet” dog foods: “Savory rice and lamb stew with peas and carrots” is only one of them, and that was a lower cost store brand. More recognized brands feature “entrees” that smug servers might comfortably recite in upscale restaurants: “Tonight we have the chef’s ‘simmered beef with barley and spinach’ or if you prefer a male-pleasing

serving of ‘turkey and bacon’. We also have an endearing ‘ham and egg country platter’ for those with simpler tastes. If you would like heartier fare, there is a delightful ‘seared chicken’ dinner, and our ‘porter house steak’ is the definition of perfection. The ‘beef and chicken medley with green beans, carrots and wild rice’ of course is equally appetizing.

That’s for dogs. Cats get girlie labels, stuff like “chicken soufflé with tender white meat with garden veggies,” a “flaked tuna and wild salmon pate,” and “tender beef” dinners. Dogs get food they can chomp; cats get decidedly more delicate dishes. (Pet food Tuna for cats, last time I checked, is nine cents per ounce more than tuna for humans.)

These trends are absurd, and I suppose any appeal to rationality regarding pets will get lost. Don’t get me wrong: I have loved the dogs I’ve owned. But, being dogs, they came with all the pains as well as the pleasures of owning them. They brought happiness and unreserved affection to my life and sometimes constant aggravation. But I am hardly one to go overboard in my fondness for a pet.

Still, though now Roman Catholic, I agree with Martin Luther on this point. Contemplating the death of his little dog, Tölpel (thought to be a pseudonym for “Dummkopf”), he said with conviction, though with no mention of cats, “Be thou comforted, little dog, thou too in Resurrection shall have a little golden tail.”