A divorcing woman in the western city of Saskatoon went to court to try to get custody of the couple’s dogs with visiting rights for her estranged husband. The judge was not amused, reports CBC’s Geoff Leo.
When couples divorce in Canada, it is common for them to argue in court to determine exactly how much time the children will spend with each parent. In this case, Justice Richard Danyliuk wrote in his ruling that “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.”
Judge spells it out
In case that was not clear enough, the judge spelled out exactly how children are different from dogs:
- “In Canada, we tend not to purchase our children from breeders.
- “We tend not to breed our children with other humans to ensure good bloodlines, nor do we charge for such services.
- “When our children are seriously ill, we generally do not engage in an economic cost/benefit analysis to see whether the children are to receive medical treatment, receive nothing or even have their lives ended to prevent suffering.
- “When our children act improperly, even seriously and violently so, we generally do not muzzle them or even put them to death for repeated transgressions.”
Court case called ‘wasteful’
The judge added this kind of case should not be using up time in the already overburdened justice system.
“To consume scarce judicial resources with this matter is wasteful. In my view such applications should be discouraged.”
From CBC News.
For reasons beyond our control, and for an undetermined period of time, our comment section is now closed. However, our social networks remain open to your contributions.