Recent Animal Rights Rulings
The Case of the “Gothic Cat”. By statute in Pennsylvania it is a crime to maim, mutilate, torture or disfigure an animal. In Commonwealth v. Crawford a woman was sentenced to six months of home confinement and electronic monitoring for violating the law. The lower court found that she willfully and maliciously maimed three kittens as she attempted to transform them to “gothic cats” to be sold on e-Bay; she had pierced their ears and banded their tails (which caused one of the kittens to lose its tail). The defendant in an effort to justify her behavior argued that it is not uncommon for parents to pierce the ears of their children. The Court rejected the analogy (without commenting on the wisdom of piercing a child’s ears); apparently the process is much more painful for a kitten, and no anesthesia was used.
In affirming the decision the Superior Court said that the test is whether a “person of normal intelligence” would find an action cruel, concluding that “Much of the law against animal cruelty can be summed up in the phrase ‘common sense’. . . “. The final insult: there is apparently no such thing as a “gothic cat”. Poor Tabby.
Pet Custody Agreement Fails. A man asked a court to enforce his property settlement agreement when his former wife refused to permit him shared custody of the couple’s dog, even though she had agreed to it in writing. In Desanctis v. Pritchard, a Pennsylvania court said that the law treats pets like personal property and that the plaintiff “is seeking an arrangement analogous, in law, to a visitation schedule for a table or lamp” (italics supplied) (language which has been quoted widely, often derisively, in similar cases).
This ruling has been attacked broadly. The argument is that a pet is not like any old piece of furniture, but is more like a fine antique or rare painting, and as such should fall into a special category where shared custody should be permitted. Several considerations set a pet apart from ordinary personal property: it must be cared for on a daily basis; it must be fed; someone must clean up after it and as necessary take it to the vet; and an owner may play with it on a regular basis. Pets, it is argued, have special subjective and sentimental value to their owners; however, not all homes are appropriate.
The status of animals is changing substantially, and a minority of the states now permit shared pets’ custody. It should surprise no one if one day soon the jurisdictions that have agreed to permit such arrangements are no longer in the minority.
— Ken Butera