| name | pet-custody-best-interest |
| title | Pet Custody Best Interest Analysis |
| description | Produces a jurisdiction-aware best-interests analysis for companion animal disputes in domestic dissolutions. Classifies the governing framework (well-being statute, hybrid equitable, or pure property), builds distinct ownership/caregiving/control evidentiary threads, applies welfare factors with adversarial awareness, and generates enforceable allocation recommendations. Use when drafting pet custody analyses, animal allocation memos, pet possession briefs, or when a user asks about dividing pets in a divorce, breakup, or cohabitation dissolution. |
| author | CaseMark |
| author_url | https://github.com/CaseMark/skills/tree/main/skills/legal/pet-custody-best-interest |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| version | 0.1.0 |
| execution_mode | open |
| jurisdiction | us |
| practice | family |
| language | en |
| tags | ["analysis","drafting","litigation","memo"] |
Pet Custody Best Interest Analysis
Companion animal statutes vary sharply: CA, IL, NY, and AK have genuine best-interest standards while most jurisdictions treat pets as personal property. Applying the wrong framework — or importing child custody language into a property-only forum — undermines court credibility. This skill maps the correct legal standard, separates ownership from caregiving from de facto control, and produces a factor-by-factor analysis that anticipates adversarial attacks.
Checkpoint A: Pre-Draft Intake (Mandatory)
Ask every time unless the user says "use defaults" or "just draft."
- Forum — state, court level, proceeding type (divorce, domestic partnership dissolution, cohabitation breakup, civil dispute)
- Procedural posture — temporary relief vs. final allocation; deadlines
- Case documents — petition, responses, temporary orders, property schedules listing pet, mediation statements
- Ownership records — adoption/purchase agreements, microchip, municipal license, breeder contract
- Veterinary records — full history (minimum 3 years); note who attended appointments
- Financial records — food, grooming, insurance, emergency care, boarding payments; whose name on accounts
- Caretaking evidence — routine logs, calendar entries, texts on pet-care duties, pet-sitting app records
- Living environment — current/proposed residences, lease/HOA pet policies, proximity to parks/vet, daily schedule, travel frequency
- Bond evidence — third-party affidavits (neighbors, trainers, groomers), timestamped photos/videos, behavioral observations
- Pet profile — age, breed, temperament, medical conditions, training level, anxiety triggers
- Safety concerns — neglect/abuse allegations, DV, threats involving pet, interference with access
Defaults if no response: well-being statute analysis if jurisdiction has one, otherwise hybrid equitable; attorney work product audience; final allocation posture. Mark assumed facts [ASSUMED].
Step 1: Determine Governing Legal Standard
Classify the forum into one of three modes:
| Mode | Frame | Key Evidence |
|---|
| Well-being statute | Animal welfare factors control | Caregiving, stability, attachment, medical management |
