Criticism of the ruling that denied shared custody of pets in Córdoba

The Animal Law Division of the Córdoba Bar Associationquestioned Ruling 206/2025, which denied joint custody of two female dogs. The decision revealed a tension between a patrimonialist legal framework and the social reality that recognizes animals as an integral part of households. The institution warned that, although animals were recognized as sentient beings, the agreement was left without binding force and without clear legal effects.

Judge Gabriel Tavip maintained that the concept of personal care in the Civil and Commercial Code is limited to children and that extending it to animals would be a distortion of the rule. The couple involved had agreed on a joint care system for the female dogs, including contact and sharing of expenses such as veterinary care and grooming. The ruling acknowledged the agreement but classified it as an extrajudicial commitment without judicial recognition.

The Association pointed out that the decision missed the opportunity to include the concept of a multispecies family in Córdoba case law. It recalled that Article 439 allows for the expansion of regulatory agreements and that principles such as equality and pro homine facilitate more dynamic interpretations. "Legally recognizing animals is not a symbolic gesture, but an essential step to ensure justice in line with the times," they warned.

Impact and precedents

The ruling transferred custody of the female dogs to the private sphere of the former spouses without providing a legal framework to protect their welfare. The director of the Animal Law Division stated that today it is possible to discuss who keeps a television, but not the animals who are part of the family. This limitation creates a legal vacuum that leaves the maintenance and care of pets to the goodwill of the parties.

The Association's report reviewed national cases such as Popeye, Kiara, Sydney, Roco, Pantufla, Yuyu, General, Tita, and Gatitos, with recognition of emotional bonds. International experiences were also cited in Spain with Cachas, the United States with Duke, Colombia with Clifor, and Brazil with pensions for pets. These decisions show a legal evolution that Córdoba has not yet fully incorporated.

Specialists emphasized that animals are sentient beings and part of people's emotional lives, so the law should accompany this social transformation. The Animal Law Division recommended moving toward legal frameworks that guarantee the care and welfare of pets after divorces or separations. In conclusion, the Córdoba resolution reflects a formalist resistance that contrasts with doctrinal and jurisprudential trends observed in other provinces and countries.