Gideon redux Attorney appointed for dog
The Indianapolis Star reports today that a trial court has appointed an attorney to represent the interests of a dog in court. The dog appears to be a wolf, or part wolf, but was kept as a domestic pet. It bit someone, and faces either death or a 10 day quarantine, depending on whether it is classified as a “wild” animal or domestic pet:
However, the 10-day waiting period does not apply to wild animals. Under Indiana law, wolf-dog hybrids are considered wild, said Nicholas Doffin, the county health administrator.
“The incubation periods vary in wild animals so you can’t determine how long it takes for the disease to surface,” Doffin said.
If the judge rules that Cabic is a hybrid, the animal’s head must be removed and sent to the state Health Department laboratory to be tested for rabies.
I have never heard of an attorney being permitted to represent a non-person before. Corporations have attorneys, but they are “legal” people under the law. Under Indiana law, pets, no matter how beloved, are treated as personal property, so it would seem to me that a dog would have no greater right to representation in litigation than a sofa. I have not researched the statutes involved, so maybe there is a provision for legal representation in this context, but I doubt the legislature would go for that.
People tend to have great attachment to their pets. I have run into this issue in divorce cases in the past: the spouses want to fight over who gets the beloved family pet. The universal response of the court to these disputes has been “pets are personal property, put a value on the pet, one party gets the pet, the other the cash.” This seldom resolves the emotional issues involved, but courts have been unwilling to recognize any greater status for pets. It seems to me that some people’s affection for their pets is getting to the point that they will increasingly challenge their treatment by courts as mere property. I continually run into circumstances where people are putting down thousands of dollars for their pet’s medical care. Wouldn’t these same people be willing to spend thousands of dollars to litigate pet custody? We could hire experts (dog trainers, vets, pet psychologists?) to conduct custodial evaluations (bonding, ability, etc.), and have friends and neighbors in to testify as to the spouses diverse level of care and relationship with the pet. Around the corner?
