Separating also means deciding who will continue to take care of the pet that has lived with the couple. If you are facing this step, you might wonder whether the dog or cat should stay with the microchip holder, whether alternating periods can be arranged, and how veterinary expenses should be divided.
I will explain why the expression "custody" is useful in common language, but does not correspond to rules similar to those provided for children. We will see what agreements you can include in the separation, which facts matter when an agreement is lacking, and how to avoid overly vague clauses. The objective is to build a concretely applicable solution that considers both the relationships between people and the health, habits, and well-being of the animal.
There is no custody regulated like that of children
Italian law does not dictate a specific discipline for the custody of pets after separation. Rules on parental responsibility, placement, and visiting times concern children and cannot be automatically applied to dogs and cats. There is therefore no national rule according to which the animal must be entrusted to both or, conversely, necessarily remain with the person who is formally the owner.
This does not mean that the well-being of the animal is irrelevant. Law no. 281 of August 14, 1991 places among its principles the protection of companion animals and the condemnation of mistreatment and abandonment. Also, Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union considers animals to be sentient beings. However, these provisions alone do not create a family custody model nor do they indicate which component of the couple should prevail.
The distinction is important on a practical level. For children, the judge decides according to criteria established by law and checks that the agreement serves their best interest. For the animal, instead, particular importance is assumed by the pact between the parties, the ownership resulting from documents, material availability, and the conduct held during cohabitation and after the crisis.
Consensual agreement is the most complete solution
Spouses can consensually regulate the management of the animal by indicating who it will live with, what contacts it will maintain with the other person, and how costs will be shared. The pact can be included in the separation conditions, provided it is lawful, sufficiently precise, and compatible with the well-being of the animal.
A document from the Court of Genoa on separation and divorce conditions expressly places the arrangement of pets among the accessory clauses, distinguishing it from the essential conditions relating to children, maintenance, and the family home. This classification matters because an accessory clause retains its own contractual nature and its subsequent modification does not necessarily follow the same mechanisms provided for essential family measures.
A good agreement is not limited to indicating "joint custody". It must explain where the animal's habitual residence will be, how any movements will take place, who will handle visits and therapies, which decisions require discussion, and who will receive communications from the registry or the veterinarian. If alternating periods are planned, it is advisable to establish duration, handovers, transport, and holiday management.
It is also useful to regulate the possibility that conditions may change. A relocation, an illness, a home where pets are not allowed, or a therapy incompatible with continuous movements can make the initial project unfeasible. The clause can provide for prior discussion and a replacement criterion, without leaving an unlimited decision-making power to only one party.
What happens if you do not reach an agreement
In the absence of an agreement, you cannot take for granted that the separation judge will establish a detailed calendar on the model of child custody. Precisely because a specific discipline is lacking, the dispute may take on the character of a lawsuit over ownership, material availability of the animal, or the fulfillment of a previous agreement.
Purchase or adoption documents, registry enrollment, the spouses' asset regime, and any signed declarations are relevant, but they do not always tell the whole story on their own. It may happen, for example, that the dog is registered in one person's name, while the other has borne the expenses and provided daily care. These elements do not automatically cancel the formal data, but they can serve to reconstruct the concrete relationship.
The current situation of the animal also matters. Significant factors include the place where it lives stably, its health conditions, the availability of adequate spaces, the relationship with any children, and the capacity of each person to ensure feeding, walks, therapies, and assistance. This is not a mathematical formula: every fact must be connected to the specific request made and the type of protection allowed by the legal system.
A frequent mistake is to suddenly take the animal away or prevent any contact thinking of creating a definitive situation. Unilateral conduct can aggravate the conflict and does not necessarily resolve the legal issue. When an immediate agreement is not possible, it is preferable to formalize at least a provisional arrangement, with clear rules on care and expenses.
Microchip, registry and other documents: what value do they have
The microchip identifies the animal and links its code to a registry registration, but it does not automatically replace any other evidence in relations between the parties. Article 3 of Law no. 281 of 1991 entrusts regions with the regulation of the canine registry and related registration procedures. For this reason, fulfillments, transfer communications, and update procedures must also be verified according to the applicable regional rules.
Registration is in any case an important element: it indicates who is associated with the animal as owner or keeper in the administrative system. Alongside this, the purchase contract, adoption form, health booklet, veterinary receipts, insurance policy, and communications showing an agreement on management can also assume relevance.
For cats, one must not assume that the same obligations currently provided for dogs apply everywhere. European Regulation 2026/1818, which entered into force on August 30, 2026, introduces a common discipline on traceability, but the provisions of Article 20 will apply gradually: from August 31, 2030 for those placing dogs or cats on the market, from August 31, 2036 for other dog owners, and from August 31, 2041 for other cat owners. The European regulation on the traceability of dogs and cats cannot therefore be presented, in September 2026, as an obligation already applicable to all owners.
If the agreement permanently attributes the animal to a person other than the registered one, the update of administrative data must also be considered. Leaving a registration that no longer corresponds to reality can create problems in case of loss, urgent care, transfer, travel, or subsequent disputes.
How to divide ordinary and veterinary expenses
There is no mandatory legal percentage to divide the animal's expenses between separated spouses. If there is no agreement or different legal title, the emotional bond alone does not automatically create a periodic allowance similar to the maintenance owed for children. Contribution must therefore be defined with care.
Ordinary expenses normally include food, routine use products, scheduled check-ups, periodic treatments, and recurring costs. The parties can establish that they are borne by whoever predominantly keeps the animal, or divide them in a fixed amount. If a monthly sum is chosen, it is useful to indicate its starting date, payment method, and expenses it covers.
Extraordinary expenses require a distinct rule. A surgical operation, specialized diagnosis, or expensive therapy should not be regulated with a generic formula. The agreement can establish a percentage, the duty to present invoices and medical reports, and the need for prior consent beyond a certain threshold.
Veterinary urgency constitutes a practical exception to be provided for. If waiting puts the animal's health at risk, whoever has it with them must be able to authorize the necessary care, promptly informing the other person and keeping the documentation. A different case is that of non-urgent treatment or optional service: here the lack of discussion can make obtaining reimbursement more difficult.
The clause must also indicate what happens in case of non-payment. Expressions such as "the parties will contribute according to their means" are difficult to apply because they determine neither a share nor a deadline. A precise provision instead makes it possible to understand which sums are due and on the basis of which documents.
Children, family home and animal well-being
The relationship between the animal and the children can guide a practical solution, especially when the dog or cat has lived for years in the family home and constitutes a stable presence in the daily life of minors. However, the child's best interest and the animal's well-being remain distinct criteria: the former does not turn the latter into an object of the rules on offspring custody.
The assignment of the family home does not automatically assign the animal to the person who remains there. However, it can create concrete continuity, especially if the other home is unsuitable or if the animal is elderly, sick, or poorly tolerant of movements. This data must be compared with who actually takes care of it and with the possibility of maintaining significant relationships without subjecting it to continuous changes.
Alternating management is not always the most balanced solution. It can work for an animal accustomed to both people and transfers, but be inadequate for a cat strongly attached to its territory or for a dog requiring constant daily care. The veterinarian can offer indications on health and behavioral needs; however, they do not decide legal ownership nor do they replace the agreement.
Which solution to choose and which mistakes to avoid
Predominant residence guarantees greater stability and simplifies care, registry, and relations with the veterinarian. It can be accompanied by meetings with the other person, provided they are compatible with the animal's habits. Alternating management instead preserves the relationship with both, but requires geographical proximity, cooperation, and consistent routines.
A third solution consists in stably attributing management to one person, while maintaining an economic contribution from the other. It is useful when both recognize which home is more suitable, but wish to share costs. In this case, it is necessary to clarify whether the contributing party also participates in health decisions or only has an economic obligation.
Avoid agreements structured as simple emotional declarations. Expressions such as "the dog will remain the property of both" do not explain who keeps it, who decides on a therapy, or who pays. Before signing, it is advisable to clarify residence, contacts, expenses, emergencies, microchip updating, and consequences of a relocation. If you want to formalize these aspects in the separation, I can help you translate the agreement into understandable and concretely applicable conditions.
Frequently asked questions
Can the judge award the dog as happens for a child?
There is no custody regulated by the rules on parental responsibility. The judge may find themselves examining requests connected to ownership, availability of the animal, or an already concluded agreement, but you cannot presume the automatic application of predominant placement, visits, and maintenance provided for children.
Does the dog always belong to the person registered on the microchip?
Registration is relevant evidence, but must be read together with other elements. The purchase or adoption contract, the asset regime, the declarations of the parties, and the temporary or definitive nature of the delivery can count. If the animal permanently passes to the other person, the fulfillments to update the registry must also be considered.
Can we arrange for the cat to live on alternate weeks with both?
Yes, if you agree and the organization is compatible with its well-being. The pact should indicate times, transport, expenses, and veterinary decisions. For an elderly, sick, or very environment-attached animal, a stable residence with different modalities to maintain the relationship with the other person may be preferable.
Who pays veterinary expenses after separation?
Shares depend on the agreement or another applicable title. There is no automatic fifty-percent legal division. It is advisable to distinguish ordinary costs, scheduled therapies, and emergencies, specifying prior consent, receipts, communication times, and payment. Without a clear clause, reimbursement can become the subject of dispute.
Can we subsequently modify the agreement on the animal?
Yes, you can replace it with a new understanding. Since the animal's placement is normally an accessory clause, its modification does not necessarily follow the same regime as essential conditions relating to children or maintenance. It is appropriate to formalize the change and update, when necessary, registry registration and veterinary data.
An agreement must also work in everyday life
The most solid solution combines precision and respect for the animal. Ownership, residence, habits, health, relationship with children, and concrete care capacity must be considered without confusing different legal institutions. A detailed pact reduces occasions of conflict and makes responsibilities, expenses, and decisions recognizable even when circumstances change.