Seems like FB BS but today you just can’t bet on that with the amount of crazy thats out there.

Last I heard all pets are considered fodder …..

HP 97 did pass the house back in September I believe. It is not yet been voted on by the Senate and has not become law. It is 100% sponsored and backed by Democrats, big surprise right? LOL It’s like the useless fruitcakes don’t have anything better to do.

Anyhow, here’s a link to the Bill text.

PA HB 97

PRINTER'S NO. 80
THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA
HOUSE BILL
No. 97 Session of
2025
INTRODUCED BY KULIK, PASHINSKI, SANCHEZ, HILL-EVANS, CIRESI,
SCHLOSSBERG AND HOHENSTEIN, JANUARY 14, 2025
REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY, JANUARY 14, 2025
AN ACT
Amending Title 23 (Domestic Relations) of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes, in preliminary provisions relating to
divorce, further providing for legislative findings and
intent, for definitions and for effect of agreement between
parties; and, in property rights, further providing for
equitable division of marital property.
The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
hereby enacts as follows:
Section 1. Section 3102(b) of Title 23 of the Pennsylvania
Consolidated Statutes is amended and the section is amended by
adding a subsection to read:
§ 3102. Legislative findings and intent.
* * *
(a.1) Companion animals.--The Commonwealth recognizes that
companion animals are living beings that are generally regarded
as cherished family members that offer their owners
companionship, security and assistance. Companion animals occupy
a special category of personal property which does not include
inanimate personal property. Therefore, it is the policy of the
Commonwealth that special consideration be extended to companion
animals when the division of personal property is planned or
determined under this part.
(b) Construction of part.--The objectives and policies set
forth in [subsection (a)] subsections (a) and (a.1) shall be
considered in construing provisions of this part and shall be
regarded as expressing the legislative intent.
Section 2. Section 3103 of Title 23 is amended by adding a
definition to read:
§ 3103. Definitions.
The following words and phrases when used in this part shall
have the meanings given to them in this section unless the
context clearly indicates otherwise:
* * *
"Companion animal." As follows:
(1) An animal that:
(i) is a domesticated, living being commonly
referred to as a pet; or
(ii) has been bought, bred, raised or otherwise
acquired in accordance with applicable law for the
primary purpose of providing the owner with assistance in
relation to a disability, security or companionship,
rather than for business or agricultural purposes.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), an animal that is
used for business or agricultural purposes, but that has not
been incorporated into the family household as a pet, may be
considered as a companion animal, as determined by the court.
* * *
Section 3. Sections 3105 and 3502 of Title 23 are amended by
adding subsections to read:
§ 3105. Effect of agreement between parties.
20250HB0097PN0080 - 2 -

(d) Possession and care of companion animal.--Parties may
enter into an enforceable agreement regarding the possession or
care, or both, of a companion animal. Among other things, the
agreement may specify the following:
(1) The periods of time during which each party will
possess the companion animal.
(2) The financial responsibility of each party regarding
the care of the companion animal.
§ 3502. Equitable division of marital property.
* * *
(g) Companion animal.--
(1) Upon the request of either party, the court shall
provide for the possession or care, or both, of a companion
animal of the parties in accordance with this subsection.
(2) If the companion animal is a service animal, as that
term is defined in section 2 of the act of October 24, 2018
(P.L.733, No.118), known as the Assistance and Service Animal
Integrity Act, for a party or for an individual who is under
18 years of age and in the custody of that party, there shall
be a rebuttable presumption of custody of the companion
animal to that party.
(3) If paragraph (2) does not apply, the court shall
consider all relevant factors, including the following:
(i) W hether the companion animal was acquired prior
to or during the marriage.
(ii) The basic daily needs of the companion animal.
(iii) The party who generally facilitates veterinary
care for the companion animal.
(iv) The party who generally provides the companion
20250HB0097PN0080 - 3 -

animal with social interaction.
(v) The party who generally ensures compliance with
State and local regulations regarding the companion
animal.

(vi) The party who provides the greater ability to
financially support the companion animal.

Section 4. This act shall take effect in 60 days.

That is insane.

What happens if you ran the dog over, dogslaughter. People have lost there minds.

Dogs on life support?

This is what I’d be worried about, you could end up in prison.

I'm surprised the liberal Pennsylvania House passed that crap. It will offend the dog eating part of their foreign base and their dog hating Muslim foreign base.

Keith

Just can’t fix stupid

If you read the language of the bill Lugnut posted, it's not as bad as it seems in the headline. It doesn't give personhood to pets, just says the emotional attachment to a dog should be considered in a divorce. Maybe a divorce settlement that grants both parties access to the family dog. I don't hate that. I'm not a big pet guy but I understand many have strong emotional attachment to their pets and it's okay with me to treat a dog differently than a lamp in divorce.

Are you saying the FB meme Lawdog posted is wildly sensationalized and completely inaccurate? LOL

You are correct maintenanceguy. It doesn't give personhood to pets. The bill would modify the existing divorce statues to define companion animals and separate them from inanimate personal property. It would grant special consideration when deciding which divorcing party gets what.

But have we really gotten to the point this needs to be law? People should be able to figure stuff like this out on their own.

Ever been through a divorce?

Here in SD they take a different approach a guy was ditch hunting in a county with some radical landowners rights guys before it was popular. The dog crossed the fence the landowner shot it. It went to court the court said tough luck the landowner had the right to do that. If the dog was a threat to the landowner I could see that but just hunting no way.

I’d be doing time if he shot my dog and have no regrets about it!

Well I do like dogs better than most people

Is it legal to marry your dog??

From some wedding pictures, yes it is.

Ditto - I married a (This word is unacceptable on Trapperman) once.

Does this mean you can claim them as a deduction on your taxes?