In a family law trial where all other issues had been settled, the remaining dispute concerned ownership of a family cat and whether ancillary parenting relief could be ordered to ensure the child had access to the pet.
The court held it lacked jurisdiction in this trial to impose a location-specific parenting requirement because final minutes of settlement and a final order had resolved parenting issues and directed future disputes to arbitration, with any variation otherwise requiring a Motion to Change.
Applying property principles rather than best-interests analysis, the court treated the pet as personal property and used recognized pet-ownership factors to determine ownership.
On the evidence, the child did not own the cat, and the respondent was found to be the sole owner based on primary care, veterinary records, and the parties' implied understanding during the marriage.
The applicant was ordered to deliver the cat to the respondent.
