Animal Guardianship is a Dangerous Term

Kelly Crouch

Ownership is a constitutional right and enables owners to make appropriate decisions for their animals. Ownership is not an absolute right. As with other rights it is subject to restrictions having a legitimate public purpose such as prohibiting animal cruelty and neglect. Guardianship is a governmentally granted relationship that is easily revoked without the constitutional due process required for terminating an ownership relationship. The guardian is given the obligation and responsibility to care for the ward of the state but the guardian has no personal interests to be protected in the guardianship.

Guardianship seems so innocuous from a social viewpoint, however, this is a change that is being proposed (and made) in law. From a legal standpoint the change is far from innocent. Consider the case of Rhode Island which changed its law at the state level to change ownership to guardianship. One such change allows for non-economic damages including damages for emotional distress and punitive damages. On the surface that doesn’t sound so bad until you start thinking about what the economic consequences would be for allowing non-economic damages. Veterinary health care would spiral out of reach of most people as increased liability increases prices of care. Guardianship also complicates the veterinary-client relationship as it interjects a three way relationship with the government having an interest in every decision you make with regards to your pet.   

The Rhode Island law allows for the termination of unfit interest in an animal for alleged misconduct. Since animal possession is now a government right granted to an individual termination of that relationship is now relatively easy. The law also defines animals as any nonhuman living creature can subject a person to felony animal cruelty for killing vermin.

What else might elevating the legal status of animals to human children do? Overwhelm the courts with cases on behalf of animals against their guardians because the animal didn’t want to be neutered or be a therapy animal, cattle could sue dairy farmers, rattlesnakes could sue zoos. Creates confusion in the veterinary-client relationship and makes veterinary care prohibitively expensive. Limit the ability of people to buy and sell animals and pets. Restrictive animal care laws will increase.

For these reasons, the International Cat Association does not support undermining the traditional ownership and the appropriate protections existing as a result of that ownership with a change in language from animal ownership to animal guardianship.