A saleswoman and a pigmentation artist talks about how she shared pet nursery with an ex

When I read that a São Paulo man had been ordered to pay his ex-partner R$500 a month to help with the expenses of the now-couple’s four ex-dogs, saleswoman Christian Bellisario, 37, networked to defend the decision: “You’re right. If everyone were Knowing the costs of a great dog, there would be nothing fairer to charge.” Separated since 2018, she is receiving help from her ex-husband in the expenses of an 11-year-old Labrador Bonnie.

The São Paulo case gained repercussions last week as it reached the Supreme Court of Justice (STJ), which is analyzing a case like this for the first time. In the 2018 lawsuit, the woman explained that she acquired the animals while in a stable relationship, and that at the time of the separation, she had pets. However, they resided in their father’s house.

To help with the care, she asked for a refund of R$39,500, referring to what she claims she has spent since the separation, and R$750 a month to continue paying for bathrooms, food and anything else she needed for the children.

The man objected and claimed that he did not have to pay because he no longer owned the animals and that he no longer even had an interest in them. He also mentioned that dogs are not subject to the law.

Animals fulfill human needs.

The fourth civil court judge who analyzed the case did not agree with the defendant’s argument. In his ruling, the judge explains that although the 2002 Civil Code treats the animal as a moving asset, the legal treatment given to pets “has evolved such that it can no longer be considered a simple thing, but caters to the emotional needs and emotional needs of human beings.” He summed it up:

“It is about being sensitive (sensitive), with the ability to express joy, sadness, fear and pain. There was an emotional connection between the animals and the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant enjoyed the company of the animals. From a moral point of view. Their point of view, abandonment as a cause of extinction of property and responsibility Inherent in the care needed by the animals. And which was obtained from them. For these reasons, I consider that the defendant is also entitled to have the domain, obligated to contribute to the maintenance of the dogs until their death”, the judge concluded setting values ​​that are slightly less than the request of “Mother” Pets.

Pets are a family that has a mother, father, and stepfather.

Christian spoke, been divorced for four years being Who did not seek justice to decide the responsibility with Bonnie, which falls to her and her ex-husband. The two made a verbal deal, and from it came the commitment to help with expenses, amounting to R$450 per month, with food and bathroom:

“I took care of Bonnie on his own, but he didn’t think it was fair and started helping me. And when I have to do something, we split the expenses. Sometimes he decides to pay everything.”

Labrador Bonnie with Maria Luz, Christian's youngest daughter, 2 years old - personal archive - personal archive

Labrador Bonnie with Maria Luz, the two-year-old daughter of Christian

Photo: personal archive

The ex-couple also has two teens, ages 17 and 13. And when the younger father visits, he takes the opportunity to play with the pet. He also keeps the dogs company when Christian travels with her family.

“Animals have feelings, and Bonnie has been with us for over 11 years, so much so that when he calls her, I say ‘Come to my mom.’ My ex-husband talks to her like he’s a dad. I still say the current husband is her stepfather, because he interacts with her too,” he said. says Christian, mother of a two-year-old.

“I am not a fan of animals, but for me they are part of the family, so much so that once I had an operation that cost more than 3 thousand RRL and we did not think twice about saving them. Children. Today I have a child who turns and moves and disappears, and when we go to look for her, she is lying down. On the floor with the dog.”

Pets are not like the piece of furniture you leave behind.

Attorney Mariana Regis, who specializes in family law, says she increasingly has such agreements. in conversation with beingconfirms the São Paulo judge’s conclusion that pets cannot be shared as a couple’s property, and adds that it is unfair for only one of the parties to bear all the expenses.

“By adopting/purchasing a pet, the responsibility is assumed to last as long as the existence continues, and it is not appropriate to treat it as a piece of furniture left at the time of divorce.”

Luciana Borba with Yorkshire Kimmy - Personal Archive - Personal Archive

Luciana Borba with Yorkshire Kimi

Photo: personal archive

The case of 43-year-old Luciana Borba also ended up in STJ in 2017, but because the ex wanted the right to visit Yorkshireman Kimi, which he obtained while he was married. His stable union lasted until 2011, and only 5 years after the date of the dissolution the man filed the lawsuit in the court of São Paulo.

The being, says that after the divorce she allowed her to visit her pet, but over time they distanced themselves. “I wasn’t a bitch who wouldn’t let the dog see,” she continues.

At first, the court did not respond to her ex-husband’s request because she understood that the amendments regarding the separation occurred in the divorce, and that there was no longer anything to complain about. Under the Civil Code, spouses are not allowed to re-discuss division after agreeing to a divorce agreement, unless a movable or immovable property is discovered of which one of the parties was not aware at the time of the separation.

But the man appealed the ruling, and three judges from Syrians for Truth and Justice decided to share custody of the animal: every 15 days he could spend the weekend with the pet.

In the sentence, STJ stated that there are pets in most Brazilian homes and acknowledged the existence of the emotional bond and the right of the former person. In fact, an IBGE survey conducted in 2013 showed that, at the time, there were 52.2 million pets distributed in Brazilian homes, while the children totaled 45 million.

Luciana says that when the visits began, the pet was pressured at first, because she found the presence of her ex-lover strange, because she did not remember him. But over time, he got used to it.

“At first we discussed dates, if we could exchange it with each other. Then we exchanged it without discussion. After she got older, he didn’t catch her much. We tried to spare Kimi and give her a better quality, even at parties we preferred that she stays home with me, to be comfortable without much of a Coming and going, and I took care of her to the end.”

Kimmy passed away last February at the age of 14. “When she died, I thanked him for everything he was willing to do to help, and said our battles are in the past. It’s not our vanity that matters, it’s animal welfare.”

Leave a Comment