Protecting Pets Under Domestic Violence Laws

Episode Notes

Transcript

Michal Rogson:

Hello everyone and welcome to Litigation Radio. I’m your host, Mic Rogson. I’m an expert in litigation and fiduciary bonds with a background in insurance litigation. I’ve been in- house for over 15 years and I’m currently vice president at Skyward Specialty Insurance Company, where I manage their national court bond practice. On this show, we talk to the country’s top litigators and judges in house counsel and academics to discover best practices for developing our careers, winning cases, attracting clients, and building a sustainable practice, all while staying well and happy. Make sure to subscribe to the podcast on your favorite podcasting app so you never miss an episode. Litigation Radio is brought to you by the litigation section of the American Bar Association, which is where I make my home in the ABA. Not only is the litigation section the most welcoming community of highly talented litigators I’ve had the privilege to meet, it also provides litigators of all practice areas, the resources we need to be successful advocates for our clients.

Learn more and join the community at ambar.org/litigation. Today, we are diving into a topic that sits at the intersection of animal protection, domestic violence, and family law with our guests, Megan Senatori and Maricarmen Garza. Megan Senatori is the executive director of the Center for Animal Law Studies at Lewis and Clark Law School and co-founder and president of Sheltering Animals of Abuse Victims. She was a litigator for close to two decades, including practicing family law, and is a pioneer in the field of animal law. She’s also a longtime member of the Animal Law Committee within the ABA’s Tort, Trial and Insurance Practice Section. Joining her is Maricarmen Garza, Chief Counsel for the ABA Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence. Maricarmen spent over 20 years in legal aid representing survivors of domestic and sexual violence. She has served on the boards of both Texas statewide domestic and sexual violence coalitions and currently co-chairs the Public Policy Committee of the Texas Council on Family Violence.

Welcome to the show, Megan and Maricarmen.

Megan Senatori:

It’s a pleasure to be with you.

Maricarmen Garza:

Great to be here.

Michal Rogson:

I’m so glad to have you and I’m so glad that we get to talk about this really important topic. But before we begin, I wanted to give a brief note to our listeners. Our conversation today will include some descriptions of violence towards pets in the context of domestic abuse. We will endeavor to avoid getting overly graphic, but it’s important that we effectively communicate the actual and too often horrific challenges that these survivors live through. So please bear that in mind and use discretion while listening. All right, onto our topic. Megan, it may be a consequence of my childhood love of comic books combined with my firm belief that litigators like yourself who are innovative and work in these difficult spaces really are heroes. But I love to begin these discussions with an understanding of how you got involved with the issue, which of course in comic book parlance is called The Origin Story.

I understand that you have been involved in animal law since you were a law student. Was there a specific moment that made you realize the legal system was failing both people and their pets in domestic violence situations?

Megan Senatori:

When I was in law school, which was back in 2000 through 2002.

Michal Rogson:

We can bleep that out if you’d like.

Megan Senatori:

Yeah, no

Michal Rogson:

Kidding.Just kidding.

Megan Senatori:

When I was a law student, we did not have animal law at my law school, which was the case for most law schools in the country at the time. I graduated from law school in December of 2001, but I was very focused on animals because I grew up having animals as part of my family. I grew up on a farm. I had horses, just a huge animal lover. And then I was also on the other side of things very devoted to women’s issues. In my undergraduate degree, I have a certificate in women’s studies. So I did things like volunteer for my local domestic abuse shelter. I also volunteered for our local humane society, but I had never put together the issues of domestic violence and animal cruelty until my second year of law school. What happened for me is I went to a conference on the other side of the country, which was more about just general animal protection issues.

I was learning about the no kill shelter movement at the time and things like that. And I remember vividly being in a session and they put a slide up and it spoke of a domestic violence counselor and she was sharing the story of a client she was working with who happened to be from my home state in Wisconsin. And the domestic abuse victim had found safety from her abusive partner in a shelter in Northern Wisconsin. So she ostensibly found safety, but what happened is that he tracked her down there and he had photos sent to her of him graphically abusing their dog. What she did next is the point that kind of pivoted for me really understanding these issues is that she went to her case worker, her counselor, and shared that she was going home. She said to her, “Counselor, I need to go home to save the life of my dog and the lives of the other animals on our farm.” And that’s what she did.

She returned from safety for herself to go save the lives of her animals. And that was a huge light bulb moment for me because I guess I thought to the extent I thought about it at all, I think I thought that if you were a domestic violence survivor, you just loaded up your family, including your animals and you all arrived at the shelter together. And that was certainly not the case in 2000 when I learned this story. And it is not the case even today. We are making a lot of progress, but still less than 20% of domestic violence shelters in the country welcome animals. So domestic violence survivors have a very real and awful, and I don’t even like to use the word choice to make, which is that if they’re choosing safety for themselves, they may not be able to protect their animals.

And that was an injustice that I wanted to fix. So I convinced a law professor to give me a credit. And with my dear friend from law school, she and I co-founded Sheltering Animals of Abuse Victims, which serves Dane County, Wisconsin still today, 25 years later. And we provide temporary confidential refuge for the pets of domestic violence survivors who are trying to seek safety for themselves.

Michal Rogson:

Are there other organizations like that that you know of that have sprung up?

Megan Senatori:

Absolutely. So one of the really encouraging areas in this field is that across the country, there are now more and more of these types of programs and they provide shelter different ways. Sometimes it’s co-sheltering. So the person, the survivor and their animal go into shelter together. There are programs like that like in Florida and New York. Our program is a foster program, so it provides shelter through a foster network. There are programs like that. So it is definitely a problem that is being worked on. It is not solved yet, but there’s been a huge amount of progress in the last 25 years.

Michal Rogson:

Knowing how difficult it is just to make it through law school without taking on additional projects, that’s why I called you a hero. I truly believe that we can all make a difference in this world if we recognize the problems that we encounter, that we can actually do something about and try to do something, right? We can’t fix everything, but things that come our way, that’s where we have the duty to fix it. And that’s where we are all everyday heroes. Now, Maricarmen, you come at this from the legal aid world. I understand you have spent the last 21 years representing survivors of domestic abuse. How often did the pet become a barrier to safety? Is that very common?

Maricarmen Garza:

It was. It probably was even more common than I knew because to be honest, when we started doing this work and I started in 2000, we were not asking about pets when somebody first called for help. There was some initial questions that definitely guided people to talk to me because I was doing the domestic violence work for the organization, but there had been no questions that had been asked at any point regarding members of the family other than children or other humans in the family. So that was never asked. So by the time I would get the case, we would start immediately looking at safety, whether we needed protective orders. And only sometimes right before going to court or before we were about to file something and I would hence hear the hesitation of somebody about moving forward, would I learn that there might be a pet and what could we do about it?

So for those individuals where we did get to that conversation and we were able to plan, we would address it. But I’m afraid that there would be so many others that maybe even refused to go seek that help because they were not sure they had the option to be able to keep their pets or keep them safe. So those were conversations that were really hard to have. And even as I was providing the services in the early 2000s, there was not that many domestic violence shelters that offered another way to bring their pets in. The majority of them didn’t have a safe way. And sometimes we had to be looking at different options throughout the city and sometimes even in cities nearby, if it was a smaller rural community where they did not have an appropriate way to shelter pets.

Michal Rogson:

Was it difficult to get the pets to shelter? In other words, I’m just curious about the mechanics of the abused party just taking the pet and effectively absconding with the pet because obviously pets are still considered property from a legal standpoint.

Maricarmen Garza:

Well, there’s that issue and the fact that leaving is the most dangerous time for any survivor. This is where things really escalate. Sometimes even if there was not apparent physical violence, this might be the first time that happens. So safety planning to leave with a pet includes alerting your abuser that you might be leaving because you’re going to start packing either a crate, you might need to get some dog food. All of those things could actually trigger additional violence. So how survivors do that to navigate would be very difficult. And of course, if they left with a pet, there’s the consequences of what could happen when you showed up to court and the court ordered you to return a pet or other situations that would really put a survivor in harm’s way or their pet’s harm if they had to return that pet to their abuser.

Michal Rogson:

So tell me, what was it that brought the two of you together? You clearly both have experience in this from somewhat disparate backgrounds. How did you end up working together?

Megan Senatori:

Well, the ABA actually brought us together, and I’m so grateful for it. I’ve had such a wonderful experience through the Animal Law Committee. The brief background is that we proposed a resolution. For those who aren’t familiar with the process, the ABA makes its policy through resolutions, and the Companion Animal Subcommittee of which I’m a co-chair, proposed a resolution on pets and families basically. And through that process, we’ll talk more about the resolution in our comments today, but through that process, I had the privilege of meeting Maricarmen and her colleagues at the Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence, and they co-sponsored the resolution, which was offered in, it was passed by the House of Delegates in February of 2025. And so I had the pleasure of meeting her back in the fall. And we’ve worked very closely, the Animal Law Committee and the commission together on then implementing that resolution so that it is real world policy that actually helps survivors protect their animals and to keep them safe.

So that’s the short version.

Maricarmen Garza:

And of course, from my side, I remember reading this resolution that just came in via email, “Would you be interested in co-sponsoring?” And I just read it. And I mean, sometimes you just weep because you’re like, “This is so important and we need to support this resolution.” And immediately we started talking to one another between our two entities and we just knew that we needed to move this forward. And it was just such a joy to be able to work on something that could be a solution for pets and the survivors that work with them or that … Yeah, this was just pretty impressive. And I’m just so excited that we continue to do this work to make the changes that need to happen.

Michal Rogson:

It is one of the things that I am, I think, constantly most impressed by with the ABA is because it is such a large organization full of people who really do want to both participate in the profession and make a difference, that it brings people together that can make things happen that might otherwise never have occurred. It is a fantastic place for those kinds of things to almost organically happen. And I’m really looking forward to learning more about the resolution and what you hope to achieve with it right after this brief word from our sponsors. Okay, we are back and I want to hear about it. How did this resolution come about? What prompted it? What does the resolution say? What is it that you hope to achieve? Tell me about Resolution 504.

Megan Senatori:

I’m delighted to. So Resolution 504 addresses three things in the realm of protecting people and pets. It relates, first of all, to having pets be considered their wellbeing best interest in safety in the context of family law proceedings. The second thing, it encourages the inclusion of pets in civil protection orders for domestic violence and stalking and child abuse and elder abuse, sexual abuse. And then the third thing is it encourages the expansion of opportunities for pets to be included in emergency and transitional housing for domestic violence survivors so that we don’t have a situation with the survivor that I first learned about this issue from where someone cannot leave with their pets. So those are the three main things that the resolution does. And it grew on work that the Animal Law Committee was doing in the summer of 2004, I believe it was, actually it was 2003, we had a lunch and learn guest who was speaking generally about disputes involving pets and family law cases.

And that sparked us having more conversations about what states were doing and the evolution of laws that consider pets in the context of family dissolution in a way other than just property. So we were looking at that. That then led us to do some in- depth research. And in the probably winter of 2024, early spring, we decided to pursue a resolution. And so then we kicked off the whole process that goes into preparing one of those. For those who haven’t worked on them, that ABA policy is encompassed in the resolution itself, which is a page in this case, but it’s supported by a really detailed 15-page report that lays out all of the law and all of the studies that support what we were doing. And so we put all of that together and proposed the resolution. It went before the tort trial insurance practice section in the fall of 2024.

And we had co-sponsors, the Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence in the family law section got on board, and then it went before the full House of Delegates in February of 2025, and it was overwhelmingly supported and adopted at that time.

Michal Rogson:

So talk to me about the situations that the resolution addresses and how the resolution suggests, creates policy that will resolve or at least help move the needle on those situations so that we can understand a little bit. You’ve given us an overview, but I want to understand a little bit more what the problems were that you were looking to solve and how the resolution addresses those.

Megan Senatori:

So the first problem in the context of family law is that because pets are legally considered property, to the extent that they are considered sort of at all when I practice family law, I would find a lot of times nobody even mentioned the pets. It would be like a property analysis. What has been changing is there’s an emerging trend of states passing legislation that allows for the consideration of pets in that family dissolution proceeding. There are now eight states plus the District of Columbia that have passed laws since 2017 that allow for the consideration of pets.

Michal Rogson:

In a manner that isn’t property,

Megan Senatori:

You’re saying? Correct. Correct. So they go at it different ways, but all of them use a term of either wellbeing, best interest, or safety of the pets. So it is looking at the animals not as just property in a formulaic property division. Some of the statutes are quite comprehensive and they’d include a list of factors to consider, and it may consider factors such as safety of the pet. It may consider domestic violence. The really good ones, in my opinion, just sharing my own view, is the ones that also take into account that human animal bond and the connection between the person and their pets and the connection between children in the household and those animals. And so what the resolution does on that first prong is it encourages more states to go in that direction. And it doesn’t tell states how to do that. That’s a process that will be worked through, but to move away from this formulaic property division that treats pets is no different than the family living room sofa and instead treats them as living beings that are part of the family, which is how the people that are going through a family dissolution, that’s how they view their pets.

Maricarmen Garza:

One of the things, and I know, Megan, we left that resolution pretty open so that courts could interpret it in any way that as the state might want to make decisions on this issue, but to specifically consider the commission of family violence because when usually there’s a dissolution of a marriage, they’re going to say, who’s able to take care of the pet, who’s able to pay for the upkeep and really not think about the issue of who’s committing family violence. And for a survivor who may have to leave and go into a shelter or have a housing that is unsure, the fact that we actually named this one of the possible considerations is really important because quite frankly, the pet might not be safe and that pet, even if it’s with the individual who may have the bigger house or the ability to take care of it financially, might be the one that hurts it because that is what we know from domestic violence is that the pets will continue to be used as a form of coercion or to threaten so that the survival comes back or just to continue to control once there is that separation.

So I think that specifically naming that and considering that is an incredible factor that will keep both pets and survivors safe.

Michal Rogson:

You said several states have enacted laws. Do we know how many?

Megan Senatori:

Eight states in the District of Columbia have so far, just since 2017. So that’s impressive considering the historical treatment of animals in this realm, which is kind of not to consider it at all, as I mentioned, or when they do, just a straight property. And then you’re trying to prove who acquired the pet, how the pet was paid for. Are records kept in the name of this party or that party? It looks at it in a far more holistic way. And as Marty Carmen said, really importantly, gets at those dynamics of family abuse that may be going on. And it encourages this in all cases, not just domestic violence cases because one tip for litigators listening is you don’t know necessarily whether your client is a victim of domestic violence. Some clients will come forward and tell you that, some may not. And so we wanted to make sure that the resolution covered this situation in all family law cases, because it’s something that as litigators that are doing family law in particular, you should be asking your clients delicately, of course, but making sure that they know care and concern for their companion animals is an important issue you understand and let’s talk about it because a lot of times survivors won’t mention it.

Mary Carmen, you mentioned that at the beginning of your remarks. We found that when we were setting up SAVE, survivors would call the domestic violence hotline at our local shelter and they wouldn’t ask about pets, but if they knew that it was safe to do that, then they would then share all kinds of things. So we added two hotline questions. One is, do you have a companion animal and are you concerned for the safety or wellbeing of that animal? And that told them, “We know, we understand and we’ll try to help you. ” And so it’s really important for litigators to offer that in all of your cases when you’re working with clients.

Michal Rogson:

Given this recent evolution and given the fact that it is to some extent a paradigm shift, right? It is a different way of thinking about animals and I think a way that’s intuitive for anyone who’s loved an animal, but not necessarily for legal analysis. How are the judges responding? I mean, in these eight states, do we have data yet on how it’s being handled?

Megan Senatori:

I’m not aware of … I have the same question. I am not aware of data about how it’s being handled. I have not heard of an overwhelming abuse of the court system or any of these floodgates type situations that you hear as a reason not to have this legislation. I will say when I practiced family law, I found parties fought over all kinds of things that are less important in my opinion than animals. I’m from Wisconsin, the Packers tickets, God loved the Packers, but the Packers tickets were a big issue. So there are ways for courts to resolve it, and I would be curious to know how it is impacting the system, but I’m hearing other states passing legislation, not saying, “Let’s not do this. The states that have done it have had a bad experience. I haven’t heard that.

Michal Rogson:

” I was just curious whether they were having difficulty figuring out how to apply it. And I imagine there’s not going to be a uniform approach, at least initially, because no one really knows what they’re doing.

Megan Senatori:

Well, and in some of the states, they give a list of factors like Rhode Island and Delaware and Maine have a list of enumerated factors like you would in a child custody dispute. And then in other states like New York, they use just more of a best interest standard and then case law bears it out. So you see the law being developed through the case law.

Michal Rogson:

Exactly. Okay. Well, that will certainly be interesting to follow. And for my part, being the animal lover that I am, I certainly hope that more states pass such laws, but this addresses how to incorporate pets into family dissolution proceedings. We were also talking about survivors when they were leaving and civil protective orders. So what does the resolution say or suggest about that?

Maricarmen Garza:

The majority of the states now do incorporate pets and protective orders, and this resolution encourages for the remainder of the states to adopt, including pets and protective orders. And this is critically important because that protective order quite literally could be life and death situation, both for the pet and the survivor. So by including that, it just legitimizes this huge fear that many survivors have, and that prevents them from moving forward. I know I practiced for many years. I’m in Texas where this was not even an option, but in 2014, actually in 2013, the Texas legislature made those changes to start including pets and protective orders. So before that, I had to bring it up. There’s always a catchall provision, but really to bring it in. And people would look at us funny, why are you bringing in a pet to this protective order? And sometimes that was something that I had to justify by bringing in experts to share why it was so important to bring the pet with us, but it was not something that was common knowledge or that it was easily just say, matter of course, we should include the pet because everybody’s in danger in this family.

So by encouraging other states, I think that just brings so that it doesn’t matter where you live, you and your pets could be safe if you need that protective order. And I think that’s really important.

Michal Rogson:

It’s funny to me, because I really feel like this is one of those issues where you walk through the world assuming that it has been thought of and addressed and it is just sort of remarkable to discover that it has not. If someone is being abused and there is an abuser, it stands to reason that the abuse would not necessarily be limited. And maybe this goes to an understanding of what abuse is and educating the legal profession, lawyers, judges, et cetera, as to how abuse works, what the mechanism of abuse is and why it stands to reason that if abuse is occurring, it’s not necessarily limited to the spouse or to the children or to a human being, but that it can actually be occurring to animals and it can be occurring by leveraging control over the animals.

I encountered this issue because I actually attended a CLE that you guys held and I was shocked. I was simply taken aback and I can only assume I’m not alone, which is why I really wanted to bring you guys onto this podcast and share this information with people. And then the third issue that the resolution addresses is the encouragement of co-sheltering in emergency and temporary housing because again, this is something that I suppose wasn’t quite as remarkable to me. I know how difficult it is for so many of these women’s shelters to even stay open, let alone be able to accommodate pets as well. That adds a level of complication that I can’t necessarily wrap my mind around, but we are a family that has, we are foster failures on every level, but we have certainly opened our home to foster animals. And I think many people out there would certainly consider it for situations like these.

So tell me a little bit about what the resolution says about co-sheltering.

Megan Senatori:

So the resolution urges more processes and also resources and pro bono representation and cross-disciplinary training on this issue of temporary and emergency shelter that includes pets, whether that be co-sheltering, which is when the person and their animal go into the same shelter together or through other avenues. And so what it does, one thing is it just all of these parts of the resolution raise awareness like the example that you just gave. I look back at when I learned of this issue and it was kind of like I think of it as a forehead slapping moment like, of course, domestic violence is about power and control. Of course, the abuser is going to leverage that control over anyone that the victim loves. And that may be an animal, it may be a child. And so the third prong of it is really designed to shore up the ability of somebody to leave without having to leave their animals behind, or that they leave and return and put themselves in harm’s way to go retrieve an animal that has been left behind.

And so we have done a lot of work trying to do cross-disciplinary training and working with the Animal Law Committee and the Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence to get out there and connect with the social work profession. You may not know this veterinary social workers, that is a new and emerging profession. So to connect with them, we also did a collaboration, a formal collaboration with the American Veteran Medical Association in honor of National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, where we talked about the role that veterinarians can play in spotting abuse, reporting abuse. They may be the person who realizes that their human client has a patient who is a abuse victim and the person may be an abuse victim. So just pulling all of that together is part of that third prong so that we have more resources to address these issues.

Michal Rogson:

And raise awareness. Yeah. Now, Maria Conman, from your perspective as chief counsel for the commission, why was it so important for the ABA to put its weight behind this? How does that, for example, change the access to justice argument for a survivor in a state like Texas where you worked?

Maricarmen Garza:

The fact that there’s a resolution with such a detailed and well-done report, it just allows other states who are ready to take that next step, to take a resolution, to take that report and really urge their own legislatures to do something to address these issues. So again, it just creates awareness, it creates tools and resources that there are people working on this issue and to start looking at it. I know that we referenced some of the states where this has already been happening, where it’s been working well. And I think that that’s something that will allow any state that’s thinking about including or moving forward on any of these factors to do that. And obviously to know that the ABA is available as a resource. At our commission, one of the things that we do is that we work with attorneys who are working in domestic violence or sexual assault cases, and we’re able to provide technical assistance and resources.

And we have created numerous tools for those who are working at that intersection so that they have the resources they need to be able to eloquently handle cases that involve both these issues.

Michal Rogson:

And ideally, having heard of your experiences in the past, if nothing else, having a resolution like this issued by the ABA makes it not a fringe topic anymore. I mean, you said you used to get funny looks when you would bring this up. And I hope in any case that the fact that the ABA is identifying this as an issue, which given the head slapping nature of it is a good thing. It takes it sort of out of the realm of fringe into something that people should discuss and I think should be able to rally around. I don’t know why anyone would … Have there been any objections? Have there been any sort of principled objections to why any of these changes would be adverse in any way?

Megan Senatori:

No. And I have to say it was so gratifying and encouraging and inspiring coming from forever ago when I first learned of the issue and I got the same kind of looks that Mary Carmen talked about where people would say, who cares about the animals? There are people being abused. And I cannot believe the sea change that we’ve had in the acceptance, the enthusiasm and support for doing something to actively help survivors and to keep their companion animals safe. It’s been really encouraging. And the ABA has been wonderful in standing behind the resolution and trial and insurance practice section and helping us to implement it, working with the commission.

Michal Rogson:

Okay. So we’ve got the resolution. We are in the process of raising awareness, if nothing else, but also hopefully making change. What are the next steps? What happens now?

Megan Senatori:

So we have a working group that the Animal Law Committee and the Commission on Domestic and Sexual Violence are, we work together monthly. We get together, we talk far more often than that to do outreach. So we are working together currently on, we’re trying to put together an equine webinar for horses and victims of domestic violence who have horses that presents special challenges in trying to achieve safety. If you have a horse that you’re trying to protect as part of your escape plan, so we’re doing work like that.

Michal Rogson:

Yeah, it’s difficult to find a foster for a horse.

Megan Senatori:

It is. It is. And transport and all of the things that have involved in that. So reaching that community. We are also both involved with the Uniform Law Commission has created a drafting committee that is considering creating model or uniformed legislation on pets at family dissolution and other domestic violence issues. So we are both involved in that process and are really, again, talk about the advancements. So encouraged that the Uniform Law Commission is taking up this issue and recognizes it is a really important access to justice issue for survivors of violence and for people generally who love their animals and need a mechanism to get disputes resolved. So those are some of the things we’re doing. I don’t know if you want to add any others, Mary Carmen.

Maricarmen Garza:

Well, that’s really exciting because like you said, having uniform laws on this issue really is going to propel everybody to be considering it and thinking about it. The thing is that this issue has always been there in those courtrooms in front of all the judges, and it’s finally giving them tools to be able to do this work and do it in a way that’s safe for everybody. And so this is just really a great time to be doing this work.

Michal Rogson:

Okay. So we have the resolution. Potentially we’ve got uniform legislation language that may be proposed. What would you like to leave our listeners with as far as what they should be thinking about in their practices? If they want to help in some way, what can they do? What do you want our listeners to know?

Maricarmen Garza:

I would start with safety planning. I think this is something that everybody can do if you’re working with a survivor first and foremost, believe the survivor. And then two, leaving is the most dangerous time. So it’s not something that you just say, why don’t you just leave or find a way to leave, but really plan how that survivor might be able to leave. And doing so, especially when there’s pets, that you need to think about those things, right? How will you leave safety? It may be that the survivor might have to plan for a few months to find the right time to leave. And that if there’s a pet, that may mean have enough pet food, the medications, the way to transport the pet. So there’s tools that you can do to safety plan so that that survivor feels prepared to leave together with their pet and do so safely.

Megan Senatori:

I echo everything that Maricarmen said. And I just want to emphasize the really important role that lawyers have in protecting vulnerable people and animals. I teach this in my companion animal law course at Lewis and Clark Law School, ways that you can use protective orders. They can be complicated. They’re intimidating for people trying to navigate the system. The laws are very different by state into how they protect companion animals if they do and what protections they provide. So educating yourself, being really knowledgeable about how to advocate for that survivor of abuse, being engaged and going out and creating more co-sheltering programs. We have a resource manual from sheltering animals of abuse victims that has all of our legal paperwork and all of our experiences to help people create programs like this in other communities. So that’s a resource. Get out there and learn about the topics.

Feel free to join. We’d love to have you in the Animal Law Committee and you can work with us to implement the resolution. And then also don’t assume that people know of the issue. It’s really common between 75 and 89% of domestic violence survivors with companion animals report that their abuser threatened, harmed or killed their animals. That’s how often it’s happening. And notwithstanding that, I hear from people all the time who don’t even know it’s an issue. So educate people, especially your judges, they may not know. And so don’t assume that you’re getting a reaction because they think the issue is important. They may not know about it at all. And if they do know about it, teach them about the dynamics of power and control because even if they understand there’s a link, they may not understand how abusers are using the animals as part of that coercive control in the relationship.

So there’s just so much space for lawyers to do really compelling work to help survivors and to help keep their animals safe. And so find a way that works for you to be part of it.

Michal Rogson:

Is that something that you would normally do by bringing in an expert or how do you educate the judges?

Megan Senatori:

Yeah, I think, I mean, the entire case, you’re doing it. You’re doing it through motion practice, you’re doing it through your argument, you may be doing it through an expert witness, you’re doing it through the testimony of the survivor. So all of those things together to paint a picture so that the judges understand it. And I think we’ll do more and more outreach and education, and there is a lot more going on now so that it’s all part of that cycle of abuse and that people understand how pets become part of that cycle.

Michal Rogson:

And you’re doing the outreach through the Animal Law Committee.

Megan Senatori:

There are lots of different … We are not doing any … I should clarify. We’re not doing any judicial trainings right now, but maybe I would aspire to.

Michal Rogson:

Well, I will say that the ABA has a judicial division. So again, one of the beauties of being part of a large organization like this is that I may actually be able to connect you. We can talk offline. So I’ve asked you how often or how prevalent it is for the abused party to go back to the abuser because of animals. But how common is any of this? How many people are we actually talking about? Or is this a sliver of a sliver? And it’s really just this niche question that is horrible and we should address, but that isn’t really particularly prevalent or generally applicable.

Maricarmen Garza:

It is far more common than we know. At least one in three or one in four, depending on the study that you look at, women are being abused in their lifetimes. And we know this, and that is still one of the most under-reported crimes that exist with one out of three or one out of four women indicating that they’ve suffered domestic violence. So this is incredibly prevalent. It’s prevalent not only in the general community, it’s prevalent among lawyers who are also one of the one out of three or one out of four women that we’re talking about. So it is far more common than we think, and we need to be asking questions and we need to be able to offer support in a way to help.

Michal Rogson:

So we’re talking about between 25 to 33% of the population. Now you did say women. I’m just curious, do we have any data on men? I mean, we know that men can also be the abused parties. Is

Maricarmen Garza:

There data out there

Michal Rogson:

Or no? Absolutely.

Maricarmen Garza:

One out of seven men report that they were abused during their lifetime. So it’s not unique to women. Of course, this is a heavily under-reported crime and people don’t come forward.

Michal Rogson:

I was going to say, as under-reported as it is for women, we can only imagine that it is significantly more under-reported for men, just because of our cultural predilections. Okay. And well, to me, this is also interesting. As I said, I think at the beginning of our conversation, because it asks us to move from a perception of animals as property to animals as beings, and not necessarily personhood, I think that’s probably the biggest challenge to the law is what do you do when you have something that is a being that is capable of having relationships, that has at least to some extent, certain rights or protections against abuse and harm, I assume. Megan, that’s probably something you can comment on. There are animal cruelty laws, correct?

Megan Senatori:

Yes. We have animal cruelty laws in all 50 states. So animals are certainly protected by animal cruelty laws.

Michal Rogson:

So we already have some sort of framework for imagining and understanding how animals are not just property, but beings. And it’s interesting because it’s going to be a very interesting synthesis of how you take whatever the framework is in animal cruelty, apply it in family law and see how the law develops in that area. But this had to be done with children and women. I mean, historically legally, both children and women were considered property under the law.

Megan Senatori:

Well,

We’re at a point in time where we’re very out of step with how American families view their companion animals. The resolution cites to a Pew research study from 2023. 97% of people in the United States with pets consider them to be members of their family. And I believe the second part of it is something to like more than 50% of them consider them to be the same as other human family members. And so we have this huge disconnect between how we as a society view and feel and value our animals and how the law coldly just has this characterization as property. So how to fix it is something people that were open is subject of a lot of debate, but as they say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. This one is broke and there needs to be some kind of better approach than what we have been doing.

Michal Rogson:

Well, I just want to thank you again for raising awareness. I would never have learned of it if I hadn’t attended that CLE that you had put on. And clearly this is the culmination of 20 years of work on both of your parts. And I’m just thrilled that the ABA could bring you together and give you both resources and a platform in which to spread the word about this critical issue and hopefully make the laws better and make people’s lives better in the process. So thank you both for being here, joining us and doing all the work that you do.

Maricarmen Garza:

Thank you for having us.

Megan Senatori:

Thank you so much for having us as part of this important conversation. We really appreciate it.

Michal Rogson:

Last thing, if our listeners want to find the text of Resolution 504 or reach out to your organizations for technical assistance, where should they go?

Maricarmen Garza:

You could reach the commission at AmericanBar.org/groups/domestic_violence, and we have many resources available, including some that we discussed in this show today.

Megan Senatori:

And you can reach the ABA’s Animal Law Committee at a similar website, and we’ll include it in the show notes because it’s long, but we also have the text of the resolution there, as well as the videos from the collaboration with the AVMA on domestic violence and animal cruelty, and you can find that there as well.

Michal Rogson:

Thank you again for joining us. I’m very curious to see how the Uniform Law Commission’s work progresses on this front, so hopefully we will keep in touch. Thank you again.

Megan Senatori:

Thank You.

Maricarmen Garza:

Thank you.

Michal Rogson:

And now it’s time for a quick tip from the ABA Litigation Section’s Mental Health and Wellness Committee. I’d like to welcome Richard Gaal, a partner, Jones Walker, to share insights on separating who you are from what you do, which is something that Jim and I actually discussed in our prior podcast. So Richard, take it away.

Richard Gaal:

Thank you. One time years ago, I was very stressed out and talking to a close friend, a close friend who is not a lawyer, he asked me a question point blank. He said, “Who are you? ” And I thought about it and really sort of quickly on a knee-jerk reaction said, “Well, I’m a lawyer at a certain firm, in a certain city, practicing in a certain practice area.” And he said, “No, no.” My question was, “Who are you? ” And I started down that same path again, and then he gave me some very good advice, which at the time seemed pretty abrupt to me. He said, “Richard, being a lawyer is what you do, not who you are. Who are you? ” I really thought about it at that time really more deeply and responded with, I think, the answer, which is closer to correct.

I said, “I am a husband, I’m a father, I’m a son, a brother, an uncle, a friend, not to mention me. I am Richard with certain needs that need to be tended to ahead of most everything else in order to maintain my own mental wellness.” It is still a very good reminder for me to simply say to myself from time to time, “Being a lawyer is what I do, not who I am.” This helps me maintain a balance in my practice. It helps me maintain a balance in my real life, frankly. Now this doesn’t mean that I won’t work hard to be the best lawyer I can be. It just means that I can advocate for myself sometimes too.

Michal Rogson:

Thanks so much for sharing that and for being on the show today.

Richard Gaal:

Thank you.

Michal Rogson:

And that’s a wrap on this episode. I’d love to hear your thoughts about today’s topic, and if you have comments or questions you’d like for me to answer on an upcoming show, you can contact me at [email protected] or connect with me on LinkedIn. You can also connect with the ABA litigation section on that platform. If you like the show, please help spread the word by sharing a link to this episode with a friend or through a post on social, and invite others to join the community. If you want to leave a review over at Apple Podcasts or a quick rating at Spotify, that’s incredibly helpful as well. And finally, I want to quickly thank some folks who make this show possible. Thanks to Michelle Oberts, who’s on staff for the litigation section. Thanks also goes out to the co-chairs of litigation Section’s audio contact committee, Haley Maple and Michael Stager.

Thank you to the audio professionals from Legal Talk Network, and of course, thank you for listening. See you next time.

Continue Reading