I was watching a segment on the Today Show about a rather new phenomenon, courtroom custody battles over the family dog.

At Dogster we know when a dog is adopted they become a member of the family, an attachment is formed, something not easily broken up even when the family is.

TODAY entertainment correspondent Jill Rappaport, a major animal lover herself, reported Thursday on the latest issue that’s being thrown before judges trying to sort out who gets what when relationships fail. In addition to a pre-nup agreement, Rappaport suggested to co-anchor Meredith Vieira, couples with pets should consider a pre-pup agreement as well.

The problem is, courts still think of pets as chattel, a piece of property assigned to one litigant and not as a living breathing being. As in the case of Doreen Houseman and her ex-fiance who were fighting over their pug, Dexter. Originally after the break-up Dexter was allowed to stay with Doreen,  but that changed after her ex found out she was dating another man.

She received a call from her ex threatening she would never see Dexter again. The thought of giving up her best friend was devastating so she went to court in an attempt to keep him.

Since it was originally the fiance who purchased the dog he was sent back to him.

“The judge said he did not want to know about the emotional attachment,” explained Houseman’s attorney, Gina Calogero. “He didn’t want to consider it, because to him, the dog was no different from a chair or a couch. They’re not people. They’re not children.”

Judges do have some discretion, so your case outcome is really dependent upon if you go before a sympathetic or unsympathetic judge. As was the case in Haskoor vs. Haskoor.

Fortunately for Mark Haskoor, not all judges are as coldhearted. When he broke up with his wife, he was devastated when she told him she was keeping their dog, Bobesh.

“We got Bobesh when we were together, and then when we separated, she had taken him with her,” Haskoor said. “When I asked to start seeing Bobesh again, the answer was no.

“It hit me like a ton of bricks. He’s my best friend. He’s part of my family. I’m not willing to let that go.”

Like Houseman, Haskoor took his case to court. But unlike Houseman, he found a sympathetic judge who worked out a joint custody agreement for Bobesh, treating the pet as if it were a child.

Houseman’s attorney, McDonough, went on to say, “There has been an explosion in the court systems of people who want to litigate time sharing and legal ownership of family pets.”

So, what do you think about fighting over Fido?   Since we view our dogs emotionally and affectionately, like children, should the laws be changed to reflect this?  Give me a bark.

The old adage “It’s a dog’s life” really is true when it comes to the following article.

A GOLD Coast couple have spent $70,000 on a legal dogfight to ensure their pampered pooch Bernie can keep living the high life in Southport.

The fur is about to fly.

Bente and Warren Tutton have shared a $4.5 million 38th-floor sub-penthouse with their “gorgeous” maltese shih tzu for the past three years.

So when Pivotal Point’s body corporate banned animals last year, the Tuttons went into battle for Bernie and the rights of pet owners in the tower.

No one likes to have the rules changed after the game has started.

“This was about our rights . . . and Bernie’s,” Mr Tutton said. “Most people would have given up. They wouldn’t have spent $70,000. We felt so strongly it was wrong, it was worth doing.”

While I may be short about $69,900 I would have used whatever resources I had to make sure my best friend wasn’t going to be kicked out of his home.

“No dog owner would leave their pet behind if they could afford it,” she said.

Find out if Bernie is living the high life or in the dog house.