March 2, 2010 - Legislative Report #11

Pet Restraining Orders

Before I get started discussing HF 1396 introduced during last year's session, I need to provide personal background. I like animals, dogs not so much, but cats because they basically care for themselves. Others may like lizards, goldfish and so forth. People are entitled to own pets and care for them. In fact, I have a very friendly cat we named Cleo.  I also experienced a very challenging divorce over 20 years ago.

With that said, now to the subject at hand. House File No.1396 has 3 sponsors: Representative Michael Paymar (DFL), District 64B, Representative Lyle Koenen (DFL), District 20B, Representative Jeff Hayden (DFL), District 61B.

This bill attempts to add the following language to existing law related to court orders of protection, restraining orders and Ex parte orders.

...direct the care, possession, or control of a pet or companion animal owned, possessed, or kept by the petitioner or respondent or a child of the petitioner or respondent, or order the respondent to have no contact with the pet or companion animal.

Please keep in mind this bill was introduced last session when Minnesota was staring at a $6.4 billion budget shortfall. This year the shortfall is $1 billion, and the next biennium budget shortfall projection has grown to $8.46 billion. Having a House file introduced last year and consuming legislators' time is shameful. Having committee hearings on the legislation this year is just as shameful.

Our state leaders have no constitutional obligation or authority to include pets in restraining orders. Just consider the long term effects if this bill passes, i.e., further clogging an already over burdened court system with claims of abuse against the pet pooch "Henry" or the pet gerbil "Harriet." Law enforcement would have to verify the validity of a restraining order and order conditions of every pet when dealing with people in a volatile environment when responding to a domestic call. Then we add another layer of
animal protection, care and housing of pets in disputed relationships.

Who is paying for all this proposed additional cost to law enforcement, courts, animal control and society in general? YOU, the tax payer.


Solution: Replace our elected leaders with folks willing to say no and hold to reason, common logic, and the Rule of Law.