In a strange way, the idea of a domestic partnership seems a bit old-fashioned nowadays. The push for same-sex marriage in Minnesota long ago eclipsed what early advocates for same-sex relationships saw as the thin end of the wedge, a small step toward full equality.
We are finishing up our discussion of a family law case from outside of Minnesota. The situation we have been looking at involves a dispute over custody of a dog. The court gave the dog to the husband, loosely referencing the "best interest of the child" standard. The judge had told the couple that shared custody would not be possible, that no court would enforce such an agreement.
We are talking about a custody dispute. The case does not come from Minnesota, but it is important to remember that our courts will look to other states' opinions for guidance when our own statutes and case law have not addressed the issue before. We would never say for sure that a Minnesota judge would rely on this case, but it is always a possibility.
For a couple with no children, a divorce is really just a matter of property division, right? Well, that depends. Is there a pet involved? More to the point, a dog?