modifies the Cohabitant Abuse Act to include pets in protective orders. In general, This bill authorizes a court issuing a protective order to enjoin the respondent from harming any pet animal owned, possessed, or kept by the petitioner or other named parties, or the respondent in certain circumstances; and authorizes the court to direct that a law enforcement officer ensure the safety of a petitioner while gaining possession of a pet animal.
(i) domestic violence or abuse against the petitioner and any designated family or household member, or
(ii) any harm or harassment, including any violation of Section 76-9-301, against any pet animal owned, possessed, kept, or held by:
(C) the respondent, if the petitioner has a demonstrated interest in the pet animal;
(f)(i) order that the petitioner may obtain the physical custody or control, or authority to care for, any pet animal owned, possessed, kept, or held by:
(C) the respondent, if the petitioner has a demonstrated interest in the pet animal; and
According to an the sponsor of this bill, Rep.
Scott Wyatt (R-Logan) said HR 342 was designed to protect people, not pets and said he was asked to sponsor the bill by the Utah Domestic Violence Council. It has passed the House and was voted out of Senate committee 3-1. Sen.
Jon Greiner (R-Ogden) opposed the bill on the grounds that it might require law enforcement to take on extra responsibilities.
As written, this bill, IMHO, is a bad bill for the following reasons:
1. Yes, people do get attached to their pets and some will go to extraordinary steps to protect them.
So irrespective of Wyatt s assertion, section 30-6-4.2 (2)(a) of this bill is demonstrably written to protect the pet. This section is redundant with statue 76-9-301, specifying what is cruelty to animals, including failing to provide food, care and shelter.
Not only that, but HR 342 elevates pets to near human status. This is a backdoor attempt to further the animal rights agenda and thus take away ours.
2.
Your ex-love can take your pet if they demonstrate an interest in the animal!!!
Did you really read that sentence! This section (30-6-4.2 (2)(f)(i)(C) allows whoever files papers first to take YOUR pet.
How is that in the best interest of the pet or the owner of the pet? The key is for the person who now wants to stick it to you to demonstrate interest in the animal . Talk about attorney make employment and to hell with the pet owner.
This section alone is grievous enough to stop this bill. They don t even have to show that you are not properly taking care of your pet! An outrage!
3. What constitutes a pet? That can be any animal, dog, cat, fish, reptile, horse, cow, etc.
Passage of this bill would enable someone who wanted to get even (oh, yeah, I know that NEVER happens) to do just that by taking any animal deemed a pet. If you made your living with your monkey or horse or other animal, they could conceivable take away your ability to make a living. This bill is poorly written and worse in execution.
4. Greiner is spot on that it will cause increased responsibilities thrust upon law enforcement. If they don t have better things to do than take pets away from pet owners who are properly caring for them just because a third party has an axe to grind then I know where we can save tax payers a bunch of money!
This bill needs to be stopped. Contact your state Senator now, before an ex takes your pet because he/she demonstrated an interest in it. Who in their right mind would vote for this tripe?
Oh, Rep. Mel Brown and Rep. Christine Johnson did.
News RSS