Posted by Authored by Leah Zanin
Tameer Siddiqui lost more than her relationship when her engagement ended. She lost Rosie, the senior puggle she had spent years caring for (Isabela Nieto, Chicago Sun-Times, July 29, 2026). When Siddiqui took her dispute to court, she encountered a gap in the law for unmarried pet owners: In a divorce, Illinois courts must consider a pet’s well-being when deciding who keeps it, yet unmarried parties had no comparable statutory framework directing courts to consider the animal’s well-being (750 ILCS 5/503(n)). This gap ultimately inspired the Companion Animal Custody Equity Act, also known as “Rosie’s Law,” which Governor JB Pritzker signed into law in July 2026. Beginning January 1, 2027, Illinois courts may consider a companion animal’s well-being in possession disputes regardless of the parties’ legal status (P.A. 104-0613; 735 ILCS 5/19-130).
Since 2018, the Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act has required courts to consider a companion animal’s well-being when the animal is a marital asset. Once a court determines that an animal is marital property, it must allocate sole or joint ownership of and responsibility for the animal while considering its well-being (750 ILCS 5/503(n)). Additionally, divorcing spouses can reach their own agreement over the ownership of and responsibility for a companion animal (750 ILCS 5/502(a)). Before Rosie’s Law, however, unmarried parties had no comparable statutory guidance directing courts to consider an animal’s well-being.
Rosie’s Law amends Illinois’s replevin statute, the law governing actions to recover property that has been wrongfully taken or detained. The Act applies to “companion animals,” which are defined as animals commonly considered, or considered by their owners, to be pets; this includes, but is not limited to, dogs, cats, and horses (735 ILCS 5/19-101(b)). It covers domestic partners, former partners, fiancés, cohabitants, and roommates who can show shared responsibility for a companion animal’s care (735 ILCS 5/19-101(c)). When resolving a possession dispute, a court “may consider the well-being of the companion animal regardless of the legal status of the parties” (735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)). The court may weigh factors including each party’s financial contributions to the animal’s care, involvement in feeding and veterinary care, history of daily caregiving, emotional bonds with the animal, the stability of the animal’s living environment, and the ownership documentation (735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)(1)-(10)). Importantly, ownership records are not determinative on their own (735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)(10)).
Rosie’s Law does not turn a pet dispute into a child-custody case. Replevin is still a property action that concerns who is legally entitled to possession, but the Act expands the information a court may consider in making the determination (P.A. 104-0613; 735 ILCS 5/19-101). Consideration of the animal’s well-being is discretionary. In a divorce, a court “shall” consider a companion animal’s well-being when allocating ownership and responsibility (750 ILCS 5/503(n)). Under Rosie’s Law, a court “may” consider well-being in a possession dispute (735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)). Put simply, the law gives courts discretion without requiring a best-interests-style inquiry.
Senior animals are given special consideration. If a companion animal is ten years or older, a court may give extra weight to continuity of environment, emotional stability, minimizing stress, and maintaining established routines (735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)(11)). For an older animal, a change in home or routine can carry major consequences that a traditional property analysis would overlook. The statute allows courts to account for them.
Rosie’s Law gives courts options while a dispute is pending as well. A court may enter temporary possession or caregiving orders, such as limited visitation, when necessary to minimize stress or disruption to the animal (735 ILCS 5/19-106.5). It may also order mediation to resolve possession issues (735 ILCS 5/19-130(b)). To be clear, these provisions do not create a right to permanent shared custody. Rather, they provide more flexibility to address the practical realities of disputes involving living animals.
Rosie’s Law does not erase the distinction between pets and property. It recognizes that ownership alone may not provide the whole story when an animal has been cared for by more than one person. Beginning in 2027, individuals like Siddiqui will have something she did not: a statutory framework allowing courts to consider the care and relationship behind a claim to possession.
Sources
Isabela Nieto, “Pet custody disputes involving unmarried couples will be something courts can decide under new Illinois law,” Chicago Sun-Times (July 29, 2026).
750 ILCS 5/503(n) — Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act
Public Act 104-0613, Companion Animal Custody Equity Act (eff. Jan. 1, 2027)
735 ILCS 5/19-130(a) (eff. Jan. 1, 2027)
750 ILCS 5/502(a) — Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act
735 ILCS 5/19-101(a)-(c) (eff. Jan. 1, 2027 as amended by P.A. 104-0613)
735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)(1)-(10) (eff. Jan. 1, 2027)
735 ILCS 5/19-130(a)(11) (eff. Jan. 1, 2027)
735 ILCS 5/19-106.5 (eff. Jan. 1, 2027)
735 ILCS 5/19-130(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2027)
Leah Zanin is a J.D. candidate at the University of Illinois College of Law, where she serves as a Student Ambassador, a Mediation Specialist on the Dispute Resolution Team, and Outreach Co-Chair of the Women’s Law Society. She also works as a law clerk at the Law Office of Russell D. Knight, a family law firm in Chicago. She plans to pursue a career in family law after graduation.