I continue to get more inquiries about animal companions in mediation.

One example is a person who entered a relationship with a man who owned a dog before they met. Over the years, she and the dog became close and the pet had much less interaction with the boyfriend. As their relationship was coming to an end, she was worried about what would happen to the dog.

State laws do vary, of course, but in most states laws require that courts divide all community property, including companion animals, equally. Companion animals are considered no different than tangible property like furniture.

Some states, such as Alaska and Illinois, have adopted new laws to address this issue with California not far behind in 2018. Since then New Hampshire, Maine and New York have also passed new laws. Delaware and Rhode Island are considering to do the same.

California’s AB2274 empowered courts to consider “the care of the pet animal” in cases of divorce or legal separation. The new law made it possible for courts to create shared custody agreements. The bill’s original language was stronger, requiring courts to address the well-being of the companion animal. The final language was that courts “may” address the issue.

In effect the laws make it possible for the courts to enforce custody and visitation arrangements similar to ones for young children. The laws change the focus from ownership of tangible property to what is in the best interest of the companion animal. In these states the courts no longer award the pet to one party. Instead, they can arrange a custody and visitation schedule.

In states with new laws, separating partners may include their animal companion’s custody and care as part of their mediation along with other issues. In states without similar laws, there is nothing that prevents parties from using the same approach during mediation if both parties are willing to do so.

There is much controversy regarding the future of mediation and Artificial Intelligence.

Some see AI having the potential to replace mediators. Others point out it cannot replace human elements, such as empathy, which are often critical to the mediation process. The middle ground at present is to ask what can AI do to supplement the mediator’s work. One use currently available is to generate potential compromises the parties may then consider.

To demonstrate how AI can be creative, a colleague presented ChatGPT with this problem:

“Two professors occupy the same office but both want the desk near the window. In what ways can this dispute be resolved or at least settled?”

He received this suggestion: “Resolving or settling a dispute between two professors who both want the desk near the window an be done through communication compromise, or external mediation.”

Some possible ways to address the situation were then offered, summarized here by space:

1.) Communication: Encourage the professors to have an open and respectful conversation about the preferences and needs.

2.) Compromise: Suggest a compromise where they share the desk near the window on different days or difference times of the day

3.) Office Allocation Policy: Check if there is an official policy for assigning office spaces. Policies can provide an objective basis.

4.) Rotation: Take turns using the desk near the window.

5.) Random Selection: Draw lots or flip a coin to determine who gets the desk eliminates any bias.

6.) Mediation: Involve a neutral third party to mediate a discussion.

7.) Redesign the Office: Consider rearranging the office space.

8.) Alternative Desks: Identify other available desks in the office that may have other features that meet each professor’s needs

9.) Seniority or Priority: Consider giving priority by seniority or specific needs.

10.) Time-Based Agreement: Agree on specific times that each cn use the desk near the window.

Admittedly, some of these proposals are variations of others, but many disputants come to mediation with only one solution in mind. Perhaps providing disputants with a ChatGPT generated list of options might encourage human creativity.

My colleague’s ChatGPT concluded: “The key to resolving this dispute is to encourage open communication, fairness, and a willingness to find a solution that works for both professors and respects their individual needs and preferences. The chosen approach may vary depending on institutional policies, the personalities involved, and the specific circumstances of the office space.”