Let's say that owner A handed dog to owner B.  Owner A wants the dog back at some point, but owner B does not want to give the dog up for various reasons (mainly neglect of the dog by owner A).

In this sort-of-hypothetical situation, how would proof of ownership be determined do we think?  Only "evidence" is a microchip with owner A's name on but incorrect address.

Did owner A sign the dog over owner B at all?

No.  Also all vet records are in owner B's name (incl previous to the dog moving).

If all the vet records are in owner B's name then I'm pretty certain that would be very much in his/her favour legally.

That's what I was thinking.  The microchip seems to be a contentious issue - a lot of sites say it's proof, the rest say it's not so I wanted to see where everything else would stand.

When owner A handed the dog over was it on the assumption that they (owner A) could have the dog back in future?
When owner B took the dog did they agree to hand the dog back to A in future?

Was ownership transferred on paper or with a cash payment? 

I'd say it would depend on what was agreed, or discussed at the time of handover.  There are plenty of situations when I could find myself sympathising with and agreeing with both parties.  Not easy to prove if it became a legal matter though - will it get that far?

That was the assumption yes, and it was agreed about a month prior to the dog being handed over.  It was not reaffirmed at the handover though, and owner B was not aware of the extent of the medical neglect the dog had suffered until after the handover.

No paper transfer or monies paid, the dog was just handed over.  No recorded evidence of the 'terms' of handover of any kind.

Hopefully it won't get that far and it'll likely be months at least before it even comes close, if it does.

Edit: interestingly, all other people who know about the situation are under the assumption that the dog will not be given back.  Not sure if that makes a difference though, wouldn't have thought so but it seems to be a tricky subject!

If I were owner A - although I find it hard to imagine a circumstance in which I would let my dog go - I would want my dog back, if that's what was agreed

If I were owner B I would want the best for the dog.  If I had always known they were going back I would have tried not to get attached and hand the dog over when the time came.  If I were certain the dog would not receive adequate care, then I can see that I would want to keep the dog.

This is another reason why it's so important to get this stuff sorted out early on but I know it's not that straightforward.  Good luck :)

That's the problem.  I can understand owner A wanting the dog back - they've had her a long time and do love her (it was homelessness that prompted the handover btw).

But at the same time, owner B knows 100% that if the dog does go back, she will not get the medical care she needs and so it edges into cruelty territory (IMO).  That's the issue - it's not about them getting attached, it's about knowing that the dog is going to end up in severe pain again if she goes back.

Arrrg lol!

The dog belongs to owner A as owner B was aware that the dog was only being handed over temporarily.

> That's the issue - it's not about them getting attached, it's about knowing that the dog is going to end up in severe pain again if she goes back.
>

Could owner B ensure the dog received/paid for the treatment that would be needed knowing that owner A was unlikely to pay for it themselves? Maybe paying the vet direct to ensure that the money did actually pay for treatment and wasn't spent on anything else?

I do this with our second dog who moved in with my daughter when she got a place of her own and took him to live with her as an only dog which suits him far better than being in a multi dog household. My daughter pays for all the normal vaccinations etc but the vet will bill me for anything that is costly (dog is insured but bill has to be paid direct rather than by insurance company) - and our vet is quite happy to have this arrangement with us.

> Could owner B ensure the dog received/paid for the treatment that would be needed knowing that owner A was unlikely to pay for it themselves? Maybe paying the vet direct to ensure that the money did actually pay for treatment and wasn't spent on anything else?

It wouldn't work - the money would be spent elsewhere and even if it wasn't, owner A wouldn't bother to take the dog to the vet.  That has been considered but realistically it would be a pointless exercise.