Animals are NOT property.
Their well-being deserves real legal protection.

When pets are family, the law should treat them that way.

That’s why I’m calling for Rosie’s Law: 
-legislation that treats disputes involving companion animals as custody cases, not property battles.

Illinois has modernized outdated laws before. It can do it again. This time for the animals who share our homes, routines, and hearts.

Rosie’s Story
Rosie is a 13-year-old senior Puggle who spent her longest, most stable chapter of life bonded to me.

Our relationship was built through daily care, routine, and emotional trust — all documented through vet records, photos, receipts, and witness statements.

But when my engagement ended after almost a decade of being together, everything Rosie and I built disappeared in the eyes of Illinois law.

Why?
Because I wasn’t married, the system treated Rosie as property.

Not as a living, breathing sentient being with attachments, memory, and needs.

Property that someone else simply called “dibs” on first.
Even under property law, neither of us held title — yet Rosie's keeper was granted exclusive possession because she demonstrated she had Rosie first even though she wasn't the first to have Rosie to begin with.

This leads to the deeper truth:

Even if a person's name is on the title or they originally brought an animal into the relationship as their own — that alone should never decide the fate of a living being who has established emotional bonds, a documented caregiving history, and a primary attachment to someone else. At the very least, visitation rights should have been granted, because this was clearly a pet custody matter, despite it being treated as a property dispute.

What Happened in Court
You can bring evidence.
You can bring witnesses.
You can bring years of caregiving and documentation.

And still walk out unheard.

My temporary possession hearing was abruptly converted into a final verdict — 

My Latine witnesses, who showed up despite ICE patrols, waited over an hour, then had to return to work and were not able to testify.

Even an 18-year-old neighbor who translated for his Spanish-speaking family was denied the chance to testify. I was told that no matter how well I cared for Rosie, it “didn’t make her mine,” the same way caring for an unknown person's car wouldn’t make it mine.

Meanwhile, two old Instagram photos were admitted as “sequence of ownership” because I “didn’t object fast enough.” 

And then the judge compared “sequence of ownership” to Christopher Columbus “discovering” America, proving the flaw in the logic; when I pointed out that his own analogy proved my point, that someone who arrives second can still seize what isn’t theirs. When I explained that sequence is not ownership because showing up first or second does not make something yours; It only reveals who has the power to seize it, I was told to sit down.

Under Illinois replevin law, when no one can prove title, judges often evaluate superior possessory interest through factors like care, cost, and control — not sequence.

I provided substantial evidence of all three.
Still, the standard was ignored.

The Harm to Rosie
Rosie is a senior dog — emotionally comparable to a two-year-old child.
Forced separation at that age doesn’t just hurt; it harms.

When I learned Rosie had missed a vet appointment labeled “sick/injured,” I reached out and was ignored. Only after I raised concern publicly did her keeper respond, claiming Rosie was “perfectly fine.”

She was not fine.

When her keeper attempted to bring her to the vet and the clinic was unavailable, they provided a list of urgent care centers. Still, she did not take Rosie in. Rosie did not receive care until after my name was removed from her medical record.

Her keeper prioritized erasing me from the chart over addressing Rosie’s medical needs.

Shortly after Rosie was removed, her vet records documented:

• lethargy
• acute digestive illness
• house-soiling
• anal gland and eye issues
• development of masses requiring cancer screening

None of these issues existed before separation.

This is not coincidence.

This is separation trauma and it is now part of the public record.

I have not seen Rosie in over seven months.
To a senior dog, that is the emotional equivalent of nearly four years.

No animal should suffer a decline in well-being because the law treats them as objects instead of family.

The Larger Problem
Illinois only considers a pet’s well-being in one narrow scenario: divorce.

Even then, the law merely requires judges to consider the animal’s well-being (750 ILCS 5/503(n)).
It does not require judges to prioritize welfare.

If you’re unmarried, domestic partnered, cohabiting, queer, or co-caregiving…

Your pet is reduced to property.

I would know:
My former partner and I submitted a notarized domestic partnership (2022) and a completed marriage license application (2024) -- both of which were entered into evidence and still, Rosie was treated as property.

Not family.
Not sentient.
Not protected.

Animals attach, rely, remember, and grieve — yet the law refuses to recognize their lived reality.

Why This Matters
This affects millions of people and animals.

• Over 40% of couples under age 40 are NOT married
• More than 50% of marriages in the U.S. eventually end in divorce, the only time well-being is considered.
• 70% of American households include pets — and many see them as family.
• Modern families look different: include cohabiting partners, LGBTQ+ partners, blended families, domestic partners, and chosen families.

Current laws assume an outdated model: two married adults. 
That is NOT how people live today.

When the law lags behind reality, living beings get hurt and Rosie is one of countless examples.

The Path Forward
I am assembling an advocacy team and drafting legislation to submit to the Illinois General Assembly after securing a sponsor. 

I am prepared to carry the load — I simply ask for your signature to show lawmakers that Illinois is ready for change.

*Legislation must evolve with the people it serves and with the animals who depend on us*

What We’re Calling For: Rosie’s Law

Rosie’s Law would:

• Treat disputes involving companion animals as custody cases, not property disputes.
• Ensure animal well-being is considered for all caregivers, not only in divorce.
• Recognize caregiving evidence (feeding, vet care, routine, attachment).
• Require consistent use of care, cost, and control to determine superior possessory interest.
• Grant legal standing to unmarried and domestic partners.

Companion animals are family.
Their well-being deserves legal protection.

Why I’m Fighting
I’m not doing this to be “right.”
I’m doing this because Rosie is Light, and her story exposes the shadows in a system that still treats love like ownership.

If no attorney will take this to the Appellate Court, I will.
But I need the power of the people — because the people are listening, even when the court didn’t.

What You Can Do: Sign the Petition
Let Rosie’s story be the catalyst for a future where companion animals are protected no matter the relationship status of the humans who love them.

• Sign this petition
• Share it with others
• Promote to expand reach
• Contact legislators to support Rosie’s Law
• Raise awareness about the gaps in pet custody laws

Our Call to Action
Let Rosie’s story be the beginning of a new standard:
one where animals are valued not as objects, but as lives with bonds and needs of their own.

Let the real work begin. 🌹

[ more info related to all this can be found here www.facebook.com/tameer
 https://www.facebook.com/tameer/posts/pfbid0fJTK6VDXBEsLvomNVhgBRX2GmMfbvWpssJhFu982QQutsPwqQeqNwjUV3bMBrJiJl ]