The palgrave international handbook of a 112

102 A Nurse animal faeces’ (2009, p 283) The health visitors and school nurse observed the same scene, noting that the dog also had no shelter or access to food and water This indicated the possibility of neglect within the family and the interior of the property which contained a malnourished and frightened cat, the presence of animal faeces within the home, discarded used nappies and rotting food confirmed this Animal neglect thus has importance not just in respect of its impact on animals as direct or indirect abuse causing animal harm, but also as an indicator of other forms of interpersonal abuse Conclusion: Re-contextualising Neglect as Abuse This chapter identifies current animal protection law (both anti-cruelty and welfare) as making provision for neglect to be considered as animal abuse While discussions of abuse primarily focus on deliberate acts of cruelty or maltreatment, failure to adequately consider non-human animal needs is recognised within some legal systems as a crime, notwithstanding the legal reality that animals are denied crime ‘victim’ status (Hall 2013; Wise 2000) Schaffner (2011) identifies flaws in contemporary law such that cruelty laws currently tend to address both abuse and neglect but with the unfortunate consequence that wild animals are exempt from both Thus, she contends that ‘the law must separately address abuse and neglect: laws against abuse should govern all animals, and neglect laws should govern only domestic animals (2011, p 188) This chapter’s discussion of non-human companion neglect identifies neglect as abuse, particularly, where specific legal responsibility is owed towards non-human companions The UK Animal Welfare Act 2006 falls short of providing animals with legal personhood and directly enforceable rights However it does in part reflect Regan’s (1983) distinction between legal rights and moral rights commensurate with arguments that animals should be granted the same (or similar) rights to humans because they have value Tannenbaum has argued that anti-cruelty provisions in animal laws ‘create legal duties to nonhuman animals They therefore afford legal rights to non-human animals’ (1995, p 167) albeit these rights are not comparable with human rights and legal personhood Arguably there are also problems with enforcing these rights within contemporary justice systems; numerous limitations and exemptions exist which provide for continued animal exploitation As this chapter indicates, non-human animals continue to be exploited for food, for scientific purposes and in some ‘entertainment’ settings (for example,