Helping Clients Cope with the Loss of a Companion Animal

This article examines how grief manifests following the loss of a companion animal, and how therapists can best support clients going through such experiences.

Related articles: Helping Clients Navigate Death Anxiety, Assessing and Treating Prolonged Grief Disorder, Case Study: Multiple Losses as a Caregiver.

Introduction

For many clients, the death of a companion animal—dog, cat, rabbit, bird, or other beloved creature—is not a minor inconvenience. These animals often hold significant emotional and relational roles: they are confidants, co-regulators, stabilisers of routine, and providers of unconditional affection. Losing them—whether through death, euthanasia, disappearance, or rehoming—can produce profound grief. Importantly, this grief is frequently disenfranchised; that is, it lacks social recognition and validation, compounding emotional suffering (Kulkin, 2025).

This article examines how grief manifests following the loss of a companion animal, how it overlaps with and diverges from human bereavement, and the therapeutic approaches that mental health professionals can employ to support adaptive grieving. We integrate the latest empirical findings (2018–2025), illustrate clinical practices with case vignettes and dialogue examples, and provide practical tools—including worksheets, narrative techniques, and cognitive interventions—to help clinicians work competently and compassionately in this domain.

Understanding companion animal loss

Understanding companion animal loss requires us to recognise that clients are not simply grieving an animal; they are grieving a relationship, an identity, and a rhythm of daily life. Research indicates that the psychological meaning assigned to a companion animal often resembles that of an attachment figure, functioning as a secure base, emotional regulator, or stabiliser of routine (Kogan & Erdman, 2021).

When this bond is broken, clients may experience not only affective pain but also a collapse of predictability and connection, creating a sense of existential disorientation. This distress is frequently intensified by societal minimisation, which can delegitimise the grief and reduce help-seeking (Kulkin, 2025). Clinicians who appreciate these relational, symbolic, and practical dimensions are better equipped to understand why companion animal loss can produce grief that is both profound and clinically significant (Brown et al., 2023; Lykins et al., 2024).

Nature of the human–animal bond

The human–animal bond is psychologically and relationally significant. Companion animals often occupy roles similar to family members, friends, or attachment figures. Many clients describe their pet as a source of unconditional acceptance, emotional safety, or daily purpose. Despite this, society frequently minimises this attachment, leading to experiences of disenfranchised grief when the animal dies (Kulkin, 2025). This dissonance between internal significance and external invalidation is a key reason clients struggle.

How grief after companion animal loss compares with human bereavement

Research consistently shows that grief responses following companion animal death parallel human grief in intensity and duration (Miller, 2014). Clients commonly report shock, yearning, disbelief, sadness, guilt, rumination, and difficulty re-establishing routines. Studies have documented high prevalence of numbness and disbelief lasting up to a year after pet loss (Archer & Winchester, as cited in Miller, 2014).

However, several aspects are distinctive:

• Social legitimacy: Grief is often dismissed, increasing shame and withdrawal (Brown et al., 2023).
• Euthanasia: When clients decide to euthanise, guilt and moral distress are common (Pihkala & Aaltola, 2025).
• Attachment styles: Clients high in attachment anxiety show more severe grief and stronger continuing bonds (Lykins et al., 2023).
• Shorter life spans: The expectation of earlier death does not diminish the pain; instead, it may sharpen anticipatory grief.

Specific risk factors and manifestations of grief

Risk factors for intensified grief include (Brown et al., 2023; Lykins et al., 2023):

• Strong attachment to the animal, especially for clients living alone
• Limited social support or environments that discount pet grief
• Traumatic, sudden, or euthanasia-related deaths
• Older age or existing mental-health vulnerabilities

Common clinical presentations include:

• Persistent longing or preoccupation with the animal
• Acute guilt (“I should have done more”)
• Anger at oneself or veterinarians
• Sleep and appetite disturbance
• Emotional numbing or withdrawal from social contact
• Avoidance of reminders (e.g., empty cages, collars)

Neglecting this grief can aggravate depression, anxiety, somatic symptoms, or prolonged grief symptoms.

Why clinicians must pay attention

Companion-animal loss remains one of the most under-recognised grief experiences encountered in clinical settings. Many clients minimise their own reactions because they have internalised cultural messages suggesting their grief is trivial or inappropriate. This minimisation can mask clinically significant distress, leading practitioners to overlook a major driver of emotional dysregulation, depression, anxiety, or interpersonal withdrawal (Kulkin, 2025). Emerging research demonstrates that grief following the death of a companion animal can be equal in magnitude to human bereavement and may even exceed it when the pet served as a primary attachment figure, source of daily structure, or protector against loneliness (Brown et al., 2023; Lykins et al., 2023). For older adults, individuals living alone, or clients with trauma histories, losing a pet can destabilise their sense of safety and continuity, creating vulnerabilities that require clinical attention (Brown et al., 2023).

Clinicians should also recognise that the mechanisms of death—especially euthanasia, accidental injury, or sudden illness—introduce layers of guilt, moral distress, and intrusive imagery. Clients may repeatedly replay the final moments of their animal’s life, question their decisions, or grapple with the moral weight of having authorised euthanasia (Pihkala & Aaltola, 2025). This form of moral pain often resembles themes seen in human bereavement, yet clients rarely feel entitled to express it. Such factors not only intensify grief but also increase risk of prolonged or complicated grief reactions if left unaddressed (Leonhardt-Parr & Rumble, 2024; Peel & Riggs, 2025).

Furthermore, the relational nature of the human–animal bond means that the loss can disrupt identity, routine, and social engagement. Daily activities—morning walks, feeding rituals, shared rest times—vanish instantly, and this sudden absence can create a psychological and behavioural void. Clients may stop going outside, avoid previously shared spaces, or feel unanchored without the rhythmic companionship the animal provided. Understanding these functional impacts allows clinicians to better assess risk, tailor interventions, and appreciate why healing for pet-related grief often requires more than supportive listening—it demands structured therapeutic work.

Effective therapeutic approaches and interventions

Therapeutic work with companion-animal loss benefits from a structured, phase-based framework, but clinicians should remember that clients rarely move through grief in a linear or predictable fashion. Interventions must therefore be flexible, culturally attuned, and responsive to the unique meaning the animal held in the client’s life. Evidence suggests that the most effective approaches combine normalisation, cognitive and narrative techniques, behavioural activation, and continuing-bonds work—each chosen according to the client’s attachment style, circumstances of the loss, and existing supports (Kogan & Erdman, 2021; Lykins et al., 2023).

Because disenfranchised grief often limits clients’ willingness to seek help, our therapeutic stance must foreground validation and curiosity, creating a safe space for emotions the client may not feel permitted to express elsewhere (Kulkin, 2025; Brown et al., 2023). This integrative mindset ensures that intervention aligns not only with empirical evidence but also with the lived, relational experience of grief.

Phase 1: Early and acute grief – stabilisation and validation

Goals: validate the loss, normalise emotional responses, reduce isolation, and support basic coping.

Techniques:

• Psychoeducation: Explain that grief after pet loss often mirrors human grief in intensity (Brown et al., 2023).
• Grief timeline mapping: Chart the sequence of events from illness to death.
• Normalising disenfranchised grief: “Many people experience significant grief after losing a companion animal; your response is understandable.”
• Addressing guilt: Explore decision-making context; differentiate responsibility from outcome.
• Coping skills: Introduce grounding, breathing, and re-establishing basic routines.
• Memorialisation: Encourage rituals such as writing letters, creating photo albums, or planting a tree.

Case vignette 1 – Maria (42): Maria lost her Labrador, Buddy, after a long cardiac illness. She feels embarrassed by her grief and reports social messages minimising her loss. She is haunted by thoughts that she “waited too long” to call the vet.

Intervention: The therapist validates the legitimacy of her grief, maps Buddy’s decline, and explores guilt using CBT techniques. Maria writes a letter to Buddy describing memories and expressing gratitude. A memorial ritual (planting a tree) is introduced to support early continuing bonds.

Phase 2: Mid-phase grief – meaning-making and adaptive process

Goals: support narrative integration, reduce rumination, strengthen coping, and build adaptive continuing bonds.

Techniques:

• Narrative reconstruction: Invite clients to tell the story of their relationship with the animal.
• Role and identity exploration: Identify the functions the pet served (companionship, routine, exercise).
• CBT interventions: Challenge maladaptive beliefs (“I will never love another animal”).
• Continuing bonds: Encourage adaptive connection (memory boxes, rituals, storytelling). Research shows these bonds can moderate grief severity, particularly for clients with anxious attachment (Lykins et al., 2023).
• Social support: Direct clients to supportive communities; validate feelings of being misunderstood (Brown et al., 2023).
• Preparation for future decisions: Explore fear of adopting another animal without pressuring resolution.

Case vignette 2 – Jonathan (67): Jonathan, widowed and socially isolated, lost his cat, Whiskers. He avoids parts of his home and has stopped walking outdoors.

Intervention: The therapist uses narrative work to reconstruct Whiskers’ role, validates Jonathan’s grief, helps rebuild outdoor routines, and supports creation of a small garden memorial. Discussion about a future pet centres on readiness, not replacement.

Phase 3: Meaning-making, adaptation, and longer-term integration

Goals: support integration of loss into personal identity, rebuild routines, and prevent prolonged grief.

Techniques:

• Legacy work: Journalling about what the pet taught them (“What qualities or habits can I carry forward?”).
• Behavioural activation: Re-establishing routines such as daily walks or social activities.
• Monitoring for complicated grief: Although diagnostic criteria often specify human loss, the functional impact of prolonged animal-related grief can be clinically significant (Leonhardt-Parr & Rumble, 2024; Peel & Riggs, 2025).
• Cultural and ethical considerations: Explore moral pain related to euthanasia decisions (Pihkala & Aaltola, 2025).
• Developmental interventions: For children, use drawings, storytelling, or symbolic play to process grief.

Worksheet Example – “Life After {Pet’s Name}”

• What the pet provided
• What I miss
• What I want to carry forward
• Three actions for the next four weeks

Integrating into practice: Clinical pearls and considerations

Working clinically with companion-animal loss requires an intentional stance of validation, attunement, and curiosity. Research indicates that grief severity can parallel human bereavement, influenced by attachment style, circumstances of death, and availability of social support (Lykins et al., 2023; Brown et al., 2023).

Because this grief is routinely minimised in broader society, clients may internalise the idea that their emotional response is excessive, which can increase shame and impede help-seeking (Kulkin, 2025). Therapists therefore play a key role in affirming the legitimacy of the client’s experience while guiding them through evidence-supported methods such as narrative reconstruction, guilt-focused cognitive reframing, and continuing-bonds work (Kogan & Erdman, 2021; Miller, 2014).

This approach not only validates the client’s internal world but also reduces risk for prolonged or complicated grief (Leonhardt-Parr & Rumble, 2024; Peel & Riggs, 2025).

Questions to ask; issues to focus on

Consider the following when working with this client population:

1. Ask directly about pet loss; clients seldom volunteer it.
2. Validate explicitly: “Your grief makes sense given the role your animal played.”
3. Use inclusive language; avoid terms that trivialise the relationship.
4. Address social invalidation as a component of grief.
5. Tailor intervention timelines—animal grief may not follow human-loss trajectories.
6. Focus on euthanasia-related guilt where relevant.
7. Encourage rituals that align with the client’s culture and preferences.
8. Watch for signs of complicated grief or comorbid depression.
9. Provide credible resources such as SCAS pet-loss guides (SCAS, n.d.).
10. Support decision-making about future pets without forcing closure.

Ethical and cultural issues

Cultural norms shape whether animal loss is legitimised or ridiculed. Some clients come from backgrounds where animals are not considered family members; others come from cultures where animals are deeply integrated into daily life. Assess cultural meaning and relational context. Additionally, veterinary professionals and shelter workers may face accumulated grief and moral injury due to repeated exposure to animal death (Kogan & Erdman, 2021).

Measurement and tracking

Use adapted grief questionnaires with caution. Clinical judgement should focus on: functional impairment, persistent yearning, guilt severity, attachment patterns, avoidance behaviours, and capacity for meaning-making.

Case vignette with a young client

Sophia (14) arrives at the school counsellor’s office clutching a small stuffed rabbit. She avoids eye contact and shrugs when asked how she has been. After a few minutes of gentle rapport-building, she discloses that her rabbit, Nibbles, died two weeks earlier following an unexpected infection. The death was sudden; the family returned home from a weekend away to find Nibbles unwell, and the veterinarian was unable to save him. Sophia describes the experience as “the worst day of my life”. Her mother cried openly, but her father told her, “It’s sad, but it’s just a pet,” a comment that left her feeling dismissed and alone.

In the classroom, peers have been equally invalidating. Several joked that she was “overreacting”. One friend told her, “At least it wasn’t a real family member.” Since then, Sophia has withdrawn socially, sitting alone during breaks and skipping one class entirely. The empty rabbit hutch in the backyard feels unbearable; she avoids going outside and has stopped joining family meals, preferring to stay in her room. She expresses guilt for not playing with Nibbles as much during the past school term and mentions having “loops of what-if thoughts”, including “What if staying home that weekend would have saved him?”

Clinical formulation

Sophia is experiencing a grief reaction intensified by disenfranchisement, developmental vulnerability, and a strong attachment bond. The loss has disrupted her routines, sense of safety, and emotional regulation. Her avoidance of the backyard, withdrawal from peers, and guilt rumination suggest early risk markers for complicated grief if unaddressed. Her father’s minimisation and peers’ teasing contribute to internalised shame, which may prevent emotional expression and healthy processing.

Therapeutic plan

Validation and psychoeducation: The counsellor begins with explicit validation: “It makes complete sense that you’re hurting this much. Nibbles was an important part of your life, and your feelings are real.” The counsellor explains that pets can function as attachment figures and that intense sadness is common and appropriate. Developmentally sensitive language is used to normalise both the emotional and physical symptoms Sophia reports.

Creative mapping of the loss: Sophia is invited to create a visual grief map on a large sheet of paper. She draws the hutch, her room, and places where she and Nibbles spent time. Together, they identify specific losses: companionship, daily routine, emotional comfort. This exercise helps externalise emotion and reduces shame around speaking openly.

Addressing guilt and rumination: Using CBT-informed questioning, the counsellor gently challenges her beliefs:

• “What evidence do you have that more playtime would have changed what happened?”
• “If your best friend felt this guilty after caring for her pet for eight years, what would you tell her?”

Sophia begins to recognise the difference between responsibility and regret.

Memory and ritual work: The counsellor suggests a “Nibbles Memory Box”. Sophia brings in photos, a small toy, and a letter she writes to Nibbles describing her favourite memories. In session, they read the letter aloud—a task Sophia finds emotional but relieving. The act reinforces continuing bonds in a healthy, adaptive manner.

Exposure-based re-engagement: Together, they develop a graded plan to help her approach the avoided backyard. Step one: stand at the back door holding her stuffed rabbit for two minutes. Step two: walk to the hutch with a trusted family member. Step three: spend five minutes sitting on the grass doing a soothing activity (drawing, listening to music). The counsellor emphasises pacing and emotional safety.

Social reconnection: The counsellor helps Sophia identify one peer who has previously been kind and might respond empathically. They practise a brief script for telling this peer about her grief in a way that feels safe. The counsellor also liaises (with consent) with a teacher to monitor bullying and ensure Sophia has supportive adults available throughout the school day.

Monitoring mental health risks: Over the next four weeks, the counsellor tracks emerging symptoms: sleep disturbance, appetite, school attendance, and any signs of depressive thinking. Although Sophia shows typical grief responses, the counsellor remains watchful for escalating risk—especially as pet-loss grief in adolescents can occasionally mask deeper emotional difficulties.

Future orientation and meaning-making: Once Sophia stabilises, the counsellor explores what Nibbles represented—comfort, companionship, routine—and helps her consider how these qualities might be carried forward. They discuss ideas such as volunteering at an animal shelter or caring for a neighbour’s pet. The counsellor makes clear that these options are not replacements but opportunities for continued connection with animals on her own terms.

Outcome

By week six, Sophia is attending classes consistently, re-engaging with one trusted peer, and visiting the backyard without distress. She reports that talking about Nibbles now brings “sadness and happiness mixed together” rather than overwhelming pain—a hallmark of adaptive grief integration.

Case vignette with an older client

Eleanor (78) is a retired schoolteacher who recently lost her 15-year-old terrier, Max. She has lived alone since her husband died a decade ago, and Max had become her primary companion. She describes him as “the reason I got up in the morning” and “the one soul who listened without judgement”. Max’s death followed a rapid decline due to kidney failure, and Eleanor made the difficult decision to authorise euthanasia. Although she believes she “did the kindest thing”, she is plagued by persistent guilt, replaying the moment she signed the consent form. Since Max’s death, she has stopped going on her daily walks, eats irregularly, and has withdrawn from her weekly bridge club. She describes her home as “too quiet to bear” and reports sleeping in her recliner because she cannot face the empty bed where Max often curled beside her.

During the initial assessment, Eleanor reveals she has told almost no one about her grief. When her neighbour asked why she hadn’t seen her walking Max lately, she felt too ashamed to say he had died. She adds, “People my age lose spouses, children, siblings. I should be able to cope with losing a dog.” Her loneliness is compounded by physical frailty and limited mobility, making Max’s absence both emotionally and practically destabilising.

Clinical formulation

Eleanor’s grief is intensified by factors well-documented in older-adult populations: social isolation, strong attachment bonds, and limited alternative sources of emotional or practical support (Brown et al., 2023). The euthanasia decision introduces moral distress and cognitive rumination, while physical limitations restrict her ability to re-engage with meaningful routines. Symptoms suggest she is at risk for prolonged grief, depression, and functional decline if her loss remains unacknowledged.

Therapeutic plan

Validation and normalisation: The therapist begins by addressing her internalised minimisation: “Many older adults experience profound grief after losing a companion animal. Max wasn’t ‘just a dog’—he was a central part of your daily life and emotional world.” This reframes her feelings as understandable rather than excessive.

Exploring the attachment bond: Using a narrative approach, the therapist invites Eleanor to describe how Max came into her life after her husband’s death. She notes that caring for Max helped her adjust to widowhood. Recognising this connection helps contextualise why the loss feels like a second human bereavement.

Processing euthanasia-related guilt: Through cognitive reframing, the therapist helps Eleanor examine the decision-making context: the veterinarian’s recommendations, Max’s level of suffering, and her motivations rooted in compassion. She writes a letter to Max describing her love and the reasons behind her choice. Reading it aloud in session reduces some of her self-blame.

Rebuilding structure and routine: The therapist uses behavioural activation to help her reintroduce manageable routines: a short walk to the end of her street each morning, followed by a cup of tea on her porch—both activities Max once anchored. These steps help restore a sense of rhythm and autonomy.

Continuing bonds and rituals: Together they design a simple memorial ritual: placing Max’s collar and favourite toy in a shadow box that hangs in her hallway. Eleanor chooses a small tree to plant in her garden, symbolising ongoing connection. She reports feeling “comforted rather than crushed” when walking past the memorial.

Enhancing social support: With her consent, the therapist contacts the community centre to arrange gentle re-entry into her bridge group and explores whether she might join a local pet-loss group for older adults. This helps counter loneliness and reduce disenfranchisement.

Addressing practical needs: The therapist explores whether Max served practical functions—security, mobility cues, daily stimuli—and collaborates on ways to mitigate these gaps. For example, a community volunteer is arranged to check in weekly, and Eleanor installs a night light near her bed to help her sleep safely without Max.

Future orientation: Eleanor expresses ambivalence about adopting another dog. The therapist frames this as a choice for the future, not a replacement. They explore traits she valued in Max and how those experiences might inform future options—whether pet adoption, short-term fostering, or spending time at the local shelter.

Outcome

Over eight weeks, Eleanor’s sleep improves, she resumes her morning walks, and she re-engages with her bridge group. Her memorial ritual shifts her relationship with Max from acute longing to a grounded, ongoing bond. By session ten, she reports: “I still miss him every day, but now it feels like love, not a hole in my chest.”

Conclusion

Companion animal loss is a significant yet often overlooked source of grief. As mental-health professionals, we play a crucial role in legitimising, exploring, and supporting clients through this deeply personal experience. By integrating evidence-based interventions—such as narrative techniques, CBT for guilt, behavioural activation, and continuing-bond practices—we help clients transform their pain into meaningful remembrance. This approach not only alleviates immediate distress but also strengthens resilience and facilitates longer-term adaptation. When handled with sensitivity, clinical skill, and respect, work with companion animal grief becomes an opportunity to reaffirm the client’s capacity for connection, love, and growth.

Key takeaways

• Companion-animal loss often produces grief comparable in intensity to human bereavement.
• Disenfranchised grief is common and increases emotional isolation.
• Evidence-informed interventions—including narrative reconstruction, CBT for guilt, behavioural activation, and continuing-bonds strategies—are effective.
• Rituals and memorialisation are useful across age groups.
• Special considerations apply for children, older adults, and clients facing euthanasia-related moral distress.
• Clinicians must validate the loss and counteract societal minimisation.
• Monitoring for prolonged or complicated grief remains essential.

Questions therapists often ask

Q: Why should we treat the loss of a companion animal with the same seriousness as human bereavement?

A: Because for many clients a pet is not “just an animal” — it often represents an attachment figure, a source of emotional support, routine, and identity. Grief after companion-animal loss can mirror human grief in intensity and duration, and dismissing it risks leaving major psychological distress unaddressed.

Q: How can grief after pet loss differ from grief after human loss — and why is that clinically significant?

A: Though many grief reactions are similar (sadness, longing, guilt, disorientation), pet loss often involves “disenfranchised grief”: societal minimisation or invalidation, moral distress (especially if euthanasia was involved), loss of routine, and disruption of daily structure. That context can intensify isolation and risk for prolonged or complicated grief.

Q: What therapeutic strategies work best to support someone grieving a companion animal?

A: Effective approaches combine validation (acknowledging the legitimacy of the grief), narrative work (helping the client recount their relationship with the animal), cognitive reframing (addressing guilt or “what-ifs”), behavioural activation (re-establishing routines or activities), and continuing-bonds work (memorial rituals, memory boxes, legacy projects).

Q: When should a clinician suspect grief is becoming “complicated” or clinically worrisome after pet loss?

A: Warning signs include persistent preoccupation with the animal, severe guilt or rumination (especially around euthanasia), avoidance of reminders (empty spaces, objects), withdrawal from social contact or disruption of basic functioning (sleep, appetite, routines), or failure to progressively re-engage in meaningful life — especially when grief persists months after the loss.

Q: How can clinicians overcome the barrier of social minimisation so clients feel safe to express grief for their companion animal?

A: Clinicians should proactively ask about pet loss, use inclusive language that honours the human–animal bond, explicitly validate the loss (“Your grief makes sense given the role your animal played”), normalise grief responses, and create a safe, nonjudgmental space for expression. Offering memorialisation rituals and supporting continuing bonds can further legitimise the loss.

References

• Brown, C. A., Wilson, D. M., Carr, E., Gross, D. P., Miciak, M., & Wallace, J. E. (2023). Older adults and companion animal death: A survey of bereavement and disenfranchised grief. Human–Animal Interactions, 11(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2023.0017            
• Kogan, L., & Erdman, P. (Eds.). (2021). Pet loss, grief, and therapeutic interventions: Practitioners navigating the human–animal bond. Routledge. ISBN 9780367784775
• Kulkin, H. S. (2025). Companion animal loss and disenfranchised grief: What grief counsellors need to know. International Journal of Social Work and Human Services Practices, 9(3), 35–38. Retrieved on 20 November 2025 from: https://iigdpublishers.com/storage/1oOsGHs0Iw4iTRCPnQsQW3dk69QdWI-metaQ09NUEFOSU9OIEFOSU1BTCBMT1NTIEFORCBESVNFTkZSQU5DSElTRUQgR1JJRUYgMzUtMzgucGRm-.pdf      
• Leonhardt-Parr, E., & Rumble, B. (2024). Coping with animal companion loss: A thematic analysis of pet bereavement counselling. Omega, 89(1), 362–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/00302228211073217                       
• Lykins, A. D., McGreevy, P. D., Bennett, B., Paul, N. K., & Gotsis, N. (2023). Attachment styles, continuing bonds, and grief following companion animal death. Death Studies, 48(7), 698–705. https://doi.org/10.1080/07381187.2023.2265868
• Miller, T. A. K., Prout, M.F., Rourke, M., Lefkowitz, C., & Boyer, B. (2014). Therapist’s guide to treating grief after the loss of a pet: A three-tier model. Human–Animal Interaction Bulletin, 4, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1079/hai.2014.0007
• Peel, E., & Riggs, D. W. (2025). Beyond disenfranchized grief: Survey and interview accounts of animal loss through and beyond COVID-19 in the United Kingdom. Death Studies, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/07481187.2025.2557716       
• Pihkala, P., & Aaltola, E. (2025). Animal ethical mourning: Types of loss and grief in relation to non-human animals. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 12, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2025.1526302          
• Society for Companion Animal Studies. (n.d.). Guide to navigating grief. SCAS. https://www.scas.org.uk/scas-guide-to-navigating-grief