I have had at least one pet as a member of my household throughout my life. At this time I have a dog, cat and chickens, who are definitely part of my family, and whose needs must be taken into account when any family decision is made that impacts on them. They are part of my day to day routine and family life- I cannot imagine life without them!
My pets are not only a very big part of my life, but also of the life of my family and close friends. They have personalities and characters that are very much a part of gatherings large and small. Any change in my family circumstances would not only be devastating for me, my pets, but also everyone in my world.
Upon a family separation, it is not only arrangements for the children that provide fertile ground for conflict and disagreements, but also arrangements for the pets. The unconditional love and support from a pet can be crucial to coping with the turmoil and chaos of separation, and being able to recover and rebuild. Conflict, disagreements and heartbreak can characterise these attempts and result in seeking guidance from professionals to assist.
It has been very difficult to anticipate how to approach the breakdown of a family unit and the impact of this on the pets, and to provide parents with some understanding of the options available, and if agreement is not possible, what the approach of the court might be.
In June 2025, the Family Law Act was changed to provide greater clarity in this area. Animals have been recognised as having a unique position in family separation negotiations or litigation, as opposed to property settlement. The courts have limited their interventions to specific ownership, transfer of ownership or sale orders. There is a greater focus on welfare and attachment, and stronger protection in cases involving Family Violence. Pets now occupy a unique position when negotiating a separation agreement.
What animals are covered.
The new legislation covers “companion animals” – those pets who are members of our families and deserve to be treated as more than a “chattel” or piece of furniture.
It is probably easier to describe what animals are not covered:
• assistance animals, such as seeing eye dogs, or trained comfort dogs
• business or agriculture animals such as cattle dogs, or guard dogs, or customs dogs
• laboratory animals.[i]
All other pets would be covered, such as cats, dogs, birds, fish, reptiles, horses….essentially all those kept for companionship.
What are the considerations that the court looks at
The legislation includes specific considerations to take into account when determining ownership of a pet.[ii] These include:
- How the animal was acquired.
- Who has ownership or possession
- Care and financial contributions for the animal.
- Any history of family violence or animal cruelty/abuse.
- Attachment of a party or child to the animal.
- Each party’s future ability to care for the animal.
Application of considerations
Each family situation is unique and their individual circumstances and characteristics must be explored, but some themes can be
The starting point would be the circumstances surrounding acquisition of the pet. This might be who paid for the pet, whose name the pet was registered in or who microchipped the pet. These factors could determine ownership, which in turn may be the best indicator of who should retain the pet at separation.
One parent may pay for and register the pet, but another family member may be the one who organises and pays for food, bedding, vet attention and any other day to day or health related needs. They may be the one family member has the primary responsibility to care for and look after the pet. This may outweigh who has paid for, or registered the pet, or pays the ongoing bills.
The context can also be relevant, as ultimately possession may be more important than ownership to determine the most appropriate outcome for each pet. For instance a parent may have paid for the pet and registered them in their name, but this could have been a present for a child or another family member, so possession may be the crucial factor. Children can be very attached to and possessive of a pet. This can b e crucial to enabling that child to cope with, adjust to the separation, and adapt to new living circumstances.
On the other hand, the pet may have been bought with the intention of providing comfort and support for a child or another family member, so the attachment may be the factor to tip the balance. A horse may have been purchased for a child suffering from social issues arising from ADHD, or used for equine therapy to assist a child to cope with trauma. Such factors would have to be taken into account in determining ongoing arrangements.
Providing for pets can require space, special arrangements, or significant costs, and these too must be taken into account.
Family Violence is also a factor that permeates all family law investigations. If there are allegations of family violence, a pet can be a great comfort in moving on from these, perhaps a burden if significant healing and recovery is required, or indicative of the problem if they have borne the brunt of violent or aggressive behaviour.
Options in pet disputes
Many families might suggest a “shared care” arrangement, but this is not supported by the courts. There are examples in the courts of applications seeking these type of arrangements being refused.
There are only three types of orders that a court can make. They can order that one parent, or another person if they consent, to have ownership of a pet. They can order that there be a transfer of ownership from one parent to another person, or there can be an order for sale of a pet if no other options seem appropriate.[iii]
The court’s approach
To my knowledge there have been no reported decisions since the new legislation came into effect, to it is hard to say exactly how these provisions will be interpreted in practice.
However, there are some examples of the way the court looked at these situations prior to the new law.
In one case the Husband paid for the dog to be acquired, but the Wife paid for all the ongoing expenses included vet bills. After separation, and after the Wife had issued proceedings seeking that ownership of the dog be transferred to her, the Husband registered the dog in his name. The court found that paying for the cost of the dog and registering the dog in his name, was not sufficient for the Husband to be seen as the owner of the dog. The court ordered that registration of the dog be transferred to the Wife.[iv]
In another case there were two related dogs who moved with the Mother and child after separation. The dogs were elderly at separation and the Mother was taking them for a walk three times a day. The Father sought that one of the dogs be retained by him. The court orders that as the dogs were elderly, they were bonded and it was not appropriate to separate them, and also that it was in the best interests of the child to continue to grow up with both dogs. [v]
In a final example, there were two dogs, Roxy and Patricia in the possession of the Wife after separation- Roxy being registered in her name. The Husband sought the return of Roxy stating that she had been purchased for his daughter from a previous relationship, that his daughter had chosen her name, and she was present when Roxy was collected. The initial decision ordered that Roxy be transferred to the Father, but the Full Court found that the Wife had paid for the dog, and her ongoing costs, so the Wife was the owner of Roxy.[vi]
The Pet’s Perspective
At the National Mediation Conference in 2025, there was a fascinating presentation from a dog and cat behaviour expert and family mediator. She was adamant of the need not to humanise pets, to understand the impact of separation arrangements on animals, so as to prioritise pet’s wellbeing and avoid using them as Leveridge.
The need to address pets early in negotiations or mediation was stressed, so that they were not used as a bargaining chip, there was maximum focus on pets’ wellbeing, and the arrangements were less likely to cause emotional challenges for the pets and their owners.
Her specialty is in relation to dogs, and her experience is similar to the approach of the new legislation, that shared care is not generally a good option. Her view is that in the long run it is better for a dog to have one home, and not to move to and from between homes. In most cases, she has observed that dogs become stressed by a shard care arrangement, and that becomes evident after only a few months. She says that dogs adjust well to a new home, and that unlike children, they do not need an ongoing connection after changing arrangements.
She also made some very interesting comments regarding splitting up animals. If they are closely bonded, then they should stay together, however if not, it might be better for them to live in separate households.
If the animals sleep together, eat together, play together, groom each other, and play together, then it is very likely that they are closely bonded and would be distressed by a potential separation from their buddy.
If they are very different ages, breeds, with different needs and energy levels, then they would very likely cope well with the transition, and even perhaps prefer their new living arrangements.
Sometimes it is inevitable that even bonded animals must be separated. There will be a transition period, and then the animal will have adjusted and will cope. The smell of the other animal will dissipate and it will be assumed that they are no longer part of that environment, acceptance of the new arrangement
Confusion and even distress can be caused if there are meetings from time to time. The reunion is adorable, then there is the inevitable separation, leading to another transition that will be even more difficult on subsequent occasions. . A clean break is recommended as the best strategy for the animal. For many, pets become a very important part of the family. An interdependence can develop providing structure, routine, stability and a sense of purpose, and most importantly that unconditional love that overcomes blame, hurt and distress. The soothing presence of a pet is
[i] S4 “companion animals” definition- .an animal kept by the parties to a marriage or either of them, or the parties to a de facto relationship or either of them, primarily for the purpose of companionship…
[ii] S79(7) In considering what order (if any) should be made under this section with respect to the ownership of property that is a companion animal, the court is to take into account the following considerations, so far as they are relevant:
(a) the circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired;
(b) who has ownership or possession of the companion animal;
(c) the extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the companion animal;
(d) any family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other party;
(e) any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal;
(f) any attachment by a party, or a child of the marriage, to the companion animal;
(g) the demonstrated ability of each party to care for and maintain the companion animal in the future, without support or involvement from the other party;
(h) any other fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.
Similar provisions relate to de facto couples in s90SM(6)
[iii] (6) In property settlement proceedings, so far as they are with respect to property that is a companion animal, the court may make an order (including a consent order or an interim order):
(a) that only one party to the de facto relationship, or only one person who has been joined as a party to the proceedings, is to have ownership of the companion animal; or
(ab) that the companion animal be transferred to another person who has consented to the transfer; or
(b) that the companion animal be sold.
The court may not make any other kind of order under this section with respect to the ownership of the companion animal.
[iv] Downey & Beale [2017] FCCA 316
[v] Parkhill & Rayne [2020] FCCA 1989
[vi] Grunseth & Wighton [2022] FedCFamC1A 132