When couples separate in Australia, almost everyone has a list of what matters most. The house, superannuation, the kids if there are kids, and somewhere on that list, often higher than people admit, is the dog. Or the cat. Or in some households, both. Pets are family. That has always been true emotionally. Until recently, it was not reflected in family law.
From 10 June 2025, that changed. The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 introduced a new statutory concept, the companion animal, and a distinct framework for how pets are treated in property settlement. This is one of the most significant changes to property law in decades, and one of the least understood. Many separating couples still believe pets are treated like furniture. Others have heard the law has changed and now believe the court can order shared care of the dog. Both positions are wrong. The reality sits between them, and getting it right matters whether you are negotiating directly, working through Family Dispute Resolution, or preparing for court.
What changed on 10 June 2025?
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 introduced a statutory definition of companion animal into the Family Law Act 1975 and created a separate framework for these animals in property settlement. Pets are still property, but they now sit in a distinct category with their own relevant factors and tailored orders.
A companion animal under the new provisions is an animal kept by one or both parties to a marriage or de facto relationship primarily for the purpose of companionship. The definition excludes assistance animals as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, animals kept as part of a business, and animals kept for agricultural or laboratory purposes. The most common companion animals in practice are dogs and cats, but the definition is broader. A house rabbit, a parrot, a pet snake, and a horse kept for companionship can all qualify, provided companionship is the primary purpose.
Before the amendments, pets were treated as ordinary property under sections 79 and 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975. The court considered them alongside cars, furniture, and appliances, and decided ownership based on factors like who paid for the animal, whose name was on the microchip registration, and the animal's monetary value. Emotional attachment carried little legal weight. The leading case of Grunseth & Wighton confirmed that the bond between a person and a pet was not the primary determinant. The new framework changes that, while still keeping pets within the property settlement system rather than treating them as children.
What factors does the court now consider?
The court must consider a specific list of factors when deciding what to do with a companion animal. The factors recognise the emotional and practical reality of pet ownership, not just the financial side, and aim to reflect who actually cares for the animal rather than who paid for it.
The factors include how the companion animal was acquired and whether either party brought the animal into the relationship, who has had possession and care of the animal during and after separation, who has paid for the animal's food, veterinary care, training, and general upkeep, any family violence to which one party has subjected the other or to which the animal has been subjected, the attachment each party (and any children of the relationship) has to the animal, the willingness and ability of each party to care for and maintain the animal, and any other relevant matter.
Two of these factors deserve specific attention. The first is the inclusion of children's attachment to the animal. This is significant because children often have the deepest bond with a family pet, and where they will be primarily living can be relevant to where the pet should live. The second is the family violence factor, which we'll address separately below.
Can the court order shared care of a pet?
No. The court cannot make orders for shared care of a companion animal. This is one of the most common misconceptions about the new framework. The court can order that one party owns the animal, transfer ownership from one party to the other, or order that the animal be sold.
What it cannot order is that the dog spends Monday to Wednesday with one party and Thursday to Sunday with the other. This is a deliberate choice by the legislature. Shared care arrangements for pets, while emotionally appealing, often cause significant stress to the animal and create ongoing logistical and conflict points between former partners. The reforms recognise that pets need stability, routine, and a single primary home, and that the court is not well-placed to supervise ongoing shared arrangements for animals.
What the parties can agree privately is another matter entirely. If both former partners genuinely want to share care of the dog, they can do so by agreement. Many do. They might agree that the dog stays at one home but the other party walks it twice a week, or that the dog spends school holidays with whichever parent has the children, or any number of other arrangements that suit their lives and the animal. These arrangements can be recorded in a written agreement, but they are not enforceable as court orders the way parenting arrangements for children can be. If the relationship between the parties deteriorates, the agreement can collapse and the party with possession of the animal will generally prevail.
What if family violence is involved?
The 2024 reforms expressly recognise that family violence can involve animals. Threatening to harm, harming, or removing a pet to coerce or control a partner is a recognised form of family violence under the amendments, and the court must take this into account when making orders about a companion animal.
This is one of the more important quiet changes in the new framework. For survivors of family violence, this is a meaningful shift. Many victims of coercive control have stayed in dangerous relationships, or returned to them, because they could not safely leave their pet behind. The reforms acknowledge this reality and give the court power to make orders that protect both the survivor and the animal. The Explanatory Memorandum to the Act makes the link explicit, citing the National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence 2023, which recognises animal abuse as a form of family violence.
If you have experienced family violence involving a pet, this is something to raise with the practitioner assigned to your matter at the earliest opportunity. It changes how the conversation about the animal needs to be framed, and may affect whether Family Dispute Resolution is the appropriate process at all. Safety planning resources are available through 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732, available 24 hours a day. The RSPCA in each state also operates safe pet refuge programs for people leaving family violence situations.
If you or your pet are in immediate danger, contact police on 000. For confidential family violence support, 1800RESPECT is available 24 hours a day on 1800 737 732. For safe pet refuge programs, contact your state's RSPCA.
Are pets still property?
Yes. Despite the new framework, pets remain property in family law proceedings, not members of the family in the same legal sense as children. The distinction matters because it determines which part of the Family Law Act 1975 applies, what orders the court can make, and how the matter resolves.
Parenting matters for children are dealt with under Part VII of the Family Law Act 1975 and focus on the best interests of the child as the paramount consideration. Property matters, including those involving companion animals, are dealt with under Part VIII for married couples and Part VIIIAB for de facto couples, and focus on a just and equitable division of property. The four-step process for property settlement, which Australia formally adopted in legislation through the same 2024 amendments, applies to companion animals as it does to other property: identify the asset pool, assess contributions, consider future needs, and arrive at a just and equitable outcome.
What the 2024 reforms have done is recognise that companion animals are a unique kind of property, deserving of their own factors and their own range of orders. They have not turned pets into children or imported parenting-style frameworks into the property side of family law. Practitioners and parties who try to do that, treating the dog as a third child requiring custody and access, are misreading the reforms.
How is this resolved in Family Dispute Resolution?
Companion animals can be resolved through Family Dispute Resolution as part of a wider property settlement. In many cases this is the better option: court is expensive, slow, and produces outcomes that satisfy neither party fully. A negotiated agreement gives both parties control and allows arrangements the court cannot order.
In a Family Dispute Resolution session focused on property, the practitioner assigned to your matter helps both parties identify everything in the asset pool, including the companion animal, and works through what each party wants and why. For the pet specifically, this often involves a structured conversation about who has been the primary carer, who the animal is most attached to, where the children will be living, and what each party can realistically provide. Where both parties want shared care and can communicate well enough to make it work, the agreement can include that. Where one party clearly wants sole ownership and the other is willing to release the animal, the conversation can focus on what that party is being compensated with elsewhere in the settlement.
Family Dispute Resolution for property is protected by confidentiality under Section 10H of the Family Law Act 1975 and inadmissibility under Section 10J, meaning what is said in sessions stays in sessions and cannot be used against either party in later court proceedings. For property matters, the court's pre-action procedures generally require parties to attempt dispute resolution and make a genuine effort to reach agreement before filing an application, and a Genuine Steps Certificate must be filed with the application unless an exemption applies. To understand how the process works in practice, see how it works.
A practical note
Pets are one of the most emotionally charged items in any property settlement, and one where outcomes are often shaped by the relationship between the parties rather than the strict legal framework. Two former partners who can communicate reasonably will almost always produce a better outcome than the court can.
This is because they can craft arrangements the court cannot order. The most useful thing separating couples can do, before any negotiation begins, is gather the basic factual picture: who acquired the animal, whose name is on the registration, who has paid for vet bills, who walks the dog or changes the litter tray, who the animal sleeps with at night, and who the children are closest to with the animal. This information is the foundation of any sensible conversation, whether in mediation or in court.
If you and your former partner are working through a property settlement that includes a pet, book a free discovery call to discuss whether Family Dispute Resolution is right for your situation.
This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice about your specific circumstances, please consult a family lawyer or accredited Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner.