Who Keeps the Pet After Separation? Companion Animals in Australian Family Law

What changed on 10 June 2025 — and what did not

Before 10 June 2025, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) said nothing specific about pets. Pets in divorce and de facto property settlements were simply items of property, dealt with under the same general provisions as furniture or a car. Courts had no bespoke checklist for animals, and outcomes turned on the general property framework.

The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth), which received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024, changed that. From its commencement on 10 June 2025, the Act:

• defines a companion animal in section 4(1);
• limits the ownership orders a court can make about a companion animal — new subsections 79(6) for married couples and 90SM(6) for de facto couples; and
• prescribes eight considerations the court is to take into account, so far as they are relevant, when deciding what order (if any) to make — subsections 79(7) and 90SM(7).

The amendments apply to proceedings started on or after 10 June 2025, and to proceedings already on foot at that date that had not been finally determined — except proceedings in which the final hearing had already commenced before that day.

A further structural point: when the court decides who is to own a companion animal, it applies the dedicated list of considerations rather than the general contribution and future-circumstances considerations that govern the rest of the property pool under the usual property settlement framework. The overall requirement that a property order be just and equitable still applies (section 79AA(1) for married parties; section 90SM(2) for de facto parties). Orders concerning ownership of a companion animal are sought in property-settlement proceedings rather than under the parenting provisions.

Just as important is what did not change. Pets were not reclassified as anything other than property. The reforms did not create parenting-style rights over animals, did not introduce a “best interests of the pet” test, and did not empower the court to order shared or alternating ownership. “Pet custody” remains common search language — it is not the statutory concept. The legal question is who is to own a companion animal in property settlement proceedings. As the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia’s own guidance puts it, even though parties may consider a family pet to be a member of the family, the Family Law Act considers pets to be property.

What counts as a “companion animal”?

Section 4(1) of the Act defines a companion animal as 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. Four categories are expressly excluded:

• an assistance animal within the meaning of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth);
• an animal kept as part of a business;
• an animal kept for agricultural purposes; and
• an animal kept for use in laboratory tests or experiments.

For the ordinary family dog or cat the definition will rarely be contested. It matters at the margins, where the primary purpose for which an animal is kept is genuinely arguable — and purpose is a question of evidence, not label. Examples where the question can be live:

• Horses. A horse kept for a party’s or a child’s riding and companionship sits differently from horses kept for agistment income, competition prize money or a breeding operation.
• Breeding animals. A dog that is loved at home but produces litters sold through a registered breeding business may be kept, primarily, as part of a business.
• Working dogs. A dog that musters stock on a farm is likely kept for agricultural purposes, however attached the family is to it.
• Mixed purposes. Where an animal serves more than one purpose, the evidence about how it is actually kept, housed, insured, worked and paid for will bear on which purpose is primary.

An animal that falls outside the definition does not vanish from the property settlement. If it is owned by one or both parties, it may still be dealt with under the general property provisions rather than the companion animal provisions. That distinction is picked up later in this guide.

The three orders the court can make

Where property settlement proceedings concern a companion animal, section 79(6) (married couples) and section 90SM(6) (de facto couples) permit the court to make an order — including a consent order or an interim order — of only three kinds:

1. that only one party to the marriage or 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;
2. that the companion animal be transferred to another person who has consented to the transfer; or
3. that the companion animal be sold.

The provisions then close the door on anything else: the court may not make any other kind of order under those provisions with respect to the ownership of the companion animal. There is no power to order shared ownership, week-about possession, visiting rights or a court-supervised care roster. If parties want a sharing arrangement, it must come from agreement, not from a contested order.

Three practical observations follow. First, because consent orders are expressly contemplated, parties who agree that one of them will keep the pet can have that agreement recorded in consent orders as part of their overall settlement. Second, because interim orders are expressly contemplated, the court can regulate ownership of an animal pending the final hearing. Third, the transfer option requires the recipient’s consent — the court cannot compel a relative or friend to take an animal, and a sale order remains available where sale is the appropriate order on the evidence.

The eight statutory considerations

In considering what order, if any, should be made about ownership of a companion animal, the court is to take into account the following considerations, so far as they are relevant (section 79(7) for married couples; section 90SM(7) in materially identical terms for de facto couples):

1. The circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired. Who found, chose and paid for the animal; whether it was a gift, and to whom; whether it was owned by one party before the relationship; whether it was acquired for a child.
2. Who has ownership or possession of the companion animal. Formal indicators of ownership — microchip and council registration, purchase and insurance records — and the practical reality of who has the animal, particularly since separation.
3. The extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the companion animal. Feeding, walking, grooming, training, veterinary visits, and who actually paid for food, insurance, boarding and treatment. Care and payment are considered together. Neither payment nor day-to-day care is necessarily decisive by itself.
4. Any family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other party. Family violence is a consideration in its own right in deciding ownership of a companion animal — not merely background context.
5. Any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal. This is separate from family violence between the parties. Threats to harm an animal count as well as actual harm.
6. Any attachment by a party, or a child of the marriage or de facto relationship, to the companion animal. Emotional attachment — of an adult or a child — is expressly relevant. It is one consideration among eight; it does not automatically prevail over acquisition, ownership, care or future capacity.
7. 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. The word “demonstrated” matters: a concrete, evidenced plan — suitable housing, time, money and backup care, none of it dependent on the former partner — carries more weight than an assertion of willingness.
8. Any other fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account. A residual category for matters the first seven do not capture — for example, the position of other animals in the household or a party’s health.

No statutory consideration automatically has priority over the others; the weight each carries depends on its relevance and on the evidence. Welfare-related matters — cruelty, abuse and the capacity to care for the animal properly — enter the analysis through these considerations. But there is no statutory “best interests of the animal” test equivalent to the framework that governs parenting decisions about children, and it is inaccurate to describe the exercise that way.

Evidence: proving your case

Because the statutory considerations are specific, useful evidence can be assembled against each of them. The table below maps the eight considerations to the kinds of material that tend to assist.

A caution: a large volume of receipts is not a substitute for context. The considerations direct attention to care and payment, to conduct, and to the future as well as the past. Ten years of food invoices in one party’s name proves who held the household card more reliably than it proves who fed the dog. Evidence is most persuasive when the documents and the day-to-day story point the same way.

Ownership, registration and possession

Arguments about pet ownership after separation usually begin with paperwork: one party assumes the argument is over once they produce the microchip certificate. It is not. Whose name appears on a microchip registry, a council registration or a purchase receipt is squarely relevant — ownership or possession is the second statutory consideration — but none of those records is conclusive. Registration systems exist for identification and local-law purposes, not to adjudicate family law ownership, and households routinely put the paperwork in whichever name was convenient at the time.

Recurring scenarios deserve specific mention:

• Pets owned before the relationship. That is important evidence concerning the circumstances of acquisition and existing ownership, but it does not determine the outcome by itself: shared care and payment during the relationship, and the other considerations, are still weighed.
• Gifts. If the animal was genuinely given to one party — a birthday puppy, for example — the circumstances of acquisition favour the recipient. Evidence contemporaneous with the gift matters more than later recollection.
• Pets acquired for children. The acquisition purpose and any child’s attachment are both relevant. Describing a pet as having been acquired “for the children” does not, by itself, establish who legally owns it; the circumstances of acquisition and any evidence of an intended gift must be examined.
• Jointly funded animals. Where both parties paid and both cared, the formal records must be considered together with the remaining statutory considerations, including future capacity to care.

Keep the distinction between possession now and ownership at the end clearly in mind. Who has the animal after separation is one input, not the answer — current possession does not prevent the court from ordering that another person have ownership. By the same token, taking an animal unilaterally to engineer possession is conduct a court may scrutinise, and it can escalate a dispute badly.

Children and pets

The attachment of a child of the marriage or de facto relationship to a companion animal is expressly one of the statutory considerations. Where children are settled with a much-loved dog, that attachment is expressly relevant and must be considered so far as it is applicable.

Three boundaries keep this in its proper frame:

• The animal is not a child. Pets do not become the subject of parenting orders, and arrangements for children are not “custody” of anyone or anything — the ownership of a companion animal is decided in the property proceedings.
• No mechanical rule. It is tempting to assume the pet simply follows the children’s primary household. Attachment is one consideration among eight; housing, capacity to care, acquisition and conduct can all pull the other way. Do not build a case — or concede one — on an assumed rule that does not exist.
• Keep children out of the contest. Children should not be invited to choose between households, coached to express preferences, or drawn in as witnesses. If a child’s attachment genuinely needs to be evidenced, take specific legal advice about how to do it appropriately.

Family violence, coercive control and animal abuse

The statute deals with safety twice over. Family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other is a consideration in its own right, and any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the animal is a separate consideration. Parliament recognised what family violence services have long reported: animals are used as instruments of control, and threats against a pet can keep a person in a dangerous relationship or punish them for leaving.

The wider law points the same way. Under section 4AB of the Family Law Act, intentionally causing death or injury to an animal is a statutory example of behaviour that may constitute family violence. In Victoria, the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) provides that family violence includes causing or threatening to cause the death of, or injury to, an animal — whether or not the animal belongs to the family member concerned — so as to control, dominate or coerce a family member. Victorian family violence intervention orders can be sought in the Magistrates’ Court, and animal welfare authorities have separate powers in cases of cruelty. Our guide to family violence intervention orders in Victoria explains the state process.

If threats have been made against you or an animal, treat it as a safety issue first and a property issue second. Do not attempt direct negotiation or a handover that puts you at risk. Preserve the evidence — messages, photographs, veterinary records — contact police if there is danger, and obtain urgent legal advice. Urgent protective remedies may be available under federal family law and under the applicable state family violence and animal welfare regimes; which combination fits depends on the facts.

Interim disputes: if the pet is taken or withheld

A common interim dispute arises when one party leaves — or returns to an empty house — and the dog is gone. What then?

• Preserve evidence immediately. Keep messages about the animal, note dates, and gather the acquisition, care and payment records described above while they are easy to find.
• Do not resort to self-help. Entering the other party’s home or yard to retrieve an animal, or arranging a confrontational “repossession”, can expose you to criminal and civil consequences and will not improve your position. Disputes about access to the former home raise their own issues — see our guide on changing the locks after separation.
• Be realistic about the police. Unless there is a safety or welfare emergency, police generally treat a dispute between former partners about who owns a pet as a civil matter. They will not determine ownership for you.
• Interim orders are available. The companion animal provisions expressly contemplate interim orders, so the court can regulate who is to have the animal pending the final settlement. Where there is urgency — particularly any risk to a person or the animal — the usual pre-action steps can be dispensed with.
• Get advice early. An early, well-documented position frequently resolves an interim dispute by correspondence, without a hearing at all.

No lawyer can promise that an animal will be recovered, and you should be wary of anyone who does. What good advice can do is match the remedy to the facts quickly, before positions harden.

Reaching agreement without a contested hearing

Most separating couples never litigate over a pet, and for good reason: the range of contested outcomes is narrow, the costs are real, and the animal’s routine is usually better served by a prompt, sensible agreement. The options, in ascending order of formality:

• Direct negotiation — where it is safe and the relationship allows it.
• Lawyer-assisted negotiation — positions exchanged in correspondence, usually alongside the rest of the property settlement.
• Mediation and family dispute resolution — a structured process that may help parties resolve the pet issue together with their wider property dispute.
• Consent orders — the court can make companion animal orders by consent within the three permitted outcomes, giving the agreed ownership the force of a court order as part of the overall settlement.
• Financial agreements — where one is legally available and appropriately drafted with independent legal advice, a binding financial agreement can deal with the parties’ property, which includes a companion animal.

What about sharing? Parties are free to make private arrangements for a pet to spend time in both households, and where the separation is amicable these can work well. Be precise about the legal character of such an arrangement. The court cannot make shared-ownership or alternating-possession orders under the companion-animal provisions. Parties may make a private practical arrangement, but it is not equivalent to a companion-animal ownership order and its enforceability will depend on how it is documented and the applicable law. If the arrangement breaks down and agreement cannot be restored, the fallback is the statutory framework — one owner, a consented transfer, or a sale.

If you do agree to share, put the practical terms in writing: where the animal ordinarily lives; handover days and logistics; who makes routine and who makes major veterinary decisions; who holds the insurance and registration; how routine costs and extraordinary veterinary bills are split; holidays; what happens if one person relocates; end-of-life decisions; and what happens if the arrangement stops working. Clear terms can prevent later disagreement.

One firm caveat: where there has been family violence, a pet-sharing arrangement preserves exactly the ongoing contact that protective arrangements are designed to end. Do not agree to handovers or shared care in that context without specific advice.

Court process, proportionality and costs

Orders about a companion animal ordinarily sit inside financial proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — a pet dispute is one item within the broader property settlement. Two procedural points matter:

• Pre-action procedures. Before filing financial proceedings, parties are ordinarily required to take genuine steps to resolve the dispute — exchanging correspondence and participating in dispute resolution — under the pre-action procedures in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021. Exemptions apply, including for urgency and where there are allegations of family violence.
• Time limits. Property settlement applications must generally be made within 12 months of a divorce order taking effect, or within two years of the end of a de facto relationship, unless the court grants leave to apply out of time. The companion animal provisions do not create any separate or extended time limit. See our guide to property settlement time limits.

Then there is proportionality. A contested hearing about a pet is expensive, and the legal costs of fighting over an animal can exceed its market value many times over. That is not the whole story — the significance of a companion animal is emotional and, in family violence cases, protective, and the Act’s dedicated considerations recognise as much. But it is a reason to resolve pet arrangements early and by agreement wherever possible, and to keep the dispute in proportion to everything else the settlement must deal with. Reported decisions applying the new provisions are still emerging; how courts will weigh the considerations across the run of cases will become clearer as decisions accumulate, which is a further reason for measured advice rather than confident prediction.

Multiple animals, bonded animals and third parties

Where a household has more than one animal, each companion animal is a separate item of property, and the statutory considerations are applied to each. The evidence can point in different directions — one party acquired and cared for the dog, the other for the cat — and split outcomes are entirely possible.

Bonded animals — two dogs that have never been separated, a cat and dog raised together — raise an obvious practical concern. The Act does not require the court to keep bonded animals together, and it would be wrong to assert such a rule. The residual consideration — any other fact or circumstance the justice of the case requires — gives the court room to take the animals’ bond into account where the evidence supports it, and parties negotiating an agreement can of course give it whatever weight they wish.

Third parties feature in two distinct ways. First, a person who has been joined as a party to the proceedings can be given ownership under the first kind of order — relevant where, for example, a parent or new partner asserts a genuine ownership interest in the animal. Second, the court can order a transfer to another person only where that person has consented — a grandparent, adult child or rescue organisation cannot have an animal forced on them. A transfer to a consenting third person is different from a claim that the animal already belongs to that person. A genuine third-party ownership claim — that the animal was never the parties’ property at all — may require that person to be joined and afforded procedural fairness, and it should be raised squarely and early, with evidence.

Excluded animals and overlapping laws

The four exclusions from the companion animal definition — assistance animals, business animals, agricultural animals and laboratory animals — do not determine who owns those animals. If an excluded animal is owned by one or both parties, it may still form part of the property settlement, dealt with under the general property provisions: working dogs, livestock and breeding stock on a farming property, for example, may be addressed within the ordinary pool alongside the land and plant. Where such an animal is owned by a company, trust or other third party, that ownership must first be established, and the animal is then dealt with according to that ownership rather than simply as an item of the parties’ property. Either way, the three-order restriction and the eight dedicated considerations do not govern excluded animals.

State law overlaps without displacing the federal test. In Victoria, dogs and cats must be registered with the local council under the Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic), and animal welfare obligations arise under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic). Registration records can be useful evidence, and welfare law imposes obligations on whoever has the animal — but neither decides who owns a companion animal after separation. That is the Family Law Act’s question.

Separation is also a sensible moment to think past the settlement: if an animal is now yours alone, your estate planning should say who cares for it if something happens to you. Our guide to providing for a pet in your Will covers the options.

Practical checklists

Immediately after separation

• Note where the animal is living and keep that record current.
• Maintain the animal’s routine — feeding, walking, medication — and keep evidence of your involvement.
• Keep paying your share of the animal’s expenses by traceable means (card or transfer, not cash).
• Do not remove the animal by stealth or confrontation, and do not obstruct agreed arrangements to create facts on the ground.
• If there is any threat to you or the animal, treat it as a safety issue: contact police if there is danger and get urgent advice.
• Get legal advice early.

Documents and evidence to gather

• Breeder, rescue or shelter records and any adoption contract.
• Messages and cards surrounding the acquisition or gift.
• Microchip registry details and council registration.
• Veterinary records and pet insurance policies.
• Invoices and bank or card statements for food, grooming, training, daycare, boarding and veterinary care.
• Anything evidencing family violence or threats towards the animal — orders, reports, messages, photographs.

Your proposed future-care plan

• Housing that suits the animal — and, if renting, tenancy terms that permit it.
• Your working hours and travel patterns, and who cares for the animal when you are away.
• A realistic budget for food, insurance, registration and veterinary care — without the other party’s support or involvement.
• Backup carers, and continuity of the animal’s vet.

What not to do

• Do not enter the other party’s property to take the animal.
• Do not sell, rehome or give away an animal that is in dispute to defeat the other party’s claim — it is property in issue in the proceedings.
• Do not coach children to express preferences or involve them in the dispute.
• Do not withhold necessary veterinary care to build a record of being the only payer.
• Do not sign up to an informal shared-care arrangement in a family violence context without specific advice.
• Do not let the time limits pass while an informal arrangement drifts along.

Conclusion

The companion animal reforms brought welcome clarity to a dispute that the law previously handled awkwardly: pets remain property, but since 10 June 2025 the Family Law Act has said exactly what orders a court can make about them and exactly what it must weigh. The permitted outcomes are deliberately narrow — one owner, a consented transfer, or a sale — which is itself a powerful reason to resolve the question by agreement, sensibly and early, as part of the broader work of separating. Where agreement is not possible — and especially where family violence or threats to an animal are involved — the statutory considerations reward preparation: clear evidence of acquisition, care, payment and a demonstrated plan for the animal’s future.

Parke Lawyers advises clients across Victoria on property settlements, including companion animal arrangements — from negotiated agreements and consent orders to urgent interim disputes. If you are separating and the arrangements for a pet are unresolved, contact us on 134 134 or request a consultation.

Frequently Asked Questions

Sources and further reading

• Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) — current compilation, including sections 4(1) (definition of companion animal), 4AB, 44, 79, 79AA and 90SM
• Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) — the amending Act that inserted the companion animal provisions, which commenced on 10 June 2025
• Explanatory Memorandum, Family Law Amendment Bill 2024 (Cth) — available from the Parliament of Australia bill homepage
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Financial or property: Family pets
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia — Family law (property) changes from 10 June 2025
• Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021 — including the pre-action procedures in Schedule 1
• Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) — section 5 (meaning of family violence, including conduct towards animals)
• Domestic Animals Act 1994 (Vic) — council registration and identification of dogs and cats
• Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1986 (Vic) — animal welfare obligations and cruelty offences

This article is general legal information about Australian law as at 4 September 2026. It is not legal advice and does not take account of your circumstances. Legislation, court rules and case law change; obtain advice tailored to your situation before acting.