When a relationship ends, deciding who keeps a much-loved pet can feel anything but minor. For many families, the dog, cat or other animal has been part of daily life, the children’s routine and the emotional stability of the household.
The quick answer is that Australian family law now treats many household pets as “companion animals” in property settlement proceedings. A Court can decide who owns the animal after separation, but it generally cannot make a shared-care or “pet custody” order. The practical question becomes: who should the animal live with, and what evidence supports that outcome?
How the law now treats pets after separation
Historically, pets were treated as personal property. That meant a dispute about a pet was often dealt with in the same general way as a dispute about furniture, a car or another asset, even though the emotional reality was very different.
That position changed with the property reforms that commenced on 10 June 2025. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) s 79 now gives the Court a specific framework for companion animals in property settlement proceedings for married couples, with related de facto provisions in s 90SM.
The change does not mean pets are treated the same as children. Parenting orders are about children. A companion animal order is still part of the property jurisdiction. The difference is that the Court now has a more tailored set of considerations for deciding what should happen to the animal.
If a pet is one part of a broader financial separation, early advice can help you work out whether the issue should be handled by negotiation, consent orders or a Court application as part of your property settlement. For the wider property pathway, see our guide to property settlement after separation.
What orders can the Court make about a companion animal
For a companion animal, the Court may make an order that:
- one party has ownership of the animal;
- ownership is transferred to another person who consents to taking the animal; or
- the animal is sold.
In most family situations, the real contest is between the first two options. Sale is possible, but it will rarely be the practical or humane outcome for an ordinary family pet unless the circumstances make it necessary.
The important limit is that the Court must not make an order for shared ownership of a companion animal. Parties can agree privately on practical arrangements if they choose, but the family law property order itself is not a rotating custody arrangement. This is the key difference between a pet dispute and a parenting dispute, even where the animal is emotionally important to the family.
What counts as a companion animal
A companion animal is an animal kept primarily for companionship. That will usually include ordinary household pets such as dogs and cats.
The companion-animal framework does not apply to every animal connected with a separating couple. The law excludes:
- an assistance animal, such as an animal recognised for disability support;
- 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.
Those exclusions matter. A working farm animal, a business asset or an assistance animal may still be relevant in a family law matter, but it is not treated in the same way as a household pet kept for companionship.
What the Court will look at
The Court can consider a range of practical and safety-related matters when deciding who should own a companion animal after separation. Those considerations include:
- the circumstances in which the animal was acquired;
- who has owned, possessed, cared for and paid for the animal;
- any family violence between the parties;
- any cruelty or threats towards the animal;
- the attachment of a party, child or other person to the animal;
- each party’s ability to care for the animal in the future; and
- any other fact or circumstance the Court considers relevant.
This is why evidence matters. Registration documents, microchip records, adoption papers, vet invoices, insurance payments, food and grooming costs, photographs, messages and evidence of day-to-day care can all help explain the practical reality.
The Court is not simply asking who loves the pet more. It is asking what order is legally available, what has happened during the relationship and after separation, and what outcome is appropriate on the evidence.
Family violence, threats and animal cruelty
The reforms recognise that pets can be used in the context of family violence. A person may threaten to harm, keep, hide or give away an animal as a way of controlling the other person. Some people delay leaving an unsafe relationship because they fear what will happen to a pet. We discuss the broader financial impact of abuse in our article on family violence and property settlement.
If there has been family violence, threats towards the animal or cruelty to the animal, that should be raised carefully and supported with evidence where possible. Relevant evidence may include messages, photos, vet records, intervention order material, police event numbers or witness accounts.
Safety comes first. If there is an immediate risk to you, a child or an animal, urgent advice should be obtained. In an emergency, contact police on 000.
What if the pet was bought for the children
Pets are often described as belonging to the children, even where the legal ownership records sit in a parent’s name. The child’s attachment to the animal can be relevant, but it does not turn the dispute into a parenting case.
In practical terms, the Court may look at who the children live with, who has been caring for the animal, and whether keeping the animal with a particular household supports stability. If an older child or another person is proposed to become the owner, that person must consent before the Court can transfer ownership to them.
The best approach is usually to avoid putting children in the middle of the dispute. Evidence about their routine and attachment can be relevant. Asking a child to choose between parents is not helpful.
Alternatives to Court
Many pet disputes should be resolved without a contested Court hearing. Court can be expensive, slow and stressful, and a pet issue will often sit inside a wider property settlement.
Practical alternatives include:
- a written agreement about who keeps the pet and who pays any transfer or veterinary costs;
- lawyer-assisted negotiation as part of the broader property settlement;
- mediation, where it is safe and appropriate;
- consent orders, if the agreement forms part of a property settlement that should be legally formalised; and
- practical handover terms, such as transfer of microchip registration, council registration, insurance and vet records.
These options work best when the agreement is specific. It should identify the animal clearly and deal with the practical records that need to be transferred, not just say that one person “gets the dog”.
Practical steps if you are separating and worried about a pet
If the pet may become disputed, do not rely on verbal assumptions. Take practical steps early.
Useful steps include:
- collect registration, microchip, adoption, purchase and veterinary records;
- keep proof of who has paid major pet expenses;
- document who has provided day-to-day care;
- preserve messages about ownership, threats, care arrangements or costs;
- avoid moving, selling or giving away the animal without advice if ownership is disputed;
- consider whether the pet issue is part of property settlement, a safety issue, or both; and
- get advice before signing an informal agreement that may affect the wider settlement.
The goal is to reduce conflict and protect the animal while keeping the legal issue in proportion. A calm, evidence-based approach is more likely to produce a practical outcome than an argument about labels such as “custody”.
The next step
The law now gives separating couples a clearer way to deal with pets, but it still requires one legally recognised owner. If your pet is part of a broader separation, the question is not just emotional. It is also practical, evidentiary and connected to the property settlement.