*Please note that the terms companion animal and family pet(s) are used interchangeably throughout this article

When couples separate, one increasingly common question is: Who gets the family pet? Or Can the Court make shared custody orders for pets?

As of March 2025, approximately 7.7 million households, or 73% of all Australian households own a pet.

It is therefore unsurprising that when couples separate, questions frequently arise about what will happen to the family pet(s).

Many people, like me, consider their family pet(s) as part of the family. However, historically, the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) (‘the Act’) has treated them as mere “property”. In June 2025, the Act was amended to recognise pets as “companion animals”. This was a significant amendment that now treats and deals with pets as more than just property. While family pets remain property under the law, the amendments acknowledge their unique role and require the Court to consider additional factors when determining ownership issues.

 

What is a “companion animal”?

The Act defines “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, 

but excludes:

•  (a)  assistance animals under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ; or
•  (b)  animals kept as part of a business; or
•  (c)  animals kept for agricultural purposes; or
•  (d)  animals kept for use in laboratory tests or experiments.

 

What Orders can the Court make about family pets?

The June 2025 amendments enable parties to seek orders that deal with the ownership of family pet(s) when seeking financial or property settlement orders. The orders that the Court has the power to make are limited to:

• That only one party can have ownership of the companion animal;
• That the companion animal be transferred; or
• That the companion animal be sold.

The Court cannot make any other kind of order with respect to the ownership of a companion animal.

When the Court is asked to consider making an order with respect to the ownership of companion animals, the following factors are to be given consideration (as relevant):

• How the companion animal was acquired;
• Who has ownership or possession of the companion animal;
• The extent each party cared for and paid to maintain the companion animal during the relationship;
• Any family violence in the relationship;
• Any actual or threatened cruelty by a party towards the companion animal;
• Any attachment of a party or any child of the relationship; 
• Each party’s capacity to care for and maintain the companion animal into the future;
• Any other relevant fact or circumstance which in the Court’s opinion should be taken into account.

 

How do the amendments work in practice? 

The recent decision of Wright & Berger [2025] FedCFamC2F 1315 provides important guidance on how the new companion animal provisions should be applied by the Court.

In this case, the Court was asked to resolve a dispute as to the ownership of and the prospect of shared time with the 16-year-old family dog.

The facts

Here’s the facts of the matter as they relate to the family pet:

• The Respondent adopted the dog in or around 2011, when the dog was two (2) years old;
• The parties began their relationship in or around February 2016;
• The parties share a child who is currently 3 years of age, and the Respondent has a child from a previous relationship;
• It was not disputed that the dog should be owned by the Respondent;
• The Applicant was seeking orders in relation to shared “use” of the dog , including:
• Shared responsibility for veterinary and registration costs;
• That the Applicant care for and house the dog during times that the child was to spend time with the Applicant;
• Arrangements for transferring the dog between households;
• obligations to notify each other of illness, treatment, and veterinary attendances.

 

What did the Court decide?

The Court declined to make the Orders sought by the Applicant, finding that

• The Court’s power to make orders in relation to ownership of family pet(s) comes from its power to make orders in respect of property;
• The Court does not have power to make orders imposing a “shared custody” arrangement in respect of family pet(s) in the same way that it can in parenting matters;
• The proposed orders were, in substance, indistinguishable from a shared care arrangement;
• The Court is constrained in the Orders it can making only one of the three types of Orders permitted under the Act.

At paragraph 70, the Court observed: 

“Whilst it is understandable that the Applicant would like to maintain some form of relationship with the animal he has treated as the family pet for some years and he believes there is benefit in the pet being present during the times he spends with [the child], the legislation does not permit the court to make such an order.”

At paragraph 74, the Court further noted: 

“The newly introduced provisions recognise that companion animals are a special type of property and that special considerations should be taken into account in resolving ownership issues. However, the provisions do not alter the fundamental status of companion animals as property, nor do they mandate the application of the parenting considerations as found in the Part VII pathway.”

 

A practical takeaway

While the Court could not order shared time or use of the dog, His Honour noted that the orders did not prevent the dog’s owner from allowing the Applicant to spend time with the dog by agreement. The Court even acknowledged that the presence of the dog may benefit the relationship between the Applicant and the child — but emphasised that this remained a matter for the owner’s discretion.

These amendments mark a significant shift in recognising the importance of family pet(s) under the Act. However, the decision of Wright & Berger [2025] FedCFamC2F 1315 reminds us that the Court’s powers remain limited in this regard.