The old rule: pets were treated like furniture
Until 10 June 2025, Australian family law treated companion animals as property — assessed on monetary value and allocated to one party on that basis. Courts had no framework for considering who had cared for the animal, which children were attached to it, or where it would be better off.
The new rule: pets get their own framework
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024, which came into effect on 10 June 2025, introduces a specific list of factors courts must now consider when deciding who gets a companion animal. This applies to both married and de facto couples.
Courts must consider:
- Primary caregiver: Who fed, walked, and looked after the animal day-to-day during the relationship
- Financial capacity: Who can afford ongoing veterinary bills, food, and care costs
- Living situation: Who has a suitable home, yard, or living arrangement for the animal
- Children’s bonds: If children are closely attached to the pet, this weighs toward the parent with primary care of those children
- Animal abuse: Whether either party has been responsible for any mistreatment or neglect
What this means practically
If both parties want to keep the pet, the most practical approach is still to reach agreement between yourselves. Disputes specifically over pets are expensive relative to the outcome.
If you are negotiating, the person who was the primary caregiver, who has the more suitable living situation, and who has closer bonds with the children has the stronger claim under the new framework. If both parties genuinely cared equally for the animal, financial capacity and living situation become the deciding factors.
Pets are one part of the bigger picture
Your full property settlement covers property, super, savings and debts. The free Property Split Calculator helps you model the whole picture before you engage a lawyer.
Open the calculator →Evidence that helps your case
If this is likely to be contested, gather evidence that supports your position as primary caregiver. Useful evidence includes:
- Veterinary records showing you attended appointments
- Pet registration or microchip records in your name
- Insurance policies in your name
- Bank records showing you paid for food, grooming, and care
- Messages or photos showing day-to-day care
- Evidence of your living situation (yard, space, proximity to parks)
Does this apply to all animals?
The framework covers “companion animals” — dogs, cats, and animals kept primarily as pets. Farm animals and working animals are a greyer area and are likely still treated primarily as property with monetary value. If your situation involves animals of significant commercial value, seek specific legal advice.
For the broader property settlement picture, the guide to property settlement explains how the full asset pool is assessed. The pet question, while emotionally significant, is usually a small part of a much larger financial picture.
Common questions
Can we share custody of the pet after separation?
Courts cannot make shared-possession orders for pets under the new framework. A court will award the pet to one party only. You can however agree privately to share or alternate care — the court rules only apply if the matter goes to a judge.
Does the new pet law apply to de facto couples?
Yes. The framework applies to both married and de facto couples under the federal Family Law Act. De facto couples in Western Australia are covered under state law, which has slightly different provisions.
What if the pet was owned by one party before the relationship?
Pre-relationship ownership is a relevant factor, similar to how pre-relationship assets are considered in property settlement. It does not automatically mean that party keeps the pet — the court still considers all the factors, including who became the primary caregiver during the relationship.
We have multiple pets. Can they be split between us?
Yes. If you have multiple pets, a court can award different animals to each party. In practice, many couples agree on which pets go where as part of overall negotiations, which avoids the cost and uncertainty of a court decision.