Nearly three quarters of Australian homes now have a pet, and when a relationship ends, the question of who keeps the dog can be every bit as raw as the question of who keeps the house. For decades the law gave that question a blunt answer: the animal was property, and property gets divided. That changed on 10 June 2025. The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) now contains a dedicated set of rules for companion animals — rules that work differently from the rest of a property settlement. Here’s what they actually say.
Pets are still property — but no longer ordinary property
The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) received Royal Assent on 10 December 2024. Schedule 1, which carries the property reforms, commenced on 10 June 2025. Among other things, it inserted a definition of “companion animal” into the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) and added specific provisions about what a court may order in relation to one, and what it must think about before doing so.
The animal remains property. That distinction matters more than it sounds. There’s still no such thing as pet custody in Australian law — no parenting orders for animals, no contact schedules, no best-interests test of the kind that applies to children. A pet is dealt with inside the property pool, alongside the superannuation and the car.
What’s changed is that, within that pool, companion animals are now treated as a category of their own, with their own list of relevant factors. The law has caught up with something most separating couples already knew: a family dog is not a dining table.
This is federal law, so it applies the same way in Erina as it does in Perth. It covers married couples and de facto couples alike.
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.”
The definition then carves four things out. It does not include:
- 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
- an animal kept for use in laboratory tests or experiments
So the family cat qualifies. A working dog on a rural block, a herd of cattle, a guide dog and a breeding operation’s stud animals do not. Anything outside the definition is dealt with as ordinary property in the usual way.
The distinction isn’t always obvious. A horse agisted at Somersby and ridden on weekends is likely a companion animal; the same horse, if it’s part of a riding school, probably isn’t. Where a pet has some commercial dimension — occasional breeding, a small social media following, a share in prize money — it’s worth getting advice before assuming which set of rules applies.
Three orders a court can make, and the one it cannot
This is the part that surprises people. Under s 79(6) for married couples, and the mirror provision in s 90SM(6) for de facto couples, a court dealing with a companion animal may make an order:
- that only one party, or only one person joined as a party to the proceedings, is to have ownership of the animal
- that the animal be transferred to another person who has consented to the transfer
- that the animal be sold
And then the Act says something unusual. The court may not make any other kind of order.
| What a court can order | What a court cannot order |
| Sole ownership to one party | Shared ownership or joint care |
| Transfer to a consenting third party — a family member, a friend, a rescue organisation | A week-on, week-off arrangement |
| That the animal be sold | Visitation, holiday contact or handover schedules |
| Maintenance payments towards the animal’s costs |
If you want an arrangement where the dog moves between two households, a court can’t give you one. Only the two of you can — by agreement.
What the court weighs up
Where the parties can’t agree, s 79(7) (and s 90SM(7) for de facto couples) sets out eight considerations the court is to take into account, so far as they’re relevant:
- How the animal was acquired — bought together, brought into the relationship by one party, a gift, an adoption
- Who has ownership or possession — whose name is on the registration and microchip records, and where the animal is living now
- Care and cost — the extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the animal
- Family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other
- Any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the animal
- Attachment — any attachment by a party, or by a child of the relationship, to the animal
- Demonstrated ability to care in future — and the Act adds a pointed qualifier: the ability to care for and maintain the animal “without support or involvement from the other party”
- Anything else the justice of the case requires
Two things are worth drawing out. The reference to a child’s attachment means the effect on the children is relevant even though the animal isn’t the subject of parenting orders. And the phrase “without support or involvement from the other party” is a signal. A party who can only manage the dog because their former partner walks it on weekdays isn’t, on the face of it, demonstrating the ability the Act is asking about.
Family violence and cruelty sit squarely in the frame
That two of the eight considerations deal with violence is not an accident. Research has long connected harm to animals with harm to people, and threats to a pet are a recognised means of control — one that can keep a person from leaving.
NSW law already reflects this. Under s 36 of the Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW), every apprehended violence order is taken to prohibit the defendant from “intentionally or recklessly destroying or damaging any property, or harming an animal, that belongs to, or is in the possession of, the protected person.” That protection is automatic. It doesn’t need to be asked for, and it applies whether or not the animal is mentioned in the order.
If you’re worried about an animal’s safety, say so early — both to your lawyer and, where appropriate, to the police. An apprehended domestic violence order works far faster than a property settlement.
You do not have to end up in court
Most separating couples resolve the pet without a judge ever hearing about it, and the reforms don’t change that. Two routes are worth knowing.
Consent orders. If you agree, you can ask the court to make orders in the terms you’ve settled on. The court is still bound by s 79(6), so consent orders about the animal itself are limited to the same three outcomes.
A written agreement. Because a court can’t order shared arrangements, an agreement between you is the only way to get one. A binding financial agreement can deal with the pet alongside the rest of the property settlement, but these agreements have strict formal requirements — including independent legal advice for each of you — and they can be set aside if those requirements aren’t met. An informal arrangement scribbled on a text message is better than nothing, and considerably less than a properly drawn document.
A practical word on the in-between period. Property settlements take months, and sometimes longer. The Act’s companion animal provisions speak to final orders; they don’t tell you what to do with the dog in the meantime. In practice, whoever the animal is living with tends to keep looking after it while negotiations run their course, and the arrangement that holds during that period can quietly become the arrangement a court is asked to confirm. That cuts both ways. If you’re the one caring for the animal, keep records. If you’re not, don’t treat the situation as settled simply because it’s gone on for a while — raise it, in writing, and keep contributing to the costs.
The numbers
Animal Medicines Australia’s Pets in Australia survey, released in September 2025, found that 73 per cent of Australian households have at least one pet — around 7.7 million homes and an estimated 31.6 million animals. Dogs are in 49 per cent of households and cats in 34 per cent.
On those figures, roughly three in every four separations in this country will involve a pet. It’s not a niche issue, and it’s a poor thing to leave until the week before a hearing.
Practical first steps
- Gather the paperwork. Council registration, microchip records, the adoption or purchase receipt, vet invoices, pet insurance. Section 79(7) asks about acquisition, possession and who paid — documents answer those questions better than recollection does.
- Keep paying and keep caring. Continuing to meet the costs and do the daily work is directly relevant, and stopping because you’re annoyed helps nobody, least of all the animal.
- Do not take the animal to force the issue. Removing a pet to create a status quo tends to be read for what it is, and it can make matters considerably worse.
- Write it down early. Agreement reached while you’re both still reasonable is worth more than any argument made later.
- Raise safety concerns straight away. Threats to an animal are relevant to your property settlement and may warrant an order in their own right.
The Bottom Line
The law now recognises what families already understood — that a pet is not just another asset. But the recognition has limits. A court can give the animal to one of you, hand it to someone else who agrees to take it, or order it sold. It cannot build you a shared arrangement. If you want one, you have to negotiate it and document it properly. That’s the practical message of the June 2025 reforms: the outcome you most likely want is available, but only if you reach it yourselves.
If you have questions about what happens to your pet after separation, or you’d like an agreement drawn up that will hold, don’t hesitate to get in touch with one of our friendly Family Lawyers Central Coast. We have been helping Central Coast families work through these questions since 1992.
