For many people, pets are family. So it’s no surprise that, for some couples, one of the most difficult parts of a separation is deciding who acquires the family pet.
The reality, however, is that while pets may feel like children to some, they are treated very differently to children under the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth).
If separating parties can agree on what will happen with their pet, they are free to put in place whatever arrangement works for them, including a shared care arrangement. But where there is no agreement, the options available through the Court are very limited.
The Court’s power to deal with pets under the Family Law Act
Amendments to the Family Law Act that commenced in June 2025 expanded the way Courts consider pets (now referred to as “companion animals”) in family law matters.
Before these amendments, pets were treated as chattels, akin to the family car or the Thermomix. The focus was often on practical factors, such as who paid for the pet, who the registered owner was, and what the microchip records showed.
The June 2025 amendments introduced a new framework which contains qualitative considerations, setting the laws around companion animals apart from other types of property. The Act now defines what a “companion animal” is and sets out a list of factors the Court must consider when making orders about them. These include:
the extent to which each party cared for the companion animal;
any history of threatened or actual abuse of the companion animal;
the attachment of a party, or a child of the relationship, to the companion animal; and
the ability of each party to care for the companion animal in the future.
These changes allow the Court to look behind the practical factors and take a more nuanced approach when deciding what should happen to a pet after separation.
What orders can the Court actually make?
Despite the Court now being able to exercise it’s discretion and consider the nature of parties’ relationships with pets, the Court’s power to deal with a pet following the 2025 amendments did not really change. The Court can only make the following types of orders:
that one party retain ownership of the family pet;
that ownership of the family pet be transferred from one party to the other; or
that the family pet be sold.
These are essentially the same orders that can be made in relation to any other item of property. The difference now is that the Court must take additional factors into account when deciding which of those orders is appropriate.
Can the Court order shared care of a pet?
In parenting matters, the Court has broad powers to make orders about care arrangements for children. Some parties have tried to apply this same concept to pets, seeking orders that animals move between households.
This issue has been considered by the Court on a number of occasions. Recently, in Wright & Berger [2025] FedCFamC2F 1315, a party sought orders that the family pet live between both households in the same arrangement as the children. Ultimately, the Court found that these were not orders it had the power to make.
The decision by Judge Forbes stated, among other things, that whilst the amendments to the Act introduce special considerations to take into account when making orders about the ownership of pets, they “do not alter the fundamental status of companion animals as property” or “mandate the application of parenting considerations” when dealing with pets.
The Court has also expressed concerns about the practical consequences of shared care arrhttps://www.rmfamilylaw.com.au/angements for pets, particularly where those arrangements mirror children’s changeovers. In Arena & Arena (No 4) [2024] FedCFamC1F 22, Curran J considered a proposed shared care arrangement for an animal whose handover coincided with that of the child of the relationship. In her judgment, her Honour observed that:
“the tension such an order may create in my view, and the potential parental conflict that the children would be exposed to, outweighs any benefit to a child of such an order.”
These decisions highlight that, even aside from the limits on the Court’s power, there is a real concern that shared care arrangements for pets can increase conflict between separated parents and may expose children to unnecessary tension at changeover times.
So what does this mean in practice?
The Court cannot make orders for shared care of a pet.
However, there is nothing in the Family Law Act that prevents parties from reaching a private agreement to share the care of their pet if that is what they both want. Where agreement is possible, shared care can work well. Where it isn’t, the Court’s role is limited to deciding who owns the pet, not how time with the pet is shared.
If you’re navigating this issue after separation, early advice can help you understand both your legal position and your practical options. Contact Robinson + McGuinness today to arrange an appointment by email at info@rmfamilylaw.com.au or 02 6225 7040 or get started now online with one of our experienced family lawyers.
