Reviewed by Fair Path Legal
Last reviewed: August 2026
For many separating couples, deciding who keeps the dog, cat or other family pet can be one of the most emotional parts of the separation.
It can also be surprisingly difficult to resolve. One person may have bought the pet, another may have provided most of its day-to-day care, and children may be strongly attached to it.
Australian family law now has a specific framework for dealing with these disputes.
Short answer
Separating couples can agree between themselves who keeps a family pet. If they cannot agree, the Court can decide ownership as part of a financial or property matter.
Since 10 June 2025, the Family Law Act has included specific rules for companion animals. The Court can consider factors including who cared for the pet, who paid for its maintenance, each person’s attachment to it, the attachment of any children, family violence or animal abuse, and each person’s ability to care for the pet in the future.
The Court can order that one person owns the pet, that ownership is transferred to another consenting person, or that the pet is sold. It cannot order shared ownership or shared care.
What changed for family pets in June 2025?
Before the June 2025 family law changes, pets were dealt with within the broader property settlement framework without a dedicated set of considerations.
That changed on 10 June 2025.
Pets are still treated as property under the Family Law Act, but certain pets now fall within a specific framework for companion animals.
This was one part of the broader changes to Australian property settlement law that also dealt with issues including family violence, financial abuse and the way property matters are assessed.
If you want an overview of the wider reforms, Fair Path Legal has a separate guide explaining what the June 2025 family law property changes mean for separating couples.
This article focuses only on what those changes mean when the disagreement is about a family pet.
What counts as a companion animal?
The legislation uses the term companion animal rather than simply “pet”.
Broadly, a companion animal is an animal kept primarily for companionship by one or both people in the relationship.
That may include the kinds of animals most people would naturally think of as family pets, such as dogs or cats.
However, not every animal owned by a separating couple will automatically fall within this definition.
The definition does not include:
- assistance animals
- animals kept as part of a business
- animals kept for agricultural purposes
- animals kept for laboratory tests or experiments
An animal kept for more than one purpose can also fall outside the companion-animal definition. For example, an animal that provides companionship but also performs an agricultural or business role may need to be considered differently.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia provides further information about how family pets are dealt with in financial and property matters.
Can separating couples decide who keeps the pet themselves?
Yes.
Most separating couples do not need a court to decide what happens to their pet.
You may be able to agree that the pet will stay with one person, particularly where the practical answer is already reasonably clear.
For example, one person may have taken primary responsibility for feeding, vet appointments, exercise and other daily care. The pet may already be living with that person after separation, or one home may simply be better suited to caring for it.
An agreement about a pet can also form part of the wider discussions about your property settlement after separation.
Where agreement is possible, resolving the issue early can reduce unnecessary conflict. However, if ownership of the pet is becoming part of a broader property dispute, it can be useful to get advice before finalising the overall settlement.
What does the Court consider if you cannot agree?
If the issue needs to be decided by the Court, there is now a specific list of factors that can be considered.
No single factor automatically decides the outcome.
How the pet was acquired
The Court can consider the circumstances in which the animal came into the relationship.
For example, this may include whether one person already owned the pet before the relationship or whether the couple acquired it together.
Who originally paid for the pet may therefore be relevant, but it is not the only consideration.
Who currently owns or has possession of the pet
The Court can look at the existing ownership and living arrangements.
This may include who the pet is registered to and who currently has possession of it.
Again, that is part of the overall picture rather than necessarily being the end of the question.
Who actually cared for the pet
Day-to-day care can be important.
The Court may consider the extent to which each person cared for the animal and paid for its maintenance.
Depending on the circumstances, that might include matters such as feeding, exercise, grooming, veterinary treatment and other ongoing responsibilities.
This means a dispute is not necessarily resolved simply by asking whose name appears on a purchase receipt or registration document.
Attachment to the pet
The emotional relationship with the pet can also be considered.
The legislation specifically allows the Court to consider the attachment of either party to the animal.
It can also consider the attachment of a child of the relationship to the pet.
That does not mean pets are treated in the same way as children under family law. They are not. But attachment is now expressly recognised as relevant when the Court considers what should happen to a companion animal.
Family violence and animal abuse
The Court can consider family violence between the parties when deciding what happens to the pet.
It can also consider any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse towards the animal.
This is particularly important where a pet has been harmed, threatened or used as a way of frightening, controlling or putting pressure on a former partner.
If a dispute about the pet is connected to broader concerns about family violence or safety, those circumstances should not be treated as simply an argument over property.
Who can care for the pet in the future
The Court can also consider each person’s demonstrated ability to care for and maintain the animal in the future without relying on the other person.
That brings some practical questions into the picture.
For example, the Court may need to consider whether a person can realistically provide the care, housing and ongoing maintenance the animal requires.
The legislation also allows the Court to consider other facts or circumstances where the justice of the particular case requires it.
Can the Court order shared custody of a pet?
No.
This is an important difference between what separating couples may choose to arrange privately and what the Court can order under the companion-animal provisions.
The Court cannot make an order for shared ownership or shared care of the family pet.
Instead, it can make an order that:
- one party owns the animal
- ownership is transferred to another person who agrees to take it
- the animal is sold
So if a separating couple wants an ongoing informal arrangement where the pet moves between homes, they may be able to agree on that between themselves.
But if the dispute reaches the point where the Court must decide ownership, the Court cannot create a shared-care arrangement similar to a parenting arrangement for children.
What if your former partner is using the pet as leverage?
Disputes over pets are sometimes about more than the pet itself.
A former partner may refuse to return an animal, threaten to sell or remove it, use access to the pet to continue contact, or threaten the animal as a way of causing distress.
Where behaviour of this kind is occurring, the broader circumstances matter.
The current family law framework specifically recognises both family violence and actual or threatened cruelty towards a companion animal as matters the Court can consider.
Getting advice early may be particularly important if you are concerned about the animal’s safety or believe the dispute is being used as part of a pattern of controlling behaviour.
Should the pet be dealt with as part of the property settlement?
A family pet issue often arises at the same time as discussions about the home, savings, superannuation, debts and other property.
However, the Court now applies specific considerations when dealing with ownership of a companion animal rather than simply assessing the pet in the same way as every other asset.
That makes it useful to identify the issue early.
If you and your former partner agree about the pet, that agreement may be capable of being dealt with alongside your broader financial arrangements.
If you do not agree, legal advice can help you understand the factors that are likely to matter and how the pet dispute fits within the wider property settlement.
When should you get legal advice?
You may want to seek advice if:
- you and your former partner cannot agree who keeps the pet
- both of you claim ownership
- the pet has become part of a wider property dispute
- there is disagreement about who has actually cared or paid for the animal
- a child is strongly attached to the pet
- there has been family violence or threats involving the animal
- you are worried the pet may be sold, removed or harmed
- you are preparing to formalise a broader property settlement
The right approach depends on the circumstances of the relationship, the animal and the wider financial matter.
Taking the next step
A family pet can carry far more emotional importance than its financial value suggests.
If you can agree on what happens to the pet, you may be able to resolve the issue without court involvement. If you cannot, the law now provides a clearer framework for deciding ownership and for considering how the animal has actually been cared for throughout the relationship.
Fair Path Legal can help you understand how the pet issue fits within your wider property settlement and what options are available if agreement is becoming difficult.
Book a free 30-minute phone consultation to discuss your situation and the next steps.
This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal advice.
