Quick Summary: Pet Custody Laws in Australia

No Shared Custody Orders: Under the Family Law Act companion animal provisions, Australian family courts cannot order shared care, shared “use”, or an ongoing pet-visitation schedule.

Sole Ownership Only: A court can only order sole ownership to one person, transfer the pet to a consenting third party, or order its sale.

Key Assessment Factors: Judges weigh acquisition history, registration, daily caregiving, payment of expenses, emotional attachment, family violence, and future capacity to care for the pet.

Private Agreements: Separated couples can still choose to share a pet by mutual agreement, but the Court will not enforce or construct these arrangements.

A separating couple had resolved their parenting dispute and almost every issue concerning their property. One thing remained: their 16-year-old dog.

The father accepted that the mother could remain the dog’s legal owner. What he wanted was for the dog to travel with their young child whenever the child stayed with him. His proposal dealt with handovers, veterinary care, expenses, and even how quickly each person should inform the other if the dog became ill.

It looked remarkably like a set of parenting arrangements.

The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia refused to make them, and that decision followed by another in June 2026, provides the clearest guidance yet about Australia’s companion animal rules.

What Are Australia’s Pet Custody Laws? (Family Law Act Amendments)

Until 10 June 2025, Australian family law treated pets in much the same way as other personal property like furniture or cars. Courts repeatedly acknowledged that this could sound harsh to people who regarded an animal as part of the family.

The Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) now defines pets kept primarily for companionship as “companion animals” and gives them a separate framework within property settlements.

While pets are still legally classified as property, the Court must now consider specific statutory factors, including care, expenses, attachment, family violence, cruelty, and each person’s future capacity to care for the animal.

This change recognises that a family pet is not merely an asset with a dollar value. It does not, however, make the pet a child in the eyes of the law.

Why Courts Won’t Order Shared Pet Custody or “Shared Use”

In the first case (Wright & Berger), the dog had originally been adopted by the mother years before the parties’ relationship began. During the relationship, both partners cared for it, and the father likely paid most of its expenses. The dog was deeply loved by both parties and the children.

The father asked the Court to order that the dog accompany their child during spend-time visits, arguing that even if the Court could not order shared ownership, it had the power to order shared “use” of the pet.

The Court concluded that the law doesn’t permit that result. It can order that on person own the pet, transfer it to a consenting third person, or order its sale. It cannot, however, impose shared ownership or shared care (or “use”).

Even if a wider power had existed, the proposed arrangement would not have been appropriate. The parties had difficulty communicating, and transferring an animal to which they were both emotionally attached created an obvious opportunity for further conflict. Because the proposed handovers would occur with the child’s handovers, the child could be exposed to that conflict.

The mother was declared the owner. She remained free to allow the father to spend time with the dog, including when the child was with him, but that was her choice. It was not something the Court could order.

Can Separated Couples Choose to Share a Pet Privately?

Yes. Former partners can make their own informal arrangements if they can cooperate. A dog might travel with the children or spend agreed periods in each home.

The important distinction is between an agreement the parties choose to follow and an arrangement imposed by a court. If cooperation breaks down, the Court’s role is generally to determine ownership, not to construct an ongoing pet-visitation schedule.

How Does the Court Decide Who Gets the Pet?

A second decision, delivered in June 2026, shows how the Court approaches that question.

Both parties wanted ownership of the family dog. The father described the companionship, comfort and stability the dog had provided following separation. The mother said she had found the breeder, primarily cared for the dog during the relationship and continued meeting its day-to-day needs and expenses after separation.

The dog was registered in the mother’s name and remained living with her and the children. Both parties and the children were closely attached to it.

The Court awarded ownership to the mother. Registration supported her position, but it was not treated as conclusive. Her history of caring for and maintaining the dog carried substantial weight. The children also lived mainly with her, which meant that keeping the dog in her household allowed them to spend more time with it.

Frequently Asked Questions: Australian Pet Custody Laws

Does the person named on the registration always get the pet?

No. The Court expressly recognised that registration and ownership are not the same thing.

A registration certificate or microchip record is useful evidence, but the Court can look beyond the name on the document. It may ask how the animal was acquired, why it was registered that way, who possessed it, who provided daily care and who paid its expenses.

Does paying the vet bills mean you own the pet?

Not automatically. In Wright & Berger, the father likely paid most of the dog’s ongoing expenses during the relationship. However, because the animal had a longer history with the mother and lived in the primary residence of the children, the statutory considerations still favoured the mother.

Do the children’s feelings determine where the pet lives?

The attachment between a child and a pet is now explicitly relevant under the law. However, it is one factor among many rather than a standalone “best interests” test. If children reside predominantly in one home, placing the pet in that household often helps preserve their bond.

What factors will the Court consider in a pet dispute?

The Court must consider the statutory factors that are relevant to the particular dispute. They include the circumstances of acquisition, ownership or possession, care and maintenance, attachment and future capacity to care for the animal.

The Court may also consider family violence and any actual or threatened cruelty or abuse towards the pet. This recognises that an animal can become a means of coercion: a person may threaten, harm or withhold a pet to frighten or punish a former partner.

What Steps Should Separating Pet Owners Take?

The decisions demonstrate why it is better to address a family pet early and clearly rather than leave ownership to an informal assumption.

A person who wants to retain a pet should preserve evidence showing how it was acquired, registered, cared for and maintained. Veterinary records, receipts, insurance, messages and evidence about the animal’s living arrangements may all be relevant.

Where both people want to maintain a relationship with the pet, they should also think realistically about whether an ongoing arrangement will reduce conflict or prolong it. A plan that works between cooperative former partners may be unmanageable where every handover becomes another opportunity for disagreement.

Importantly, address pet ownership as part of your overall property settlement negotiation rather than leaving it to informal assumptions.

For a complete explanation of the current law and the evidence that may be relevant, read our guide, ‘Who Keeps the Pets After Separation?’

How Websters Lawyers Can Help

A dispute over a pet may be legally part of a property settlement, but that description rarely captures what the animal means to the people involved.

Our family lawyers can explain how the new provisions apply, help gather the relevant evidence and work towards an outcome that resolves ownership without creating years of further conflict. Contact Websters Lawyers to arrange a free first interview. Call 8231 1363 to arrange a free initial telephone consultation.

Wright & Berger [2025] FedCFamC2F 1315;

Ziskind & Greco (No 2) [2026] FedCFamC1F 378.