Pets and the Family Law Act

Caveat – this article is written by Stephanie Brown, Scout’s Mum.

Scout is a very spoiled city dwelling, couch loving, brewery attending oodle-adjacent pupper.  Scout understands why clients struggle with their fur-babies being treated as “property” during a family breakdown.

Stephanie is a Senior Associate and Accredited Specialist at O’Reilly Shaw Lawyers.  Stephanie also appreciates clients’ historical frustrations at receiving the advice that their beloved pets are “property” under the Family Law Act, rather than beloved members of the family.

An estimated 70% of Australian households have a pet, with 48% of those owning a dog and 33% a feline friend. There has been a huge cultural shift in Australia and attitudes towards pets generally, and this is reflected in the some $33 billion spent by Australian on pet services and products. Clearly, Scout and Fido are now members of the family and included in our day to day lives, and not just left in the backyard.

As a result of incoming changes to the Family Law Act 1975, from June 2025 the Family Law Act 1975 will categorise family pets as “companion animals” in the context of a Family Law property adjustment, bringing clarity to this issue and aligning the law with societal expectations regarding pets. Historically, pets have simply been items of property to be divided under s79 (i.e. just another chattel).  In recent years, whilst pets have remained “property” for the purposes of Family Law decisions, there has been increasing appreciation and compassion underlying judgements about pets, and reference to the importance of pets as meaning more to the parties than just another item of property.

For example, in Rowlinson & Bradford (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2F 1241 (a case concerning the family dog and property adjustment) Justice Betts said “The dog may be property at law but is not a piece of furniture. It is a living being and should be treated with compassion.”  In that case, both parties sought to retain the family dog. Judge Betts considered various factors when deciding who would retain the dog, including the dog’s registration, who had possession of the dog since separation and the fact the two family dogs had always lived together.

The evolving value of pets in our lives will now be reflected in the legislative changes.  These changes will mean that when considering who will keep the family pet after separation, the Court will have regard to a number of factors, including:

• How the animal was acquired
• Who has ownership or possession of the animal;
• The extent to which each party cared for and/or paid for the animal – purchase price, vet bills, day to day living expenses;
• Any family violence;
• History of actual or threatened abuse towards the animal;
• Any attachment of the party or children to the animal;
• The ability of each party to care for the animal; and
• Any other fact that the Court may consider relevant.

Importantly, the new section directs the Court to consider animal ownership in light of domestic and family violence. It is well known that threats about or abuse towards pets are forms of coercive and controlling violence.  It is often the case that victims of abuse are unable to leave the family home, due to concerns for their pet’s safety/welfare, as a result of threats or actual abuse perpetrated by the other party against the pet.

It is clear that there has been a shift over time in respect of the treatment of pets in Family Law matters, such that the law is moving into line with societal values in relation to pets and their role as an important part of the family dynamic, and the need to address the issue of pets with compassion for both the parties and the pet.

It will likely take some time before we have the benefit of some judgments on this issue, but it is an issue that the community will be following closely and practitioners will certainly be awaiting those early decisions.