Australian Family Law Now Recognises Dogs as Companion Animals, Not Just Property

Until June 2025, the Family Court treated dogs like furniture. Now, they are companion animals in the eyes of the law, and that shift changes everything from separation negotiations to evidence requirements.

From 10 June 2025, new amendments to the Family Law Act 1975 will come into effect, recognising pets, particularly companion animals like dogs, as part of the family unit, rather than items to be divided up during a property settlement. This is a long overdue and welcome change.

Background

Prior to this reform, animals were dealt with as property under s 79 and s 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). Judicial decisions around pet disputes were rare, and when made, were based on ownership, acquisition, and value, similar to household items or motor vehicles.

The Family Law Amendment Act 2024, passed in response to widespread stakeholder feedback and growing community expectations, introduces a statutory definition of 'companion animal' and specific provisions for how such animals are to be considered in property settlements.

Why This Matters (Especially to Dog Lovers)

Up until now, if a couple separated and couldn’t agree on who would keep the dog, the Court would treat the animal like any other asset, alongside cars, furniture and appliances. Ownership often came down to whose name was on the dogs microchip, or who purchased the dog, with no consideration of who actually provided care for them.

This can be concerning, as a change in family circumstances can mean a dog loses its main caregiver. We see first hand how deep the bond between a dog and their person can be. They aren't simply property, dogs are beings who thrive on stability, routine, and connection. The good news is the law is now catching up.

What the New Laws Mean

Under the Family Law Amendment Act 2024, dogs are now formally recognised as 'Companion animals.' Under the new provisions, a 'companion animal' is defined as:

An animal kept for the purpose of companionship by one or both parties to a marriage or de facto relationship.

The definition excludes:

• Assistance animals under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

• Animals kept primarily for commercial, agricultural, or scientific purposes

This ensures that the provisions focus on animals with relational and emotional value rather than commercial assets.

That means if a couple separates and there is a disagreement about who should keep the dog, the Court will make this decision as part of property court orders through Family Court proceedings.

These orders may:

• Grant ownership of the dog to one party

• Transfer the animal to another party with their consent

• Direct the sale of the animal and distribution of the proceeds

In making this decision, the Family Court may consider:

• When and how the dog came into the home e.g. was it before the relationship, as a gift, or purchased together.

• Who has been primarily responsible for the dogs daily care, this includes feeding, grooming, administering medications and preventive care, vet visits and training.

• Who paid for the dogs day to day expenses and veterinary needs.

• The strength of any bond between the dog and a child of the relationship.

• Each persons ability to care for the dog long term.

• Any history of family violence between the parties

• Any history of neglect, cruelty or family violence involving the dog.

• Any other relevant circumstances that may affect the dogs welfare.

This change in law allows judges to make decisions that reflect the actual and practical needs and priorities of the dog, not just assessing the legal technicalities of ownership.

No 'Shared Custody', but Better Outcomes for Dogs

Unlike with children, the Court will not be issuing orders for shared custody of dogs. While there have been some public discussions about the prospect of shared custody for pets, the Act does not provide for joint ownership or time sharing arrangements. The rationale is to reduce post separation conflict and support consistent care environments for the pet.

Instead, the court will make a decision about who keeps the dog, based on the above criteria. While this may seem disappointing to some, it’s actually in the best interests of most dogs, who often do not cope well with being moved between homes.

Of course, couples can still agree to share care informally if it works for the dog, but this won’t be enforced through a order made by the Family Court.

Protecting Dogs from Being Used in Family Violence

One of the most significant aspects of this reform is how it helps protect animals in situations involving domestic or family violence.

Sadly, in some cases, dogs can been used as tools of by domestic violence perpetuators, who may utilise manipulation, threats, withholding the dog from the other person, or harming the dog in order to exert control over their partner.

The new law recognises this and allows the Court to take any history of cruelty, neglect, or coercion involving the dog into account. That means dogs will have a greater chance of being placed in a safe, stable home following separation, and removing opportunities for ongoing family violence through the family pet.

The new laws will potentially influence broader property, parenting, and protection order matters between the parties. This may also intersect with state based domestic violence frameworks, where threats or harm to animals may form part of the evidence for domestic violence related protection orders.

Potential Challenges of the Reform

While the recent changes to the Family Law Act 1975, recognising pets as companion animals rather than property, are regarded as a step forward, it is important to acknowledge that these reforms are not without potential complications. As a breeder who works closely with families and understands the emotional importance of dogs, I support the intent behind the law. However, any legislative change of this nature can carry unintended consequences.

Below are six key areas where challenges may arise:

1. Increased Litigation and Emotional Disputes

Previously, disputes over pets were often resolved informally or overlooked due to their treatment as low value property. By elevating pets to the category of companion animals, the law now invites more detailed judicial consideration, and potentially, more litigation.

In high conflict separations, this may become another contested issue that fuels animosity and prolongs settlement. People who may have once conceded ownership might now be more inclined to dispute it, not for practical reasons, but due to emotional attachment. Legal professionals may need to prepare for an increase in disputes involving pets, particularly in matters where no children are involved and the pet is perceived as the most emotionally significant shared ‘dependent’.

2. No Legal Path for Shared Custody

Shared care arrangements are not permitted under the Act. This is particularly difficult for separating couples who had a functional, shared arrangement prior to legal proceedings, or where children have bonded with the family dog and would benefit from continuity across both homes.

Although private, informal agreements can still be made, they are not legally enforceable. If one party breaches an arrangement for time with the pet, the other has little legal recourse. This lack of enforceability may become a source of stress or instability for both the animal and the humans involved.

3. The Risk of the Pet Becoming a Pawn

By introducing emotional and welfare based considerations, the reforms inadvertently risk placing the animal at the centre of the conflict. Disputes may now involve highly subjective claims about who the pet is 'closer to or who provides 'better' care.

In practical terms, this may result in:

• Intrusive investigations into the caregiving history

• Witness affidavits from friends, neighbours, veterinarians, trainers, breeders

• Competing narratives designed to discredit the other parties relationship with the pet

What begins as a welfare based approach may, in some matters, devolve into character attacks or psychological warfare over an animal who may simply need consistency and calm.

4. Increased Pressure on the Court

The Family Court system is already under strain, and this reform introduces a new layer of complexity. Judges must now assess care histories, emotional bonds, and allegations of mistreatment.

Unlike financial assets, which can be valued and divided objectively, the welfare of a living being involves subjective, often emotional evidence. Courts may be asked to weigh a dogs daily routine against broader family dynamics or assess the sincerity of a child's attachment to a pet. Without a clear framework for applying these factors, there is potential for inconsistent decision making across similar cases.

5. Complications for Breeders and Co-Ownership Agreements

These changes may also have practical ramifications for breeders, particularly those who place dogs in guardian homes or offer co-ownership agreements. If a relationship between guardians breaks down, a breeder could be drawn into a dispute where the dog is claimed as a companion animal and removed from breeding terms, despite contractual arrangements.

While contracts remain important, a court may prioritise welfare considerations over written agreements, particularly where there is evidence the dog has become emotionally bonded to one party. This creates uncertainty for breeders who rely on structured guardianship to maintain their breeding programs.

6. Ambiguity Around Definitions

The legislation introduces the term companion animal, but its scope may be open to interpretation. For example:

• How should the court approach animals used in hobby breeding, therapy visits, or competition?

These grey areas may lead to disputes over whether a dog qualifies for the companion animal provisions or remains a commercial asset. Without further legislative clarification or case law, practitioners and owners may find themselves in a legal grey zone.

Implications for Breeders and the Broader Community

As a breeder, I welcome this change. Breeders often play a role in rehoming dogs after separation and are frequently the first point of contact for owners in distress. These reforms align the law with community expectations, that dogs are beings deserving of stable and loving homes.

What I Recommend to All ORICAL PUPPY OWNERS

As someone who puts a great deal of care into matching my puppies with the right homes, here is what I now recommend, especially if you are purchasing a dog as a couple:

• Agree in advance: Have a clear discussion (and ideally a written agreement) about what would happen to your dog if your relationship were to end.

• Keep good records: Vet bills, training receipts, grooming appointments, food purchases, these help demonstrate who is the primary caregiver.

• Prioritise the dogs wellbeing: If separation occurs, make decisions based on your dogs needs over your own.

• Seek early advice: If things become complicated, speak with a lawyer who understands the new laws and can help guide you with your dogs best interests in mind.

For Fellow Breeders

These changes also have implications for breeders. We may want to:

• Update our puppy contracts to reflect awareness of these new legal provisions.

• Have honest conversations with potential buyers about long term responsibility and what will happen if their circumstances change.

• Support our puppy families through changes in family circumstances.

• Updating our records of ownership where ownership is transferred from one person in a relationship to another.

• Consider implications for co-ownership/guardian contracts.

In Summary

The Family Law Amendment Act 2024 represents a progressive step in recognising the emotional role that companion animals, especially dogs, play in Australian households. By elevating pets beyond the status of property, and introducing a welfare based model for decision making, the legislation offers courts a fairer and more humane framework for resolving post separation disputes involving pets.

As community values evolve, so too must our legal systems. And in this case, the change is a welcome one.

If you’re a pet owner going through separation, or a breeder wanting to understand your responsibilities, get in touch with us. We’re here to help you make informed decisions.