Who Gets Fluffy? A Guide to the New Family Law Changes for Pet Custody

Understanding the Family Law Act 1975 amendments coming into effect June 10, 2025

Introduction: When Love Goes to the Dogs (Literally)

Picture this: You’re sitting across from your ex-partner in a lawyer’s office, and you’re not arguing about the house, the car, or even the kids’ school fees. No, you’re locked in heated debate about who gets to keep Mr. Whiskers, your beloved tabby cat who has the unfortunate habit of judging everyone with his piercing green eyes. Sound familiar? If you’ve found yourself in this situation, you’re certainly not alone, and more importantly, you’re about to have a lot more legal clarity about how these disputes will be resolved.

The relationship between humans and their pets has evolved dramatically over the past few decades. Gone are the days when Rover lived in a doghouse out the back and Fluffy was merely a mouse-catching employee. Today’s pets have Instagram accounts, wear designer outfits, and sleep in beds that cost more than some people’s cars. They’re not just animals; they’re family members with personalities, quirks, and an uncanny ability to sense exactly when you’re having a bad day and need a furry cuddle.

But what happens when the human family breaks down? When the relationship that brought these beloved creatures into your life comes to an end, who gets to keep them? Until now, the law has treated pets much like any other piece of property – similar to dividing up the furniture or deciding who keeps the good china. This approach, while legally sound, has often felt emotionally inadequate for people going through separation, particularly when children are involved and have formed strong bonds with the family pet.

The good news is that significant changes are coming to Australian family law, specifically designed to address these very concerns. From June 10, 2025, the Family Law Act 1975 will include new provisions that create a specific framework for dealing with companion animals in property settlement matters. These changes recognise that pets occupy a unique place in our families and deserve special consideration when relationships break down.

These amendments didn’t appear out of nowhere. They’re the result of years of advocacy, research, and recognition that the current system wasn’t adequately addressing the realities of modern family life. Legal professionals have long observed that pet disputes, while relatively rare in court, often cause disproportionate stress and conflict for separating couples. The emotional attachment people feel toward their pets can be just as strong as their attachment to other family members, yet the law has traditionally treated them as mere chattels.

The new changes also acknowledge a darker reality: that pets can sometimes become pawns in family violence situations. Perpetrators of domestic violence have been known to threaten, harm, or withhold pets as a means of controlling their victims. Victims may delay leaving dangerous situations because they fear for their pet’s safety or worry about losing access to an animal that provides emotional support during a traumatic time. The new legislation specifically addresses these concerns by making family violence history a relevant factor in determining pet ownership.

For self-represented litigants – people navigating the family law system without legal representation – these changes bring both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, there’s now a clear framework that courts must follow when making decisions about companion animals. The guesswork has been removed, and there are specific factors that judges must consider. On the other hand, like all legal proceedings, pet custody disputes can still be expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining.

This article aims to guide you through everything you need to know about these new provisions. We’ll explore what qualifies as a companion animal, what factors the court will consider when making decisions, and most importantly, what you can do to prepare if you find yourself in a pet custody dispute. We’ll also discuss practical strategies for avoiding court altogether, because let’s face it – most family budgets are better spent on pet food and vet bills than legal fees.

Whether you’re currently going through a separation, contemplating one, or simply want to understand how these new laws might affect you in the future, this guide will help you navigate what can be an emotionally charged and legally complex area of family law. After all, when it comes to our beloved pets, we all want what’s best for them – even when we can’t agree on what that looks like.

What’s Actually Changing? From Property to Family Member (Sort Of)

To understand the significance of these new changes, it’s helpful to first understand how the law currently treats pets. Under the existing Family Law Act 1975, pets are considered property – no different from a couch, a car, or a collection of vintage vinyl records. This means that when couples separate, any disputes about pets are resolved using the same legal principles that apply to dividing up other assets.

In practice, this has meant that courts have rarely made specific orders about pets, primarily because the financial value of most family pets is relatively low compared to the emotional attachment their owners feel. Think about it: your beloved Golden Retriever Charlie might be worth $500 according to classified ads, but his value to your family is immeasurable. He’s been there for birthday parties, comforted sick children, and somehow always knows exactly when someone needs a friendly face and a wagging tail. Try putting a price tag on that.

The few cases that have made it to court have typically involved either very expensive animals (think champion racehorses or rare breed dogs worth thousands of dollars) or situations where the pet dispute was just one small part of a much larger property settlement. Judges, faced with limited time and resources, have understandably prioritized resolving disputes about children, family homes, and significant financial assets over determining who gets to keep the family cat.

This practical reality has left many separating couples in a legal limbo when it comes to their pets. Without clear guidance from the courts, people have been forced to negotiate these disputes privately, often with mixed results. Some couples have managed to reach amicable agreements – perhaps the dog goes with whoever keeps the family home, or the cat stays with the person who works from home and can provide more companionship. Others have found themselves locked in bitter disputes that seem disproportionate to the “value” of what they’re fighting over, at least from a purely financial perspective.

The new amendments, which take effect on June 10, 2025, change this landscape significantly. While pets will still technically be considered property under the law, they’ll now be classified as “companion animals” – a special category of property that receives different treatment from other assets. This distinction is crucial because it acknowledges that pets aren’t just things we own; they’re living beings with whom we form emotional bonds and who depend on us for their care and wellbeing.

Under the new framework, courts will have specific powers to make orders about companion animals, including interim orders while cases are ongoing. This means that if you’re worried about your ex-partner taking the dog and disappearing, or if you’re concerned about a pet’s welfare during a lengthy legal process, you can ask the court to make temporary arrangements while your case is being resolved.

Perhaps most significantly, the new law provides a detailed list of factors that courts must consider when making decisions about companion animals. These factors go well beyond simple ownership or financial contribution and include considerations like emotional attachment, care-giving history, and the ability to provide ongoing care. For the first time, the law will explicitly recognize that the bond between humans and their pets is something worth protecting and considering in legal proceedings.

The changes also introduce an important limitation that might surprise some people: courts cannot make orders for shared ownership or shared care of companion animals. Unlike children, where shared parenting arrangements are common and often encouraged, pets can only have one legal owner under the new system. This might seem harsh, particularly for couples who have successfully co-parented their pets during the relationship, but it reflects practical realities about pet ownership and the legal system’s capacity to enforce complex arrangements.

This “one owner only” rule doesn’t mean that informal arrangements can’t be made between ex-partners. Nothing in the law prevents separated couples from agreeing that Fluffy will spend weekends with one person and weekdays with another, or that both parties will continue to contribute to veterinary expenses. However, these arrangements would be private agreements between the parties, not court orders that could be enforced through the legal system.

Another significant change is the explicit recognition of family violence as a relevant factor in pet custody decisions. This represents a major shift from the previous approach and acknowledges the complex role that pets can play in abusive relationships. Research has shown that domestic violence perpetrators often use pets as tools of control, either by threatening to harm them or by preventing victims from taking them when they leave. The new provisions ensure that courts can consider this history when determining who should have custody of a companion animal.

For people representing themselves in family law proceedings, these changes create both opportunities and responsibilities. On the positive side, there’s now a clear framework for pet custody disputes, which should make it easier to understand what factors will be relevant and what evidence might be helpful. The law provides a roadmap for these cases that didn’t exist before.

However, the changes also mean that pet custody disputes may become more complex and potentially more expensive. With a detailed list of factors to consider and specific legal procedures to follow, these cases may require more preparation and evidence than in the past. Self-represented litigants will need to understand not just what the law says, but how to present their case effectively within this new framework.

The timing of these changes is also worth noting. The amendments will apply to all property settlement proceedings commenced after June 10, 2025, as well as existing proceedings where a final hearing hasn’t yet begun. This means that if you’re currently going through a separation and expect to resolve property matters after the new law takes effect, these provisions will likely apply to your situation.

What Counts as a Companion Animal? It’s More Complicated Than You Think

One of the most important aspects of the new legislation is understanding exactly which animals qualify as “companion animals” under the law. This distinction is crucial because only animals that meet this definition will be subject to the new framework – other animals will continue to be treated as ordinary property under the existing rules.

At first glance, the definition seems straightforward: a companion animal is an animal kept primarily for companionship. Your family dog who greets you at the door every day with unbridled enthusiasm? Almost certainly a companion animal. Your cat who has perfected the art of ignoring you until dinner time but somehow always ends up sleeping on your bed? Also likely to qualify. But as with many legal definitions, the devil is in the details, and there are several important exclusions and limitations that might catch people by surprise.

The law specifically excludes several categories of animals from the companion animal definition. Assistance animals – such as guide dogs for the blind or hearing dogs for the deaf – are not considered companion animals under the new provisions. This might seem counterintuitive, given that these animals often form incredibly strong bonds with their handlers, but the exclusion reflects the fact that assistance animals serve a specific functional purpose and are often provided through specialized organizations with their own policies about ownership and care.

Animals kept as part of a business are also excluded from the companion animal definition. This covers a wide range of situations, from guard dogs at commercial properties to animals used in breeding operations. Even if you’ve formed a strong emotional attachment to Rex, the German Shepherd who guards your family’s small business, he wouldn’t qualify as a companion animal if his primary purpose is security rather than companionship.

Similarly, animals kept for agricultural purposes don’t qualify as companion animals, regardless of how much affection their owners might feel for them. This exclusion can be particularly challenging for people living in rural areas or those involved in small-scale farming operations. You might love your chickens, goats, or even your prize-winning bull, but if they’re primarily kept for agricultural purposes – whether that’s egg production, milk, or breeding – they won’t be covered by the new companion animal provisions.

The exclusion that often surprises people most is the rule about animals kept for multiple purposes. If an animal serves both as a companion and fulfills another function, it may not qualify as a companion animal under the new law. The classic example is a farm dog who provides companionship to the family but also works as a sheep dog or cattle dog. Even though this animal might be beloved by the family and sleep inside the house, if it has a significant working role, it might not meet the “primarily for companionship” test.

This multiple-purpose exclusion can create some difficult borderline cases. Consider a family who keeps a few chickens in their suburban backyard. The chickens provide eggs for the family table, but the children have named them, treat them as pets, and would be devastated if they were separated from them. Are these companion animals or agricultural animals? The answer might depend on the specific circumstances – how many eggs do they produce, how much of the family’s food supply do they represent, and how the family primarily views and treats them.

Laboratory animals used for testing or research are also explicitly excluded from the companion animal definition. This exclusion is relatively straightforward and unlikely to affect most family law cases, but it’s worth noting for completeness.

The “primarily for companionship” test is central to the definition and will likely be the focus of many disputes about whether particular animals qualify for protection under the new provisions. Courts will need to look at the specific circumstances of each case to determine what the animal’s primary purpose was during the relationship. Factors that might be relevant include where the animal lived, how it was cared for, what role it played in the family’s daily life, and how the parties themselves viewed and treated the animal.

For most traditional family pets, this determination will be relatively straightforward. Dogs and cats that live in the family home, sleep on furniture, receive regular veterinary care, and are treated as family members will almost certainly qualify as companion animals. The more challenging cases will involve animals that fall into gray areas – perhaps a horse that’s used for recreational riding but also provides emotional support, or a parrot that’s kept primarily for companionship but also has significant monetary value as a rare breed.

It’s also worth noting that the companion animal definition doesn’t include any restrictions based on the type or species of animal. While dogs and cats are the most common family pets, the definition could potentially cover a wide range of animals kept primarily for companionship – from rabbits and guinea pigs to more exotic pets like reptiles or birds. The key question isn’t what type of animal it is, but rather what purpose it serves in the family.

For self-represented litigants, understanding these definitional boundaries is crucial for determining whether the new provisions will apply to their situation. If your pet doesn’t qualify as a companion animal under the legal definition, your dispute will still be resolved under the general property settlement provisions of the Family Law Act. This doesn’t mean you can’t argue for custody of the animal, but it does mean that the specific factors and procedures outlined in the new companion animal provisions won’t apply.

If you’re unsure whether your pet qualifies as a companion animal, it’s worth gathering evidence about how the animal was kept and cared for during your relationship. Documentation showing that the animal lived in the family home, received regular veterinary care, was treated as a family member, and was kept primarily for companionship rather than any commercial or practical purpose will be helpful in establishing that it meets the legal definition.

The companion animal definition also raises interesting questions about timing. What happens if an animal’s role in the family changed over time? Perhaps a dog was initially purchased for security purposes but gradually became more of a family pet, or maybe a horse was bought for competitive riding but ended up being kept primarily for companionship after the owner’s interests changed. In these situations, courts will likely look at the animal’s primary purpose at the time of separation, though the animal’s history and the evolution of its role in the family might also be relevant factors.

The Eight Factors: What Courts Will Actually Consider

The heart of the new companion animal provisions lies in a detailed list of eight factors that courts must consider when making decisions about pet custody. These factors represent a significant departure from the traditional property-focused approach and acknowledge the complex emotional, practical, and safety considerations that surround companion animals in family breakdowns. Understanding these factors is crucial for anyone who might find themselves in a pet custody dispute, as they provide a roadmap for what evidence will be relevant and what arguments are likely to be persuasive.

Factor One: The Circumstances in Which the Companion Animal Was Acquired

The first factor requires courts to consider how the pet came into the family in the first place. This might seem like a simple question, but it can actually be quite complex and revealing. Did one partner surprise the other with a puppy for their birthday? Was the pet adopted jointly from a rescue organization? Did one person already own the animal before the relationship began? Was the pet purchased to fulfill a specific role, such as providing security or companionship for children?

The circumstances of acquisition can provide important insights into the parties’ intentions and expectations about pet ownership. If Sarah bought a kitten as a surprise gift for her partner Emma’s birthday, this might suggest that Sarah intended the cat to belong to Emma. Conversely, if both partners went to the animal shelter together, filled out adoption paperwork jointly, and made a deliberate decision to add a pet to their family, this might indicate shared ownership intentions.

The timing of acquisition can also be significant. A pet that was brought into the relationship early on might be viewed differently from one that was acquired shortly before separation. Similarly, pets that were owned by one partner before the relationship began might be treated differently from those acquired during the relationship, though this isn’t automatically determinative.

Documentation can be particularly important for this factor. Adoption papers, purchase receipts, registration documents, and even social media posts about getting a new pet can all provide evidence about the circumstances of acquisition. If you’re going through a separation and expect a pet custody dispute, gathering this type of documentation early can be helpful.

Factor Two: Who Has Ownership or Possession of the Companion Animal

The second factor looks at the current legal and practical ownership of the pet. This includes formal ownership indicators like registration papers, microchip records, and veterinary records, as well as practical considerations about who currently has physical possession of the animal.

Formal ownership documents can be powerful evidence, but they’re not necessarily determinative. Many couples don’t think carefully about whose name goes on pet registration papers, and these decisions are often made for practical rather than ownership reasons. Perhaps the registration is in one person’s name simply because they were the one who happened to be available when the paperwork needed to be completed.

Physical possession at the time of separation can also be significant, though courts will be careful not to reward people who simply take pets without agreement. If one partner moved out of the family home and left the pet behind, this might be seen as an indication of their priorities or practical circumstances rather than a relinquishment of ownership claims.

The key is to look at the totality of the evidence rather than focusing on any single indicator. A person whose name isn’t on the registration papers might still have a strong claim to a pet if they can demonstrate significant involvement in the animal’s care and a strong emotional bond.

Factor Three: The Extent to Which Each Party Cared for and Paid for the Maintenance of the Companion Animal

This factor examines the practical reality of pet ownership during the relationship. Who took the dog for walks? Who fed the cat every morning? Who took time off work to take the pet to veterinary appointments? Who paid for food, toys, grooming, and medical care? These day-to-day responsibilities often provide the clearest picture of who was truly responsible for the pet’s wellbeing.

Courts will be interested in both the physical care and the financial responsibility for pets. Physical care includes feeding, exercise, grooming, training, and general companionship. Financial responsibility covers veterinary bills, food, toys, bedding, grooming costs, boarding fees, and other pet-related expenses.

It’s worth noting that care responsibilities often aren’t divided equally in relationships, and this doesn’t necessarily indicate different levels of attachment or commitment. One partner might work from home and therefore handle most of the day-to-day care, while the other partner might be responsible for most of the financial costs. Courts will consider the overall pattern of care rather than expecting perfect equality.

Documentation can be particularly valuable for this factor. Veterinary records showing who brought the pet to appointments, receipts for pet food and supplies, records of grooming appointments, and even photos showing daily care activities can all be relevant evidence. If you’re concerned about a potential pet custody dispute, keeping records of your involvement in your pet’s care can be helpful.

Factor Four: Any Family Violence to Which One Party Has Subjected or Exposed the Other Party

This factor represents one of the most significant changes in the new legislation and acknowledges the complex role that pets can play in family violence situations. Research has consistently shown that domestic violence perpetrators often use pets as tools of control, either by threatening to harm them, actually harming them, or preventing victims from taking them when they leave dangerous situations.

The inclusion of family violence as a relevant factor serves multiple purposes. First, it recognises that victims of family violence may have delayed leaving dangerous situations because of concerns about their pets’ safety. Second, it acknowledges that pets can provide crucial emotional support to people recovering from trauma. Third, it ensures that perpetrators of family violence can’t use pet custody disputes as another means of continuing to control or harass their victims.

Courts will consider any history of family violence between the parties, regardless of whether the violence was directed at the pet. The logic is that someone who has been violent toward their partner poses a potential risk to vulnerable family members, including pets. This doesn’t mean that anyone with a history of family violence will automatically lose pet custody, but it does mean that this history will be a significant factor in the court’s decision-making.

The definition of family violence under the Family Law Act is quite broad and includes not just physical violence but also emotional, psychological, and economic abuse. Threats, intimidation, controlling behavior, and financial abuse can all constitute family violence for the purposes of this factor.

Factor Five: Any History of Actual or Threatened Cruelty or Abuse by a Party Towards the Companion Animal

While the previous factor deals with violence between the human parties, this factor specifically addresses any history of cruelty or abuse toward the pet itself. This can include physical abuse, neglect, threats to harm the animal, or any other behaviour that demonstrates a disregard for the pet’s welfare.

Animal cruelty can take many forms, from obvious physical abuse to more subtle forms of neglect or emotional abuse. Courts will be interested in any evidence that one party has harmed the pet, threatened to harm it, or failed to provide appropriate care. This might include withholding food or water, failing to provide necessary veterinary care, using excessive force in training or discipline, or making threats to harm or kill the animal.

Even threats that weren’t carried out can be significant under this factor. If one partner threatened to “get rid of” the pet during arguments, or made statements about harming the animal, this could be relevant evidence even if no actual harm occurred.

This factor also recognises that animal abuse and domestic violence often occur together. Research has shown that people who abuse animals are more likely to abuse humans, and that animal abuse often escalates alongside other forms of family violence.

Factor Six: Any Attachment by a Party, or a Child of the Marriage, to the Companion Animal

This factor explicitly recognises that emotional attachment is a legitimate consideration in pet custody decisions. This represents a significant departure from traditional property law approaches and acknowledges that the bond between humans and their pets is something worth protecting.

The factor covers attachment by both the adult parties and any children of the relationship. Children’s attachment to pets can be particularly significant, especially in situations where the family is already dealing with the trauma of separation. Pets often provide stability and comfort to children during difficult transitions, and maintaining these relationships can be important for children’s emotional wellbeing.

Evidence of attachment might include the pet’s behaviour around different family members, sleeping arrangements, play patterns, and the emotional responses of both humans and animals to separation. Photos and videos showing interactions between family members and the pet can be valuable evidence, as can testimony from friends, family members, or even veterinarians who have observed these relationships.

It’s important to note that attachment can be mutual – courts might consider not just how attached humans are to their pets, but also how attached pets are to particular family members. While pets can’t testify about their preferences, their behaviour can provide insights into their bonds with different people. 

Factor Seven: The Demonstrated Ability of Each Party to Care for and Maintain the Companion Animal in the Future 

This forward-looking factor requires courts to consider each party’s practical ability to provide appropriate care for the pet going forward. This includes both the physical and financial capacity to meet the animal’s needs, as well as the lifestyle factors that might affect the quality of care. 

Physical capacity includes having appropriate housing for the pet, sufficient time to provide necessary care, and the physical ability to meet the animal’s exercise and attention needs. A person who works long hours and travels frequently might have more difficulty providing appropriate care for a high-energy dog than someone with a more flexible schedule. 

Financial capacity is also important, particularly for pets with ongoing medical needs or expensive care requirements. Veterinary bills can be substantial, especially for older animals or those with chronic health conditions. Courts will consider whether each party has the financial resources to provide necessary care without causing financial hardship. 

Lifestyle factors can also be relevant. Does one party live in an apartment that doesn’t allow pets? Has someone moved to a location where the pet would be isolated from veterinary care? Are there other pets or family members in the household that might not be compatible with the companion animal? 

This factor also considers the stability of each party’s living situation. Someone who is still in the process of finding permanent housing might be less well-positioned to care for a pet than someone who has already established a stable home environment. 

Factor Eight: Any Other Fact or Circumstance Which, in the Opinion of the Court, the Justice of the Case Requires to be Taken Into Account 

The final factor is a catch-all provision that allows courts to consider any other relevant circumstances that might not fit neatly into the other categories. This flexibility is important because pet custody situations can involve unique circumstances that the drafters of the legislation couldn’t anticipate. 

This factor might cover considerations like the pet’s age and health status, special training or behavioural needs, the presence of other pets in each household, or unique circumstances about the pet’s history or requirements. It also allows courts to consider the overall fairness of the situation and to take into account any other factors that seem relevant to achieving a just outcome. 

The inclusion of this catch-all factor reflects the recognition that pet custody disputes can be highly individual and that rigid rules might not always produce fair results. It gives courts the flexibility to consider the unique circumstances of each case and to craft solutions that serve the best interests of both the pet and the human family members. 

Preparing for Battle: How to Build Your Case (Without Going Broke) 

If you’re facing a potential pet custody dispute, or if you want to be prepared for the possibility, there are practical steps you can take to strengthen your position under the new legal framework. The good news is that most of the evidence you’ll need is probably already in your possession or easily obtainable. The key is knowing what to look for and how to organise it effectively. 

Documentation: Your New Best Friend (After Your Pet) 

The foundation of any successful pet custody case is good documentation. Courts make decisions based on evidence, not emotions, so having clear records of your relationship with your pet can make the difference between winning and losing your case. Start by gathering any formal documents related to your pet’s ownership and care. 

Adoption papers or purchase receipts are obvious starting points, but don’t overlook other important documents. Veterinary records can be particularly valuable because they often show who brought the pet to appointments, who authorised treatments, and who was listed as the primary contact. If you’ve been the one taking Fluffy to her annual check-ups and dealing with her various health issues, these records will reflect that involvement. 

Registration documents, microchip records, and pet insurance policies can also be important. While having your name on these documents doesn’t automatically make you the owner, it does suggest a level of responsibility and involvement that courts will consider. If the registration is in your ex-partner’s name but you’ve been paying the renewal fees, gather those payment records as well. 

Keep receipts for pet-related expenses, including food, toys, grooming, boarding, and medical care. These don’t need to be perfectly organized – even a shoebox full of receipts can tell a story about who was financially responsible for the pet’s care. Credit card statements and bank records can also help establish patterns of pet-related spending. 

Don’t forget about the less obvious documentation. Photos and videos of you with your pet can be powerful evidence of your bond and involvement in their care. Social media posts about your pet, particularly those showing daily activities like walks, playtime, or training, can demonstrate your ongoing relationship. Even text messages between you and your partner about pet care responsibilities can be relevant evidence. 

Building Your Care History 

One of the most important factors courts will consider is who actually cared for the pet during the relationship. This goes beyond just who paid the bills – courts want to know who was involved in the day-to-day reality of pet ownership. Start documenting your care activities now, even if you’re not currently in a dispute. 

Keep a simple diary or log of your pet care activities. Note when you feed the pet, take them for walks, play with them, or handle other care responsibilities. You don’t need to document every single interaction, but having a record of your regular involvement can be helpful. If your pet has special needs or requires medication, document your role in managing these requirements. 

If you work from home or have a flexible schedule that allows you to spend more time with your pet, document this advantage. Photos of your pet in your home office or videos of them keeping you company during the day can demonstrate the practical benefits of your living situation for the pet’s wellbeing. 

Consider asking friends, family members, or neighbors who have observed your relationship with your pet to provide written statements about what they’ve witnessed. These don’t need to be formal legal documents – simple letters describing your interactions with your pet, your level of care and responsibility, and the bond they’ve observed can be valuable evidence. 

Addressing Safety Concerns 

If family violence or animal abuse is a factor in your situation, documenting these concerns is crucial but requires careful consideration of safety issues. If you’re in immediate danger, your safety and that of your children should always be the top priority, even if it means temporarily leaving your pet behind. 

If it’s safe to do so, document any incidents of violence or threats involving your pet. This might include photos of injuries to the animal, veterinary records showing treatment for suspicious injuries, or records of threats made against the pet. Text messages, emails, or social media posts that contain threats against your pet can also be important evidence. 

If you’ve had to seek help from domestic violence services, police, or other support agencies, these records may also be relevant to your pet custody case. Many domestic violence support services now recognise the importance of pets to victims and may be able to provide assistance or documentation about your concerns for your pet’s safety. 

Consider whether your pet might be safer in temporary care with a trusted friend or family member while you resolve your legal situation. This can be particularly important if you’re concerned about your ex-partner using the pet to manipulate or control you during the separation process. 

Understanding the Financial Reality 

Before diving into a pet custody dispute, it’s important to understand the potential costs involved. While the new legislation provides a clearer framework for these cases, they can still be expensive and time-consuming. Court filing fees, legal representation costs, and the time required to prepare and present your case can add up quickly. 

Consider whether the dispute is really worth the potential costs. If you’re fighting over a young, healthy pet that you expect to live for many years, the investment in legal proceedings might be justified. However, if your pet is elderly or has significant health issues, you might want to focus your resources on providing the best possible care for their remaining time rather than fighting over custody. 

Explore alternatives to court proceedings before committing to litigation. Mediation or collaborative law approaches might help you and your ex-partner reach an agreement about pet custody without the expense and stress of court proceedings. Many family law practitioners now offer services specifically designed to help couples resolve pet custody disputes outside of court. 

If you do decide to proceed with court action, consider whether you can represent yourself or whether you need legal assistance. The new legislation provides a clearer framework for pet custody cases, which might make self-representation more feasible than in the past. However, if your case involves complex issues like family violence, significant financial assets, or other complicating factors, professional legal advice might be worth the investment. 

Practical Considerations for Pet Welfare 

While you’re focused on building your legal case, don’t lose sight of what’s actually best for your pet. The stress of separation and potential legal proceedings can be difficult for animals, who may not understand why their routine has been disrupted or why there’s tension in the household. 

Try to maintain as much stability as possible for your pet during the separation process. Keep their feeding, exercise, and sleep routines as consistent as possible. If you and your ex-partner are still communicating, try to coordinate pet care responsibilities to minimize disruption to the animal’s routine. 

Consider your pet’s specific needs and temperament when thinking about custody arrangements. Some animals are more adaptable to change than others. A young, social dog might adjust well to a new living situation, while an older cat might be more stressed by changes to their environment. 

Think about the practical implications of different custody arrangements. If you’re hoping to keep your pet, make sure you have appropriate housing, sufficient time for care, and the financial resources to meet their needs. Courts will be looking at your ability to provide ongoing care, not just your emotional attachment to the animal. 

Timing and Strategic Considerations 

The timing of when you raise pet custody issues can be important. If you’re dealing with multiple family law matters – such as property settlement, spousal maintenance, and parenting arrangements – consider how pet custody fits into your overall strategy. 

Courts have limited time and resources, and they may prioritize other issues if they seem more urgent or significant. 

If you’re concerned about your pet’s immediate safety or welfare, don’t wait to seek help. The new legislation allows courts to make interim orders about companion animals, which means you can ask for temporary arrangements while your case is being resolved. This can be particularly important if you’re worried about your ex-partner taking the pet or if there are safety concerns. 

Consider whether pet custody is likely to be a contested issue or whether you might be able to reach an agreement with your ex-partner. If you’re both reasonable people who want what’s best for your pet, you might be able to negotiate an arrangement that works for everyone without involving the courts. However, if there’s a history of conflict or if your ex-partner has already indicated they intend to fight for custody, you’ll need to be prepared for a more adversarial process. 

Remember that the new legislation takes effect on June 10, 2025. If your separation occurs before this date, the old rules will apply unless your case is still ongoing when the new law takes effect. This timing might influence your decisions about when and how to raise pet custody issues. 

Avoiding the Courtroom: Creative Solutions for Pet Custody 

While the new legislation provides a clear framework for resolving pet custody disputes through the courts, litigation should generally be considered a last resort. Court proceedings are expensive, time-consuming, and emotionally draining for everyone involved – including your pet, who may be stressed by the ongoing conflict and uncertainty. Fortunately, there are several alternative approaches that can help separating couples reach agreements about pet custody without the need for formal legal proceedings. 

The Art of Negotiation: Finding Common Ground 

The most straightforward alternative to court proceedings is direct negotiation between you and your ex-partner. This approach works best when both parties are reasonable, communicative, and genuinely interested in finding a solution that works for everyone – including the pet. While emotions may be running high during a separation, try to approach pet custody discussions with a focus on practical considerations and the animal’s best interests. 

Start by having an honest conversation about each person’s living situation, work schedule, financial resources, and ability to provide ongoing care. Sometimes these practical realities make the decision relatively straightforward. If one person is moving to an apartment that doesn’t allow pets while the other is keeping the family home with a fenced yard, the practical choice might be obvious. 

Consider your pet’s specific needs and preferences. Some animals are more adaptable to change than others, and some have special requirements that might be easier for one person to meet. An elderly dog with mobility issues might be better suited to a ground- floor apartment than a house with stairs. A high-energy working breed might thrive with someone who has time for long daily hikes, while a lap cat might be happier with someone who works from home. 

Be prepared to compromise and think creatively about solutions. Maybe one person keeps the pet but the other contributes to veterinary expenses. Perhaps the pet stays with whoever keeps the family home, but the other person has regular visitation rights. Some couples even agree to revisit the arrangement after a trial period to see how it’s working for everyone involved. 

If direct negotiation isn’t working, consider involving a neutral third party to help facilitate discussions. This doesn’t necessarily mean hiring expensive lawyers – sometimes a trusted friend, family member, or counsellor can help you work through the practical and emotional issues involved in pet custody decisions. 

Mediation: Professional Help Without the Courtroom Drama 

Family mediation is a structured process where a neutral third party helps separating couples reach agreements about various issues, including pet custody. Mediators are trained to help people communicate effectively, identify common interests, and develop creative solutions that might not be available through court proceedings. 

The mediation process typically involves several sessions where both parties meet with the mediator to discuss their concerns, explore options, and work toward an agreement. The mediator doesn’t make decisions for you – instead, they help facilitate productive conversations and guide you toward solutions that work for your specific situation. 

One of the advantages of mediation is that it allows for much more flexible and creative solutions than court proceedings. Courts are limited to making orders within the framework of the law, but in mediation, you can agree to almost any arrangement that works for your family. This might include shared care arrangements, financial contributions from both parties, or other creative solutions that wouldn’t be available through litigation. 

Mediation is also generally much less expensive than court proceedings and can be completed much more quickly. While a court case might take months or even years to resolve, mediation can often be completed in a few sessions over a matter of weeks. 

Many family law practitioners now offer mediation services specifically designed for pet custody disputes. These mediators understand both the legal framework and the emotional complexities involved in these cases, and they can help you navigate both the practical and emotional aspects of reaching an agreement. 

Collaborative Law: Working Together Toward Solutions 

Collaborative law is another alternative dispute resolution process that can be particularly effective for pet custody disputes. In collaborative law, both parties hire specially trained lawyers who commit to working together to reach an agreement without going to court. If the collaborative process breaks down and court proceedings become necessary, both lawyers must withdraw and the parties must hire new representation. 

This commitment to avoiding court proceedings creates strong incentives for everyone involved to work constructively toward solutions. The collaborative process often involves other professionals as well, such as financial advisors, child specialists, or even animal behaviourists who can provide expert input about what arrangements might work best for your specific pet. 

Collaborative law can be particularly helpful when pet custody is just one of several issues that need to be resolved in a separation. The process allows you to address all of your family law issues in a coordinated way, which can lead to more comprehensive and workable solutions. 

Practical Arrangements: Making It Work Day-to-Day 

Regardless of which dispute resolution process you use, you’ll need to think carefully about the practical arrangements for pet care. Unlike child custody arrangements, which have well-established frameworks and support systems, pet custody arrangements are still relatively new territory, and you’ll need to work out many of the details yourselves. 

Consider how you’ll handle ongoing expenses like veterinary care, food, grooming, and boarding. Will one person be responsible for all costs, or will you share expenses? How will you make decisions about medical care, particularly expensive treatments or end- of-life decisions? What happens if one person wants to move to a location that would make the current arrangement impractical? 

Think about how you’ll communicate about your pet’s needs and wellbeing. Will you use text messages, email, or a shared app to coordinate care and share information? How will you handle emergencies or unexpected situations? What happens if your pet becomes ill or injured while in the other person’s care? 

Consider whether you want to formalise your agreement in writing, even if you’re not going through court proceedings. A written agreement can help prevent misunderstandings and provide a reference point if disputes arise in the future. You don’t need a lawyer to draft a simple agreement – just make sure it covers the key issues and that both parties understand and agree to the terms. 

When Alternative Approaches Don’t Work 

Despite your best efforts, some pet custody disputes simply can’t be resolved through negotiation, mediation, or collaborative law. This might be the case if there are serious safety concerns, if one party is being unreasonable or manipulative, or if there are complex legal issues that require court intervention. 

If you’ve tried alternative approaches without success, don’t feel guilty about pursuing court proceedings. The new legislation exists precisely because lawmakers recognized that pet custody disputes can be serious matters that sometimes require formal legal resolution. Courts have the authority to make binding decisions and enforce their orders, which can be necessary in high-conflict situations. 

Before giving up on alternative approaches entirely, consider whether the timing might be wrong rather than the approach itself. Sometimes people need time to process the emotional aspects of separation before they can engage constructively in problem- solving. What seems impossible immediately after separation might become more manageable after a few months of adjustment. 

Also consider whether there are underlying issues that are making pet custody negotiations more difficult than they need to be. Sometimes disputes about pets are really about other issues – control, hurt feelings, or concerns about children. Addressing these underlying issues might make it easier to reach an agreement about pet custody.

The Role of Professional Support 

Regardless of which approach you choose for resolving pet custody issues, consider whether you might benefit from professional support to help you navigate the emotional aspects of the process. Separation is stressful under the best of circumstances, and disputes about beloved pets can add an extra layer of emotional complexity. 

Counselling or therapy can help you process your feelings about the separation and develop coping strategies for dealing with conflict. This can make you more effective in negotiations and help you focus on practical solutions rather than getting caught up in emotional reactions. 

If you have children, consider how pet custody arrangements might affect them and whether they might benefit from professional support as well. Children often form strong bonds with family pets, and losing access to a beloved animal can be another significant loss during an already difficult time. 

Some communities have support groups for people going through separation or divorce, and these can be valuable sources of practical advice and emotional support. While pet custody might not be the primary focus of these groups, other members may have faced similar challenges and can share their experiences and strategies.

Special Considerations: When Things Get Complicated 

While the basic framework for companion animal disputes is relatively straightforward, certain situations require additional consideration and careful planning. These special circumstances can significantly impact how pet custody disputes are resolved and what arrangements are likely to work in practice.

Family Violence: When Safety Comes First 

The inclusion of family violence as a specific factor in pet custody decisions represents one of the most important changes in the new legislation. This recognition acknowledges the complex role that pets can play in abusive relationships and the additional barriers that victims may face when trying to leave dangerous situations. 

Research has consistently shown that domestic violence perpetrators often use pets as tools of control and manipulation. This can take many forms: threatening to harm or kill the pet if the victim leaves, actually harming the animal as a way of demonstrating power and control, preventing the victim from taking the pet when they leave, or using pet custody disputes as a way of maintaining contact and continuing harassment after separation. 

For victims of family violence, the safety of their pets can be a significant factor in their decision-making about when and how to leave abusive relationships. Many domestic violence shelters historically haven’t been able to accommodate pets, which has forced victims to choose between their own safety and their pet’s wellbeing. While this situation is gradually improving, with more shelters developing pet-friendly policies or partnerships with animal welfare organisations, it remains a significant practical barrier for many people. 

If you’re in a family violence situation and are concerned about your pet’s safety, there are several steps you can take to protect both yourself and your animal. Many domestic violence support services now recognize the importance of pets to victims and can provide advice about safe options for pet care during crisis situations. Some communities have foster care programs specifically designed to provide temporary homes for pets belonging to domestic violence victims. 

When documenting family violence for the purposes of pet custody proceedings, remember that the court will consider violence between the human parties even if it wasn’t directed at the pet. However, if your abuser has also threatened or harmed your pet, this additional evidence can be particularly powerful in demonstrating the risk they pose to vulnerable family members. 

Safety planning for pet custody situations requires careful consideration of how to minimise ongoing contact with an abusive ex-partner. The new legislation’s prohibition on shared custody arrangements for pets can actually be helpful in this context, as it eliminates the need for ongoing coordination and communication that might provide opportunities for continued abuse. 

If you’re representing yourself in court proceedings involving family violence, consider whether you might be eligible for special protections or accommodations. Many courts have procedures designed to help protect victims of family violence during legal proceedings, such as separate waiting areas, security escorts, or the ability to give evidence via video link. 

Children and Pet Custody: Balancing Competing Interests 

When children are involved in family breakdowns, pet custody decisions become even more complex. Children often form incredibly strong bonds with family pets, and these relationships can provide crucial emotional support during the difficult transition of family separation. However, the legal framework for pet custody is quite different from the framework for child custody, which can create some challenging situations. 

Unlike decisions about children, where the child’s best interests are the paramount consideration, pet custody decisions are made using property law principles, albeit with the special considerations outlined in the companion animal provisions. This means that what might be best for the children isn’t necessarily determinative of where the pet will live. 

The new legislation does recognize children’s attachment to companion animals as a relevant factor, which is an important acknowledgment of these relationships. However, this is just one of eight factors that courts must consider, and it must be balanced against other considerations like the adults’ ability to provide care, financial resources, and safety concerns. 

In practice, this can create some difficult situations. Imagine a scenario where the children are spending most of their time with one parent, but that parent lives in an apartment that doesn’t allow pets, while the other parent has a house with a yard but sees the children less frequently. The children might benefit from having their beloved dog with them most of the time, but the practical realities might make this impossible. 

When negotiating pet custody arrangements, try to consider how they will interact with your parenting arrangements. If possible, arrangements that allow children to maintain contact with beloved pets can provide additional stability during a difficult time. This might mean that the pet stays with whoever has the family home, regardless of other factors, or it might involve creative arrangements that allow the pet to spend time with the children even if they can’t live together full-time. 

Remember that children’s needs and circumstances can change over time. A pet custody arrangement that works when children are young might need to be revisited as they get older and their living arrangements or preferences change. While the law doesn’t provide for automatic review of pet custody orders, nothing prevents separated parents from agreeing to modify their arrangements if circumstances change. 

Different Pets, Different Considerations 

While dogs and cats are the most common subjects of pet custody disputes, the companion animal definition can potentially cover a wide range of animals, each with their own specific needs and considerations. Understanding these differences can be important for developing appropriate custody arrangements and presenting effective arguments to courts. 

Dogs are often the most complex pets to deal with in custody disputes because they typically require the most active care and have the strongest bonds with their human families. Different breeds have vastly different needs – a Border Collie requires much more exercise and mental stimulation than a Pug, and these differences might be relevant to determining who can provide appropriate care. Working breeds might be particularly challenging if they’ve been trained for specific tasks or if they have strong bonds with particular family members. 

Cats are often seen as more independent than dogs, but they can actually be quite sensitive to changes in their environment. Older cats, in particular, might be significantly stressed by moving to a new home, which could be a relevant factor in custody decisions. Indoor cats might have different considerations than cats that are used to outdoor access, particularly if one party’s new living situation doesn’t allow for the same level of freedom. 

Smaller pets like rabbits, guinea pigs, or birds might seem less significant than dogs or cats, but they can still be the subject of genuine attachment and disputes. These animals often have specific housing and care requirements that might be easier for one party to meet than the other. Exotic pets might require specialized veterinary care that’s only available in certain locations, which could be a relevant factor in custody decisions. 

Horses and other large animals present unique challenges in custody disputes. These animals are expensive to maintain and require specialized facilities, which might limit the practical options for custody arrangements. The boarding and care costs for horses can be substantial, and courts will need to consider whether both parties have the financial resources to provide appropriate care. 

Financial Considerations: The Real Cost of Pet Custody 

One aspect of pet custody that’s often overlooked until it becomes a problem is the ongoing financial responsibility involved in pet ownership. While the emotional bond with a pet might be priceless, the practical costs of pet care can be substantial, particularly for animals with special needs or health issues. 

Veterinary costs have increased significantly in recent years, and emergency medical treatment for pets can cost thousands of dollars. Routine care like vaccinations, dental cleanings, and preventive treatments can also add up over time. When negotiating pet custody arrangements, consider how these costs will be handled and whether both parties have the financial resources to meet their pet’s needs. 

Some pets have ongoing medical conditions that require expensive treatments or medications. If your pet has diabetes, kidney disease, or other chronic conditions, the cost of ongoing care might be a significant factor in determining who can realistically provide appropriate care. Courts will consider each party’s financial capacity as part of their assessment of ability to provide future care. 

Don’t forget about the other costs associated with pet ownership: food, grooming, boarding, pet insurance, licensing, and replacement of toys and equipment. These might seem like small expenses individually, but they can add up to significant amounts over the lifetime of a pet. 

If you’re considering pursuing a pet custody dispute through the courts, factor in the legal costs as well. Court filing fees, legal representation, and the time required to prepare and present your case can be substantial. Make sure you have a realistic understanding of both the potential costs and the likelihood of success before committing to litigation. 

Geographic Considerations: When Distance Matters 

In our increasingly mobile society, it’s not uncommon for separated couples to end up living in different cities, states, or even countries. When this happens, pet custody arrangements can become significantly more complicated, particularly if both parties want to maintain a relationship with the pet. 

Unlike children, who can travel relatively easily and who benefit from maintaining relationships with both parents regardless of distance, pets face more practical limitations when it comes to long-distance arrangements. The stress of frequent travel can be significant for animals, and the costs of transportation can be prohibitive. 

If one party is planning to move a significant distance away, this might effectively end any possibility of shared arrangements for pet care. Courts will need to consider whether it’s in the pet’s best interests to maintain some connection with both parties or whether the disruption of travel outweighs the benefits. 

International moves can create additional complications, particularly if there are quarantine requirements or restrictions on bringing certain types of animals into different countries. These practical barriers might make it impossible for pets to maintain relationships with both parties after separation. 

When negotiating pet custody arrangements, be realistic about the practical implications of geographic distance. While it might be emotionally difficult to accept that distance will limit your relationship with a beloved pet, arrangements that require frequent long-distance travel are often not sustainable in practice and may not be in the pet’s best interests.