Pets As Property

A pet is an adored companion for many people. A national survey in 2019 found more than 60% of dog and cat owners referred to their pet as a family member, and the term “fur baby” was added to both the Oxford English and Macquarie dictionaries in 2015. So, it’s not surprising that custody of a pet is becoming a priority issue in family disputes before the courts.

Until recently there were no specific provisions in the Family Law Act 1975 that deal with pets. Pets are considered property and in June 2025, the Act defined family pets as companion animals meaning an animal kept by the parties (jointly or by either of them) for the purpose of companionship and does not include assistance animals or animals for businesses, agriculture and or lab testing. 

The Court can only make an orders that: 

1. one party is to own the family pet;
2. Ownership of the family pet be transferred to another person who consents to the transfer of ownership; or 
3. the family pet be sold.

The custody process

The Court cannot make orders for shared care of the family pet. Parties to a property settlement dispute are encouraged to resolve the issues of pet ownership before starting legal proceedings.

If an agreement cannot be reached by the parties, then the Court will consider factors such as:

• the circumstances in which the pet was acquired;
• who has ownership or possession of the pet;
• the extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the pet;
• any family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other party;
• any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the pet;
• any attachment by a party, or a child of the marriage, to the pet;
• the demonstrated ability of each party to care for and maintain the pet in the future, without support or involvement from the other party; and 
• any other fact or circumstance which, in the opinion of the court, the justice of the case requires to be taken into account.

Cases

Case law reflects the complex judicial approach to the custody of pets, and the court’s discretion in determining the nature of relationships in the context of family law.

Grunseth & Wighton [2022]

In a major, pre-amendment case, the full court overturned the trial judge’s decision for the family pet “Roxy” to remain with the Husband based on “emotional attachment”. In making their decision the Full Court considered the following facts: 

• Roxy was registered in the wife’s name; 
• The wife paid for Roxy and her desexing operation;
• The wife paid for Roxy’s day-to-day care costs; 
• The husband’s daughter from a previous relationship who had formed an emotional attachment to Roxy was not a party to the proceedings. 

In coming to their decision, the Full Court emphasized that pets are property and, at that time, emotional attachment was deemed irrelevant compared to monetary value.

Arena & Arena (No 4) [2024]

In this case, the Husband sought that the family pet travelled between households with the children despite being registered to the Wife and remaining in the Wife’s property post-separation. The court refused to make orders regarding the family pet to avoid escalating conflict between parents, ensuring the focus remained on children.

For advice about the custody of pets, or on any legal matter, please contact Armstrong Legal.