When a relationship ends, the fight over who keeps the dog used to be settled the same way as a fight over the couch. The pet went to whoever could show the stronger claim to ownership, and the animal's welfare, or the child who cried themselves to sleep without it, barely entered the conversation. That changed on 10 June 2025, when the companion animal provisions of the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 (Cth) came into effect and gave the Family Law Act 1975 its first ever framework for pets. Dogs and cats are still property in the eyes of the law, but they are now a distinct kind of property, and courts must weigh factors that would have been irrelevant a year earlier. For separating couples, that shift changes both what you can ask for and how you should plan for it.
What the law now recognises as a companion animal
The starting point is a definition. Under section 4(1) of the Family Law Act 1975, a companion animal is an animal kept by the parties primarily for companionship. That captures the family dog, the household cat and most other pets people share a home with. It deliberately leaves out several categories: assistance animals such as guide dogs, animals kept as part of a business, animals kept for agricultural purposes, and animals used in laboratory testing. A working sheep dog on a farm, or a racehorse held as an investment, falls outside the definition and is dealt with as ordinary property, the way it always was.
The dual-purpose test matters here. An animal kept for more than one reason is excluded, so a dog that offers companionship but also herds stock on a working farm is not a companion animal under the Act. That line will occasionally be argued over, because plenty of pets do a little of everything, but the core intent is clear: the reforms are aimed at the animals people treat as family, not the ones they treat as tools or assets.
Being a companion animal does not lift the pet out of the property pool. It stays part of the property settlement. What changes is that the court now has bespoke powers and a bespoke checklist for deciding where it ends up, rather than shoehorning the question into a generic ownership analysis.
The legal framework: three orders, and no shared custody
This is where many people are caught out. The reforms did not create pet custody in the sense of shared time. Under the new subsections in sections 79(6) and 90SM(6) of the Family Law Act 1975, a court dealing with a companion animal has exactly three options. It can order that one party has sole ownership, it can order that the animal be transferred to a third person who consents to take it, or it can order that the animal be sold. That is the whole menu. The court cannot order shared ownership, shared care, or a "week about" arrangement, and it cannot make a "time with the dog" order the way it makes parenting orders for children.
If you want an ongoing shared routine, where the dog spends alternate fortnights with each of you, that has to be agreed privately between you and your former partner, because no court can impose it. This is a deliberate design choice, meant to avoid turning pets into the subject of the kind of drawn-out care litigation the system reserves for children.
When the court does have to decide, it must now work through a defined list of factors. It considers any history of actual or threatened abuse towards the animal, including where that abuse forms part of family violence in the relationship. It considers the attachment each party, and any child of the relationship, has to the animal. And it considers each party's practical ability to care for the animal in the future, taking in things like housing, finances and lifestyle. The court has broad discretion in how it weighs these. The full framework, including how these provisions sit alongside the wider property changes, is set out in the Attorney-General's Department guidance on the June 2025 family law changes.
Family violence and the welfare of the animal
One of the quieter but more significant parts of the reform is how it treats cruelty. Research has long linked animal abuse with domestic violence, and the Act now reflects that. A history of harming or threatening a pet is something the court must take into account, and threats to a companion animal can themselves form part of the family violence the court considers across the whole property settlement. Withholding a pet to cause distress, or using an animal as leverage, sits uncomfortably close to the economic and coercive conduct the reforms also elevated.
For anyone leaving an unsafe relationship, this recognition has real weight. It means the animal's safety is no longer an afterthought, and evidence about how a pet was treated can influence who keeps it. If safety is a live concern, that is a matter to raise early and document carefully, and it often sits alongside the broader financial and property questions that a binding financial agreement or consent orders are designed to resolve. Where children are attached to the pet, the interplay with their arrangements also becomes relevant, which is one reason these issues are best mapped out together rather than in isolation.
Sorting the pet out without going to court
Most separating couples never see the inside of a courtroom, and pets are no exception. Because the court cannot order shared care anyway, the sensible path for people who want to share a pet, or who simply want certainty, is to record their own agreement. You can deal with the animal in the same document that resolves your property, and a well-drafted separation agreement can set out who keeps the pet, who covers vet and insurance costs, and, if you both want it, how any shared access will work in practice. A private agreement can do what a court order cannot, including building in a genuine time-sharing routine, provided both of you stick to it.
Where children are involved, keeping the pet with the children often reduces disruption, and that arrangement can be reflected alongside the care schedule in a parenting plan. Practical logistics matter too. If the person keeping the animal is moving into a rental, a pet-friendly residential tenancy agreement that properly documents the arrangement avoids a second dispute later, this time with a landlord. And because a pet frequently outlives the settlement conversation, it is worth naming a carer for the animal in your will, so that a decision made carefully at separation is not undone by silence later.
Building the documents you need on Captain.Legal
You do not need to litigate to protect a sensible outcome for your pet. Working through the Australian family law templates, you can set out the terms of your separation, including the companion animal, in plain language and in a form both parties can sign. The builder walks you through property, financial arrangements and, where relevant, the care of children, and it gives you room to record the pet's ownership and any cost-sharing you have agreed.
The documents come in editable Microsoft Word plus print-ready PDF, so you can tailor a clause to your situation, add a specific arrangement for the animal, and still keep a clean signed copy for your records. Retaining the editable version is worth it, because arrangements change: a move, a new home, a change in work patterns can all mean revisiting who is best placed to care for the animal. Where safety or complexity makes an agreement hard to reach, these documents are also a clear record of what you proposed, which is useful if the matter does end up before the court. The aim throughout is to reach a workable outcome for the animal and the people who love it, without letting the pet become the flashpoint of the whole separation.
Common mistakes separating couples make
The most common misunderstanding is assuming the reforms created shared pet custody. They did not. People sign up expecting a court to order alternate weeks with the dog, then discover the court can only give the animal to one person, hand it to a consenting third party, or order it sold. If you want to share, you have to agree it yourselves, and putting that agreement in writing is what makes it stick. A close second is treating the pet as an afterthought, left until the property settlement is nearly done, when raising it early tends to defuse rather than inflame the issue.
Another frequent error is failing to gather evidence. Because the court weighs attachment and future capacity to care, the person who has quietly done the feeding, the vet runs and the daily walks should be able to show it, yet few people keep any record. Vet bills, registration, microchip details and a simple diary of care can decide a close case. Some people also overlook that threatening or harming a pet now counts against them, and continue to use the animal as leverage, not realising the court can factor that conduct into the outcome. Finally, many forget the animal entirely once the settlement is signed, leaving no provision for who cares for it if the new owner dies or can no longer cope, which is exactly the gap a will is meant to close.
Frequently asked questions
Are pets still treated as property under Australian family law?
Yes, but with a difference. Since 10 June 2025, the Family Law Act 1975 treats a pet as a companion animal, a distinct category of property, rather than lumping it in with furniture and cars. The animal stays part of the property pool that is divided on separation, so it is not given the status of a child. What has changed is that the court now has specific powers and a specific list of welfare-related factors it must apply when deciding who keeps the animal, which is a marked shift from the old ownership-only approach.
What does the court look at when deciding who keeps the pet?
The Act sets out three main factors the court must consider. It looks at any history of actual or threatened abuse towards the animal, including as part of family violence. It looks at the attachment each party, and any child of the relationship, has to the pet. And it looks at each party's practical ability to care for the animal in the future, which brings in housing, finances and day-to-day circumstances. The court has broad discretion to weigh these together, so a strong record of hands-on care and a stable home for the animal both help.
Is a separation agreement made online legally valid in Australia?
A written separation agreement that both parties sign can be a valuable record of what you have agreed, and it can resolve practical matters including the pet. It is worth understanding the difference between document types: a binding financial agreement about property has strict formal requirements under the Family Law Act 1975, including independent legal advice, while consent orders are approved by the court. A clearly drafted agreement gives you certainty and a paper trail, and where the law requires extra formality for a binding property outcome, you can take advice on meeting those requirements before signing.
Can I include arrangements for my pet in a will?
Yes, and it is a sensible step that many people miss. You cannot leave money directly to an animal, but you can name the person you want to care for the pet and leave a sum to that person to cover its costs. Setting this out in your will means the arrangement you fought for at separation is not undone if you later become unable to care for the animal. If you want someone to manage your affairs, including your pet's needs, while you are alive but incapacitated, a general power of attorney can also help.
What format can I download my separation documents in?
Documents on Captain.Legal come in editable Microsoft Word and print-ready PDF. The Word version lets you tailor clauses to your circumstances, including a specific arrangement for a companion animal, before you sign, while the PDF gives you a clean copy to sign and keep. Holding on to the editable file is useful because family arrangements evolve, and if your living situation or capacity to care for the pet changes, you can revisit and update the wording rather than starting over.
Do the new pet rules apply to de facto couples everywhere in Australia?
For most of the country, yes, the companion animal provisions apply to both married and de facto couples in property matters from 10 June 2025. Western Australia is the exception worth checking. The federal reforms apply to married couples in WA property cases, but de facto property matters in WA are governed by the state regime, which has not yet been amended to mirror the companion animal rules. If you are in Western Australia, confirm whether you are married or de facto and which rules apply before taking any step, because the applicable framework differs.
How long do we need to be separated before dealing with these matters?
Separation itself does not have a waiting period for sorting out property or a pet: you can reach an agreement as soon as you separate, and documenting it early often reduces conflict. A divorce order is different, requiring at least twelve months and one day of separation before you can apply. Property and companion animal arrangements can be settled well before then, either by private agreement or, if needed, by applying to the court. Acting early on the pet in particular tends to keep the animal out of the middle of a longer dispute.