Author, Carol Pages, Pages Family Law.

Many couples and families have pets and most consider their pets to be a part of their family.

What happens at separation if there is a dispute about who keeps the pet?

Pets are property

In a recent case where there was dispute about who should keep the family dog, the Full Court ruled that animals are property.  Evidence of the pet’s attachment are not relevant, and the Court will not run a parenting case to decide who keeps the pet.

Where animals have a value – for example a racehorse, or a breeding dog or cat, these can be valued in the same way as other assets and included in the balance sheet for property division.

The Full Court have gone as far as to suggest a way for disputes about pet ownership to be resolved.  Each party could make a bid for the pet, with the highest offer accepted and taken into account when dividing property.

Can you share custody of a pet?

If all parties agree and the arrangement works well, this can be agreed, however if there is a dispute at any stage, the Court in a separate case have confirmed that there is no jurisdiction to make an order for ‘shared custody’ of a pet.

In that case one party wanted to share the care of the dog with his former partner having the dog for 5 nights each week, and he wanted the dog to stay with him for 2 nights each week.

The Court confirmed that the Family Law Act 1975 (the Act) makes no reference to pets, and that dogs are property, dealt with under the property division sections of the Act.  There is nothing in the Act that enables the Court to make ‘custody’ orders in respect of any pets.

What about a therapy pet for a child?

In an interim parenting case decided earlier this year, the father sought orders for a therapy animal (pet dog) to accompany the parties’ child who suffered from autism spectrum disorder and attention deficit disorder, when the child spent time with the father.

The parties had agreed to consent orders several years ago, which provided for transfer of the registration of the ownership of the dog to the mother, but that the mother ensure the pet accompany the children on their visits to their father where possible.

The broader parenting arrangements broke down between the parties, and the father filed an application with the Court. 

The father argued that the pet was an important part of the child’s life, given the therapeutic value he provided, and so the pet should be considered in the parenting matter as it was in the child’s best interests that the pet be available to him at both houses.  The Court also found it was relevant the father had another therapy animal in his home, and inferred that animal also provided some therapeutic value for the child’s special needs.

The mother disagreed. She argued that the father withheld the pet from the child at separation, which resulted in the child being anxious about the pet spending time with the father.

The Court ruled that there is no jurisdiction to deal with the pet in the parenting proceedings, and noted that property orders in relation to the pet had already been made.

_________________________________

The content of this article is provided for information purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.  We recommend that you seek legal advice relevant to your own circumstances and we would be happy to assist you.

Carol Pages of Pages Family Law is an Accredited Specialist in Family Law. If you would like advice about your own separation, please contact Pages Family Law at info@pagesfamilylaw.com.au or on 03 9121 8077.