Written by: Simran Suvarna
Introduction:
Relationship breakdowns often cause disputes over property and parenting matters, but what happens in relation to beloved family pets?
The recent decision in Wright & Berger [2025] FedCFamC2F 1315 offers important guidance on how courts now approach companion animals following separation, after the introduction of amendments to the Family Law Act in June 2025.
Background:
The matter arose out of the breakdown of a de facto relationship, wherein the parties had resolved the majority of parenting and property disputes during a final hearing. The sole issue that remained in contention was the care arrangements for the parties 16-year-old dog.
It was conceded that the Respondent would retain ownership as she had adopted the dog before the relationship began, however the Applicant was seeking a shared care arrangement that included the dog travelling between households with their child. The Applicant sought this outcome on the basis that he had cared for the dog during the relationship, including having sole care at times, and that he had paid for a majority of the dog’s maintenance costs.
The Decision:
Judge Forbes ordered that the Respondent maintained ownership of the dog and no orders were made for shared care.
This was the first judicial consideration of the amendments to section 90SM(6) of the Family Law Act, which stipulates that companion animals are to be treated as a specific category of property and limits the available orders that can be made to only three categories, being:
- Awarding ownership to one party;
- Transferring ownership to a third party (with consent);
- Ordering the animal to be sold.
Importantly, this means that the Court cannot make orders for shared custody arrangements for pets.
The Court rejected the Applicant’s submission that broader powers existed under the general property jurisdiction allowing for ancillary orders to be made for ‘use’ of the pet. The Court also held that, even if such discretionary powers did exist, shared care arrangements would not be appropriate in this instance given the high-level of conflict between the parties, their inability to communicate effectively and the risk of generating further conflict during handovers and exposing the child to the same.
The Court also made reference to section 90ST of the Family Law Act, which dictates that property orders are to finally determine the parties’ financial relationships and avoid further proceedings where practicable.
Conclusion:
Wright & Berger is an early and significant authority that reiterates that the Court will prioritise clear, final outcomes over ongoing shared arrangements for companion animals, pursuant to the recent legislative amendments.
Therefore, if you are separating and have concerns regarding arrangements for your pet, negotiating an agreement early and outside of Court is more likely to allow you to reach a desirable outcome that satisfies all parties than leaving the decision to a judge, as the Court is limited to only making orders for complete ownership with respect to pets.
