Who-gets-to-keep-Max

Who gets to keep “Max?”

Nicole Stevens ||

How the Family Law Act will approach disputes in relation to animals after June 2025 amendments.

For many, our animals have a special space in our hearts. They’re not viewed as an asset to be included in a “pick a pile” process when dividing furniture and whitegoods following a separation. So, it should be no surprise that it isn’t uncommon for a Judge to be asked to decide who retains a beloved pet.

Changes to the Family Law Act will commence on 11 June 2025. Whilst still considered to be “property,” our beloved pets will have a specific category called “companion animals.” The Act will provide for a set of considerations which may apply when the Court determines what order, if any, should be made in respect of the ownership of the companion animal as part of property division.

What is a companion animal?

A ‘companion animal’ is an animal kept by the parties to a marriage/relationship or either of them, primarily for the purpose of companionship. It will not be limited in species.

‘Companionship’ is not defined in the Family Law Act and is to be given its ordinary meaning.

Some classes of animals will be excluded from the definition of “companion animals”. These include:

  1. Assistance animals who provide support to a person with a disability.
  1. Animals that are kept as part of a business (such as a horse for animal breeding), for agricultural purposes (such as sheep dogs, cows) and/or kept for laboratory tests or experiments (including mice).

Whether an animal is an assistance animal or an animal kept as part of a business, agriculture or laboratory testing will be a question of fact for the Courts to determine. Animals that have a high economic value and are not used for companionship would be dealt with by the Courts in the same way as any other type of property in the property pool.

Considerations to be taken into account

The considerations the Court will have regard to in relation to who keeps a companion animal don’t differ if the parties were married or in a de-facto relationship. If asked to, the Court will decide who keeps a companion animal. Orders won’t be made for the parties to share a companion animal.

Factors the Court will consider include:

  • the circumstances in which the companion animal was acquired
  • who has ownership or possession of the companion animal
  • the extent to which each party cared for, and paid for the maintenance of, the companion animal
  • 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 companion animal
  • any attachment by a party, or a child of the marriage, to the companion animal
  • the demonstrated ability of each party to care for and maintain the companion animal 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 considered.

A new subsection, section 79(6) will outline the orders the Courts may make in respect of ownership of a companion animal.

The National Principles to Address Coercive Control in Family and Domestic Violence 2023 explicitly recognise animal abuse as a form of family violence.  Accordingly, considerations such as whether there has been any family violence to which one party has subjected or exposed the other party, and whether there has been any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse towards the companion animal, must be considered by the Courts when making orders about a companion animal.

They recognise that family violence is relevant to making decisions about the ownership of the family pet following a relationship breakdown.

If you need assistance for putting in place agreements or orders in relation to your children and/or property after a breakdown of your relationship, please contact Coleman Greig’s Family Law team.

If you are in immediate fear for your safety of the safety of a loved one, please contact the Police on 000.

Share:

Send an enquiry

Any personal information you provide is collected pursuant to our Privacy Policy.

Categories
Archives
Author

More posts

Who gets to keep “Max?”

For many, our animals have a special space in our hearts. So, it should be no surprise that It isn’t uncommon for a Judge to be asked to decide who keeps a beloved pet following a relationship breakdown.

Closing the loop – Criminalisation of intentional wage underpayments

Employers are gearing up for a run of public holidays. Provisions requiring an employee to work on a public holiday in certain circumstances have been commonplace and not overly concerning. However, the Federal Court recently held that such a provision contravened the National Employment Standards.

Festive season: Managing public holiday work obligations

Employers are gearing up for a run of public holidays. Provisions requiring an employee to work on a public holiday in certain circumstances have been commonplace and not overly concerning. However, the Federal Court recently held that such a provision contravened the National Employment Standards.

Employers should exercise caution when dismissing during probationary period

Can you dismiss an employee during the probationary period? Yes, but a recent case is a lesson in caution. The recent Federal Court decision of ‘Dabboussy v Australian Federation of Islamic Councils’ is a warning to employers to consider the importance of timing if dismissing an employee during probation.

The business impacts from the Government’s new cyber security laws

Cybercrime ‘is a multibillion-dollar industry that threatens the wellbeing and security of every Australian’. In an effort to combat the impact on businesses and individuals, the Australian Government has introduced cyber security legislative reforms into the Parliament.

© 2024 Coleman Greig Lawyers  |  Sitemap  |  Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation. ABN 73 125 176 230