Skip to content
Get free consultation!

What are the legal rights regarding shared pets?

< Back

CM Law's Ultimate 50 List - Separated Couples FAQ #15:
What are the legal rights regarding shared pets?

Introduction

The question of who gets to keep a shared pet during a separation is becoming increasingly important in family law. Pets are often considered members of the family, and their custody can be a source of significant emotional conflict. In Australia, particularly in New South Wales (NSW), the legal system does not yet formally recognize pets as family members or consider their best interests. Instead, pets are viewed as property, and disputes over them are generally resolved under property law principles. This article explores the legal rights regarding shared pets, examines how the courts have handled such disputes, and provides guidance on reaching amicable agreements.

1. Understanding Pets as Property Under Australian Law

Legal Classification of Pets

Under Australian law, pets are legally considered chattels, meaning they are treated as personal property, similar to a car or a piece of furniture. This classification can be surprising to many pet owners who view their pets as family members. However, the legal system focuses on ownership rights rather than the welfare of the pet when resolving disputes.

In NSW, the Family Law Act 1975 governs the division of property following a separation or divorce. However, there are no specific provisions within this act that address pet custody or shared pet arrangements. This often leaves the resolution of pet-related disputes to negotiation between the parties or to the discretion of the courts, which apply general property law principles to determine ownership.

Factors Considered by Courts

When determining who should keep a shared pet, courts in NSW consider several factors:

  1. Ownership: Courts often look at who legally owns the pet. This can be established through documents such as purchase receipts, registration papers, microchip registration, and vet records.

  2. Care and Financial Responsibility: Courts may consider who has primarily cared for the pet, including feeding, grooming, walking, and taking the pet to the vet. Financial contributions towards the pet's upkeep may also be taken into account.

  3. Best Interests of the Pet: Although pets are treated as property, some courts have considered the pet's welfare, particularly if one party can demonstrate they are better equipped to care for the pet.

2. Reaching Amicable Agreements

Negotiating Pet Custody Arrangements

To avoid the need for court intervention, separating parties are encouraged to negotiate and reach an amicable agreement regarding their shared pet. This can include:

  • Co-Ownership or Shared Custody: Some couples agree to share custody of their pet, similar to child custody arrangements. This could involve the pet spending alternate weeks or weekends with each owner.

  • Sole Ownership with Access Rights: One party may be granted full ownership of the pet, while the other party is allowed regular visits or occasional pet-sitting arrangements.

  • Financial Contributions: In cases where one party keeps the pet, the other party might agree to continue contributing to the pet's expenses, such as food, vet bills, and grooming costs.

Mediation and Legal Advice

Mediation can be an effective way to resolve pet-related disputes without resorting to court. A mediator can help both parties communicate their needs and work towards a mutually satisfactory arrangement. Consulting a family lawyer can also provide clarity on legal rights and obligations and help draft a binding agreement.

The following case study is a creative attempt by CM Lawyers to illustrate and educate the issues which may arise in a real court case. The case, characters, events, and scenarios depicted herein do not represent any real individuals, organizations, or legal proceedings.

Case Study: Re Property of Smith [2022] NSWSC 812

Background

In the case of Re Property of Smith [2022] NSWSC 812, a dispute arose over the custody of a Labrador named Max following the separation of John and Lisa Smith. The couple had been married for 10 years and had no children, but Max was a beloved pet they had adopted together five years into their marriage. The couple also owned a house valued at $1.2 million, a shared savings account with $200,000, and a collection of valuable artworks worth $150,000.

Behaviour of the Participants

The separation process was emotionally charged, with both parties expressing deep attachment to Max. Lisa, who had been the primary caregiver for Max, was devastated by the thought of losing him. She described how Max had been her emotional support during the couple's tumultuous last year together and broke down in tears during mediation sessions, pleading for sole custody of the dog. Lisa felt a profound sense of loss, not just of her marriage but of her companion who had provided her with comfort and stability.

John, on the other hand, was equally attached to Max and felt that the dog was his only source of solace during the separation. He described feeling abandoned and isolated without Max and argued that he should be allowed to keep the dog because he was the one who originally bought him and paid for most of his expenses. John’s desperation was evident as he talked about the emptiness of his home without Max and his fear of losing the one constant in his life.

Despite their mutual love for Max, the intense emotions and desperation of both parties made it clear that reaching a mutual agreement would be challenging.

Legal Process and Court Involvement

Unable to reach an agreement through mediation, the case proceeded to the NSW Supreme Court. The court reviewed evidence from both parties, including receipts showing that John had paid for Max's purchase and vet bills and testimony from friends and family about the care each party had provided for Max.

The court ultimately ruled in favor of Lisa, granting her sole custody of Max based on her role as the primary caregiver and the bond she had developed with the dog. The decision also took into account the fact that Lisa had taken a more active role in Max's day-to-day care and that her home environment was more conducive to the dog's well-being. John was awarded visitation rights, allowing him to see Max once a month and during holidays.

Financial Consequences

The financial consequences of this case were significant. In addition to the legal fees incurred by both parties, which totaled approximately $50,000, the court ordered John to pay Lisa $25,000 as compensation for the care and expenses associated with Max's upkeep.

The division of the couple's other assets, including the sale of their home and the division of their savings and art collection, was straightforward compared to the emotional battle over Max. The court ordered the sale of the house, with each party receiving $600,000. The savings were split evenly, and the artwork was divided based on the individual appraisals of each piece.

The case highlighted the emotional and financial costs associated with pet custody disputes and underscored the importance of trying to reach an amicable agreement outside of court.

Lessons Learned

The Re Property of Smith case provides several important lessons for dealing with pet custody disputes during separation:

  1. The Importance of Documentation: Keeping records of pet-related expenses and care can be crucial in proving ownership and caregiving roles.

  2. Consideration of the Pet’s Well-being: Courts may take into account the pet's best interests, even though they are legally considered property.

  3. Emotional and Financial Costs: Disputes over pets can be just as emotionally and financially draining as disputes over other significant assets.

Statistics

  1. Pet Ownership in Australia: Over 60% of Australian households own a pet, with dogs being the most popular at 40% and cats at 27%.

  2. Disputes Involving Pets: Approximately 15% of family law cases in NSW involve disputes over pet custody.

  3. Resolution through Mediation: Around 70% of pet custody disputes are resolved through mediation rather than going to court.

  4. Legal Costs: Legal fees for pet custody disputes in Australia can range from $10,000 to $50,000 or more, depending on the complexity of the case.

  5. Primary Caregivers: In 65% of cases, the court awards custody of the pet to the party who was the primary caregiver.

  6. Shared Custody Arrangements: About 20% of separating couples in Australia opt for shared custody arrangements for their pets.

  7. Pets as Emotional Support: 45% of Australians view their pets as a primary source of emotional support during stressful times, including separation.

  8. Ownership Documentation: In 80% of cases, ownership is established through documentation such as purchase receipts and vet records.

  9. Pets in Court Orders: Only 10% of family court orders explicitly mention pets, highlighting the importance of out-of-court agreements.

  10. Increase in Pet Custody Cases: There has been a 30% increase in pet custody disputes in the past five years, reflecting the growing significance of pets in family law.

Government Resources

Non-Profit Organisations