Australian law changes to affect pets, property and finances
Pet and property owners watch out – Australia's family law is changing how separation disputes will be resolved.
Coming into effect next month, these key changes will affect how our pets, property and financial matters are resolved for former couples.
Separating couples sharing pets should usually make arrangements for what happens to their prized pooches and furballs without going to court.
However, those that cannot agree on arrangements can apply to the family law courts to make orders, with a specific list considered by the system.
This takes into account:
However, there are limits and courts cannot make orders for joint ownership or shared possession of pets.
Usually, couples splitting ways should strive to make arrangements related to their shared property and finances, sometimes using dispute resolution outside of courts.
But couples struggling to reach an agreement can apply to family law courts to determine a property settlement.
Changes affecting Family Law Act 1975 include:
This would apply to all separating couples – whether a property settlement has been determined by family law courts or has been negotiated outside of court.
Key areas that courts will consider:
The Family Law Act defines family violence as 'violent, threatening or other behaviour by a person that coerces or controls a member of the person's family, or causes the family member to be fearful'.
Key amendments include:
What's staying the same?
Couples separating have a duty to provide all relevant financial information and documents to each other and the court.
From next month, this duty will be governed by the Family Law Act 1975 instead of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Family Law) Rules 2021.
This applies to all disputes concerning finances and property after a break-up and is treated as an ongoing duty.
If failure to do so, consequences can affect separating couples such as:
What stays the same?
The changes to family law will come into effect from June 10, 2025.
A fact sheet detailing the changes can be found
here
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
West Australian
5 days ago
- West Australian
Melanie Vairawanathan: Family Law reform finally recognises financial abuse as a form of family violence
On 10 June 2025, Australia took a long-overdue step in recognising what survivors have known for decades: financial abuse is family violence. This week, sweeping reforms to the Family Law Act finally acknowledge that controlling someone's access to money, sabotaging their employment, or forcing them into debt is not merely 'bad behaviour' — it is abuse. These are not just private disputes over budgets or spending. These are deliberate, coercive strategies used to isolate, control, and harm. As a family lawyer, and a survivor of family violence, I have seen how financial abuse devastates lives. It's the migrant mother whose partner kept every asset in his name and threatened deportation if she left. It's the stay-at-home mother forced to justify every dollar spent on groceries. It's the newly single woman who left with the children but none of the bank cards. Until now, many of these stories were invisible in the eyes of the law. Too often, survivors were told their experiences didn't meet the threshold for 'real' violence. In court, economic control was frequently dismissed as a personal dispute or poor financial management. Legal outcomes in property settlements, parenting arrangements, and even pet ownership failed to account for the power imbalances that underpin abuse. The reforms that come into force this week aim to change that. They broaden the legal definition of family violence to include behaviours like controlling finances, interfering with work, and forcing someone into debt. For the first time, this means the family law system must see and respond to economic control as part of the violence landscape — not as an afterthought. This recognition is transformative. For survivors navigating separation, parenting disputes, or financial settlements, these changes can reshape the outcomes. Courts can now consider how financial abuse has compromised a party's capacity to contribute or rebuild. In cases involving family pets, often powerful sources of comfort and control, the court can now recognise that pets are not mere property, but part of the family fabric. But while this is progress, it is not yet justice. Law reform is not a panacea. Legislation may name financial abuse, but frontline systems still struggle to respond to it. Police may not always act. Banks may not freeze accounts. Support services remain underfunded. In my work, I see time and time again how mothers sacrifice their careers, or give them up entirely, to care for the children, creating the space for their husbands to grow professionally, build self-worth, and retain total control over the finances. When the relationship breaks down, these women are left with little to no financial independence. They are often terrified to leave — not for themselves, but because of what it might mean for their children. Access to legal representation is a major barrier. Many are ineligible for Legal Aid because they technically own property, but they cannot afford private lawyers. Meanwhile, their husbands lawyer up, go aggressive in litigation, and threaten to financially destroy them. This is the reality for so many women navigating separation — and we need to talk about it. Perhaps most worryingly, the court's discretion remains wide. The mere inclusion of financial abuse in the Act does not guarantee it will be appropriately weighed. Judicial training, legal representation, and clear guidance are critical to ensuring that this reform is not symbolic, but practical. We must also reckon with the deeper reality: that financial abuse often continues through the legal system itself. Abusive ex-partners weaponise delay tactics, drive up legal costs, and use litigation as a tool of control. The Family Court has long been a site where power imbalances are entrenched, not resolved. For real change, we need a cultural shift — one that centres survivors' voices, demands systemic accountability, and funds wrap-around support. We need to move beyond seeing financial abuse as a niche or secondary issue. It must be treated as central to how we understand and respond to family violence. This reform is a turning point. It gives survivors the legal language to name their experience. It sends a clear message that economic abuse is as serious as physical abuse. And it opens the door for better, fairer outcomes for families. But naming something is only the first step. Now we must listen — and act. Melanie Vairawanathan is the founder and principal lawyer of Melmark Law
Sydney Morning Herald
13-06-2025
- Sydney Morning Herald
Who gets the pet – and other big changes for divorcing couples
Separating couples fighting in court over the family pet and the division of assets face a new legal landscape following landmark changes that elevate the status of companion animals and recognise the financial consequences of family violence. The changes to the Family Law Act, which started on Tuesday, apply to all former couples about to commence or at the start of proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, unless the final hearing is under way. Companion animals Michael Tiyce, principal of Sydney law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, said the law was now 'a lot clearer' about how the court would approach a dispute over the ownership of a pet in the context of a wider property fight between a former couple. The court must consider a range of factors before making orders about pets, including who had looked after the animal, bonds of attachment – including between the pet and the parties' children – and demonstrated ability to provide care. Crucially, family violence must also be considered, including 'any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal'. Melbourne-based family law expert Jodylee Bartal, a partner at Schetzer Papaleo Family Lawyers, said the changes 'elevate the treatment of animals to reflect the important role that they play in some families'. The laws applied to family pets rather than other animals such as working dogs. Bartal said the court could only grant ownership of the pet to one party, order that it be sold, or order that its ownership be transferred to a third party if that person consented. It could not make an order for shared custody of pets, but the parties could agree to this.
The Age
13-06-2025
- The Age
Who gets the pet – and other big changes for divorcing couples
Separating couples fighting in court over the family pet and the division of assets face a new legal landscape following landmark changes that elevate the status of companion animals and recognise the financial consequences of family violence. The changes to the Family Law Act, which started on Tuesday, apply to all former couples about to commence or at the start of proceedings in the Federal Circuit and Family Court, unless the final hearing is under way. Companion animals Michael Tiyce, principal of Sydney law firm Tiyce & Lawyers, said the law was now 'a lot clearer' about how the court would approach a dispute over the ownership of a pet in the context of a wider property fight between a former couple. The court must consider a range of factors before making orders about pets, including who had looked after the animal, bonds of attachment – including between the pet and the parties' children – and demonstrated ability to provide care. Crucially, family violence must also be considered, including 'any history of actual or threatened cruelty or abuse by a party towards the companion animal'. Melbourne-based family law expert Jodylee Bartal, a partner at Schetzer Papaleo Family Lawyers, said the changes 'elevate the treatment of animals to reflect the important role that they play in some families'. The laws applied to family pets rather than other animals such as working dogs. Bartal said the court could only grant ownership of the pet to one party, order that it be sold, or order that its ownership be transferred to a third party if that person consented. It could not make an order for shared custody of pets, but the parties could agree to this.
