Natalie Gaud, Acting Managing Editor, Queensland Law Society
Family lawyer Dannielle Young genuinely loves animals and especially adores dogs. It is not uncommon for her to greet someone’s dog before she greets the owner.
An accredited mediator and dispute resolution practitioner, Danielle will often drop down to pat them and strike up a conversation first with the dog, and only then turn her attention it its human companion.
Dannielle also has two of her own – Shih Tzus named Peggy-Boo and Slugger, who are considered family members rather than pets.
Peggy-Boo, or PB, is named in honour of Dannielle’s late grandmother and is a sensitive and anxious little dog, who prefers humans close by. Slugger, named after the Louisville Slugger baseball bat as a nod to Dannielle’s time in Kentucky, USA, is her opposite in temperament – calm, affectionate and endlessly cuddly.
Surrounded by this kind of puppy love, it is hardly surprising that Dannielle has broadened her job as a mediator, to include a niche but rapidly expanding area – pet custody mediation.
As separation increasingly involves not just finances but the question of who keeps the pet that anchors the home, dogs have become central to many families’ sense of comfort and continuity. When a pet is the most stable presence in the household, disputes can become deeply personal. As a Certified Pet Custody Mediator, Dannielle is well placed to help navigate these tensions.
Pets have always been a constant presence throughout her life, shaping both her personal outlook and approach to clients in distress.
That deep affection for animals, and the comfort and connection they provide, has undoubtedly shaped my appreciation of why pet disputes can be so significant for separating families.
For many separating couples, particularly those without children, a pet may represent companionship, stability, routine and unconditional support during difficult times. It is not uncommon for parties to describe their pet as their ‘baby’ or their primary source of comfort post-separation.
Through her practice, Dannielle Young Mediation, she has observed the growing demand for thoughtful, structured approaches to resolving these disputes, a development she believes is both natural and overdue.
Danielle spoke about this evolving field, offering insight into the increasingly sophisticated frameworks needed to support families as they part ways – with pets firmly at the centre of the conversation.
Has the need for pet custody mediation grown since COVID or just in general due to Australian family/household dynamics?
There has certainly been noticeable growth, and COVID accelerated that trend. During lockdowns, many Australians acquired pets for companionship, emotional support and structure. Those animals became deeply embedded in family life. More broadly, Australian household dynamics have shifted.
We are seeing:
- More couples delaying or foregoing having children;
- More single-person households;
- Higher rates of pet ownership;
- Greater recognition of pets as family members rather than property.
As a result, when relationships break down, disputes about pets are increasingly significant. They are rarely about the animal alone, they are often symbolic of attachment, grief, identity and loss.
The family law system, however, still largely treats pets as property. Mediation provides a far more nuanced forum to resolve these issues in a way that reflects the emotional reality for the parties.
I consider that another major force for the increasing of pet custody mediations is the recent developments of the Family Law Act that now authorise the Courts to deal with companion animals.
There is some misunderstanding I think with what the Court can actually do about companion animals or pets which means that many separating couples have a misconception that the Court will make Orders for shared custody of a pet. That is simply not the case, the Court cannot make such Orders.
While the Courts can now make Orders for one party to retain a pet, the pet to be sold or the pet to be surrendered to a third party – they cannot Order what many separating families seek and that is some form of shared care of the pets. So, mediation is a way that party’s can tailor their own pet custody arrangements where that is what is desired by the separating couple.
It is a niche area?
Yes, it is still a niche area, but it is a rapidly emerging one. Historically, disputes about pets were absorbed into property settlements, with little focused consideration given to the animal’s welfare or the emotional attachment involved. Increasingly, however, we are seeing dedicated negotiations, and sometimes stand-alone mediations, dealing specifically with pet arrangements following separation.
Specialised training is important because these matters involve unique considerations, including:
- Attachment and grief responses;
- Animal welfare considerations;
- Practical care arrangements;
- Financial responsibility;
- Risk factors such as neglect or coercive control; and
- The suitability of shared care arrangements.
One of the reasons specialised knowledge is important is there are some commonly held but often misguided assumptions about pets post-separation. A frequent example is the belief that a pet should automatically live wherever the children live. While this may sometimes be appropriate, it is not a universal rule. A pet’s primary attachment may not be to the child, particularly where the children are very young, but rather to the adult who has historically provided day-to-day care, training, feeding, exercise and emotional bonding. Simply aligning the pet’s residence with a child’s living arrangements may therefore overlook the animal’s own needs and established bonds.
Another common misconception is that, where there are multiple pets, the “fair” outcome is to divide them between the parties. From an animal welfare perspective, separating bonded animals can be highly distressing and is rarely ideal. Companion animals often form strong attachments to each other, and careful consideration must be given to those relationships if we are genuinely prioritising the pet’s wellbeing.
Pet custody mediation recognises that these matters involve far more depth than a property-based approach can capture. Relevant considerations may include attachment patterns, daily care history, living environments, capacity to meet the animal’s needs, financial responsibility, safety concerns, and the practicality of any proposed shared arrangement.
For those navigating pet arrangements after separation, it is important to engage a mediator who has specific training and understands these nuances. A mediator without that background may unintentionally default to simplistic solutions, whereas specialised pet custody mediation aims to reach outcomes that are workable, humane and genuinely focused on the animal’s future welfare.
What is the strangest pet you’ve seen or heard about in mediation?
While dogs and cats remain the most common, mediators do encounter a wide variety of companion animals. I have heard of disputes involving birds, reptiles and horses.
What may seem “strange” to outsiders is rarely strange to the family involved. The important point is not the species, but the emotional attachment and the practicalities of care. A parrot that has lived with a family for decades may be as significant to them as a dog.
In custody issues, generally children have a voice. How does this work with pets?
Pets cannot express preferences in the way children can, so qualified pet custody mediators focus on objective but pet specific welfare indicators rather than “wishes”. It will be very easy for the separating couple to humanize the pets which may lead to arrangements that are not actually in the pet’s best interests (but more the humans). It’s easy for us as humans to forget that pets don’t exactly have human emotions, but we tend to assume they do.
A qualified and trained pet custody mediator will look at relevant considerations which might often include:
- Who has historically been the primary carer;
- Capacity to meet the animal’s physical and emotional needs;
- Stability and routine;
- Veterinary care history;
- Safety considerations; and
- Who the pet has a strong bond with.
If pet custody is looked at from what is in the best interests of the pet, then other important considerations will be more focused on things like:
- Setting up of a trial period for the care arrangements and reporting back about how the pet coped during the trial period;
- The age of the pet;
- The specific breed of the pet;
- Living arrangements post-separation; and
- The pet’s relationship and bond with other pets in the household and the effect of the pets if they were to be separated.
In many cases, arrangements that prioritise the animal’s stability is about more than who paid for the pet or the pet moving with the children. A trained pet mediator can help the parties look at the pet care post separation in terms of what is actually best for the pet. That is the way to bring a pet’s voice into the mediation room – appointing a qualified pet custody mediator rather than an ordinary mediator without the training
Who guarantees the pet’s safety? Are there safeguards in place similar to children’s safety?
There is no equivalent statutory framework to that which exists for children. However, mediators conduct risk assessments and consider animal welfare carefully.
If there are concerns about:
- Family violence;
- Threats involving the pet;
- Neglect or inability to care for the animal; or
- Use of the pet as a means of coercive control.
Then those risks must be addressed before any agreement is reached. In some circumstances, shared arrangements may not be appropriate at all.
Animal welfare legislation and general legal obligations also provide some protection, but mediation focuses on practical safeguards, for example, clear responsibility for care, veterinary decisions, costs, and contingency planning.
Is shared custody mainly agreed upon?
Not necessarily. While some parties initially propose shared arrangements, these can be difficult to sustain in practice. Unlike parenting arrangements, there is no legal framework supporting ongoing shared decision-making for pets, and frequent transitions may not be in the animal’s best interests.
Many mediations ultimately result in:
- Sole ownership with the other party having agreed contact;
- Informal visitation arrangements;
- Transfer of ownership with financial adjustment; or
- Arrangements linked to children’s time with each parent but only if appropriate for the pet after careful consideration of the factors affecting the pet’s best interests are undertaken.
Where there is an agreement for “shared custody” it is really important that the parties are open to trialling that arrangement. A trial period for a pet might be for a period of say six months. It will be important for the pet parents to be open and honest during that trial period. It might be a surprise for people to hear that “shared custody” is not usually a week-about arrangement like we see in parenting matters. That is usually not a good care plan for a pet for a number of reasons.
So, the trial period may be for a longer period because the actual time arrangements of the pet might be for example a month at a time with each party and we will need time to see how the pet adjusts going between the households. During that trial period it will be important for pet owners to look out for signs of stress of the pet, changes to temperament, change in appetite, change in toileting behaviours and so much more. It is those factors that when honestly and opening looked at post separation that will give us a better understanding of whether the pet will be able to cope with “shared custody”.
The most workable outcome is one that is realistic, reduces ongoing conflict, and prioritises the pet’s stability.
Why do pet custody disputes carry such emotional weight, and what makes mediation an important way to resolve them?
Pet custody disputes highlight a broader truth about separation, not all losses are financial or legal. For many people, losing a beloved animal can feel as devastating as losing a family member.
Mediation offers a compassionate, practical and forward-focused way to resolve these disputes without escalating conflict or forcing a court to apply a blunt property-based solution.
As our understanding of the human–animal bond evolves, it is likely that legal practice will continue to adapt. Pet custody mediation is one example of how dispute resolution can respond to modern family realities in a humane and constructive way.
I would urge separating couples to engage a qualified and trained pet mediator who is not going to treat the pet custody side of the dispute like a parenting matter.
This is not about a few extra nights here and there; it is much more than that when properly looked at from what is in the pet’s best interests for their care post separation – which may not align necessarily with what the human might think should happen.
