PETS ARE OFTEN USED AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE VICTIMS – BUT NEW AUSTRALIAN LAWS COULD CHANGE THAT

Determining who gets the dog after a breakup can be complicated, and in cases of domestic violence, it can escalate from distressing to truly dangerous.

Perpetrators often weaponize animals as a means of coercive control. For many victim-survivors, the presence of a pet can significantly influence their decision to stay in an unsafe situation or leave, especially since many emergency shelters and rental properties do not permit animals.

In September, the Albanese government introduced new legislation to classify pets as “a special form of property” and to take domestic and family violence (DFV) into account when determining pet ownership, as part of broader reforms to the Family Law Act.

According to a 2022 survey by Animal Medicines Australia, Australians spend over $33 billion a year on their pets. A third of households own at least one cat, and nearly half have at least one dog— in some Sydney suburbs, dogs outnumber children two-to-one.

However, questions remain about how ownership is defined. RSPCA Australia advocates for specialists to study the human-animal bond to determine the true ownership of pets, including who they love and who they may fear.

The legislation is currently under review by a parliamentary inquiry.

In its submission, RSPCA Australia supports the proposed amendments but argues that they should be more comprehensive.

“There is a growing body of evidence showing that perpetrators use animals to control and manipulate victims of domestic and family violence (DFV),” the submission states.

“It is also acknowledged that sentient animals experience mental distress, fear, and anxiety when living in violent or abusive environments.”

Additionally, RSPCA Australia points out that the criteria for determining “ownership” of an animal fail to take the human-animal bond into account. This can lead to situations where perpetrators claim ownership, while victims may lack the financial independence to contest it.

“The law must consider ownership/custody of the animal based on the human-animal bond as well as the safety and welfare of the animal,” it says.

It recommends that the law require an “independent behavioural assessment” of the animal interacting with each person in the ongoing or former relationship.

“In our experience, animals may display behavioural signs consistent with fear and anxiety in the presence of someone who has abused them,” it says.

RSPCA Australia also advocates for recognizing all species—including horses, birds, fish, and farm animals—as companion animals that can be surrendered to another person or charity if neither party in a current or former relationship is able to care for them.

Similarly, Lucy’s Project, a charity focused on enhancing safety for both people and animals in domestic and family violence (DFV) situations, recommends prioritizing the safety and emotional bonds of animals with family members over traditional notions of “ownership.”

In April of this year, the Australian Institute of Family Studies published a paper on violence against family animals within the context of intimate partner violence.

The findings reveal that many victim-survivors stay with, postpone leaving, or return to their abusers out of concern for their animals. The paper notes that it is “common” for perpetrators to threaten, harm, or kill family pets as a means of exerting control over victim-survivors.

This violence can manifest as deliberate neglect, physical or sexual abuse, or threats of harm.

With one in four women experiencing abuse from their partners and seven in ten households having pets, the report highlights the significant overlap between domestic violence and animal welfare.

Jayla Sainty, a community awareness officer with RSPCA Tasmania, works in the Safe Beds program, which cares for the pets of homeless victim-survivors of domestic violence. This includes providing vaccinations, desexing, and microchipping services.

Under current legislation, she points out, pets “have the same rights as a piece of furniture.”

While acknowledging that it can be difficult to assess an animal’s loyalty, she notes that there are often behavioral cues—such as a dog putting its ears back or urinating when a perpetrator approaches their victim.

Sainty explains that dogs can be traumatized by their experiences in abusive households and may remain wary, particularly of men, for some time. However, she emphasizes that they can recover.

“They still have a lot of faith in people,” she says. “It just takes them a bit of time.”