DAVENPORT & DAVENPORT (No.2)

In *Davenport & Davenport (No.2)*, the Family Court of Australia considered an interlocutory application by the husband seeking orders for the "shared custody" of a dog. The wife opposed the application.

The central legal issue before Judge Tonkin was whether the Family Court possessed the jurisdiction to make orders concerning the shared custody of a pet animal in the context of family law proceedings.

Judge Tonkin reasoned that the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth) confers jurisdiction on the Court to make orders with respect to the property of the parties to a marriage. However, the Court's jurisdiction is limited to making orders concerning the division of property, not the day-to-day care and control of pets. His Honour concluded that a dog is not property in the sense contemplated by the Act for the purpose of making such specific orders. Consequently, the Court lacked the jurisdiction to grant the husband's application for shared custody of the dog.

The application filed by the husband for interim orders for shared custody of the dog was dismissed.