For many people, an animal is a treasured family member who provides unconditional love, companionship and support. But, the human-animal bond can be exploited by people who perpetrate domestic and family violence (DFV). Beloved animal companions are abused or threatened with harm to control and/or intimidate a victim-survivor of DFV.
As someone who has worked as an advocate for women who experience DFV, I am aware that animal abuse occurs more often in homes where DFV is occurring. There is a clear link between DFV and animal abuse, and it is acknowledged that animal abuse is an indicator of serious abuse against people.
When we fail to take animal abuse seriously, we subject women and children to further risk. Australian and international research demonstrates that between 18 per cent and 48 per cent of victim-survivors did not leave, or delayed leaving, a violent partner out of fear that their companion animal would be abused. This figure increases to 68 per cent in cases where an animal had already been harmed in the home.
The Animal Justice Party has achieved many important reforms in this space. Animals are now included on Apprehended Domestic Violence Orders (ADVO) as a result of our advocacy. We obtained grants for services that support people and animals who experience violence, including organisations that highlight the link between animal abuse and DFV. Further, we amended legislation so that animal abuse is recognised as a form of domestic violence.
These are important steps, but there’s one major change we urgently need: to eliminate the absurd legal fiction that animals are nothing more than property.
It’s not hard to recognise that there is a difference between the dog we share our home with and the coffee table in our lounge room.
But the legal status of animals as property is hugely problematic in the context of DFV, where people who use violence can take advantage of this actuality. While an ADVO provides indirect protection to animals in their capacity as “property”, the current system fails to recognise that animals are victims in their own right.
As a result, an animal may remain in a dangerous situation and be exploited as a tool of coercion, intimidation and control while a dispute about who legally ‘owns’ the animal may be resolved via a protracted civil court case.
One case that came to the attention of the Animal Justice Party involves a woman, Sarah*, who left a violent partner, hoping she could take her beloved animals with her. Sarah’s ex-partner claimed the animals belonged to him and refused to hand them over to Sarah. Consequently, Sarah became caught up in a lengthy property dispute, and she has no idea if the animals are still in her ex-partner’s custody or whether they are still alive. The RSPCA could not intervene as the matter was deemed a domestic violence case, and there was no direct evidence of abuse. Sarah’s ex-partner continued to perpetrate abuse against her during the lengthy legal proceedings, months after Sarah had left the relationship and sought safety.
These cases are difficult because a magistrate cannot consider what is in the best interests of an individual animal. Instead, a magistrate is required to consider who has a stronger property ownership argument. This is not always straightforward either – for example, consideration is given to who has paid the vet bills and who has purchased the animal’s food. Significantly, the person named on the animal’s microchip is not automatically awarded ownership of the animal.
Women who have left a violent relationship and who seek ownership of an animal may have experienced financial abuse, so the ‘animals as property’ paradigm may automatically favour the violent person.
There is a solution! We are advocating for custody orders for animals.
We are in the process of developing legislation that would empower magistrates to make animal custody orders in the name of the protected person at the same time as granting an ADVO. This will ensure that victim-survivors are able to leave a violent relationship with the animals in their care. If required, Police would be able to assist the protected person to safely collect the animal in a process similar to the current Property Recovery Orders regime.
Our legislation draws on a wave of reform that has occurred in the United States, where a majority of States have enacted similar animal custody orders.
DFV impacts the whole family, animals included. An animal custody order system recognises that animals are victims of DFV in their own right, and the process supports a victim-survivor to maintain the bond and connection with her beloved animal companion without further jeopardising her safety.
*Not her real name
Feature Image: Alison Waters, the Animal Justice Party’s Lead Candidate for the upcoming NSW election.