Will my parenting and homemaker contributions be seen as equal to breadwinning contributions?

Contributions to the welfare of the family as homemaker or parent are a full contribution under section 79(4)(c) and must be recognised in a substantial, not token, way. They may be equated with financial contributions.

However, there is no legislative deeming of equality and no presumptive equal value starting point; value is a question of fact in each case.

The Act does not treat earning money as inherently superior to raising children. Section 79(4) requires the Court to take into account both financial contributions and contributions made in the capacity of homemaker or parent. Homemaker and parent contributions are contributions of the same kind, to be assessed alongside financial contributions. The assessment is evaluative rather than arithmetic, and there is no rule that a homemaker contribution ranks below a financial one.

On the facts of a given case the weighing may favour one form of contribution or the other, but the Court does not begin from the position that the income earner has contributed more. The Court must always weigh the facts of the matter holistically, and so to preference one form of contribution without a legislative basis would invite an error.

See also:

Mallet v Mallet [1984] HCA 21

What happens if I earn significantly more than my partner?

Where one party can earn substantially more than the other, that disparity is a significant future needs factor under section 79(5), in particular section 79(5)(c) (income, property, financial resources and capacity for gainful employment) and section 79(5)(o) (duration of the relationship and its effect on earning capacity).

The court focuses on the real impact in money terms and the Court can recognise that a substantial, reliable, income earning capacity is often the most valuable “asset” a party takes from the relationship. The adjustment is discretionary and integrated with contributions and the just and equitable result; child support obligations are weighed but do not compensate for lost career opportunity.

The question and analysis becomes more complex when there are issues of health (for example when one person may not be able to work in the future), or retirement that may offset the impact of a large income disparity, and these points are often fiercely fought.

Due to these factual disputes, it is the factual and evidentiary findings made by the Court that often have the most impact on a property settlement. This is because parties will base their claims to the assets on vastly different sets of facts that are completely at odds with each other.  The difference between the sets of facts means that there could be two completely different outcomes depending on what set of facts the Court prefers.