Why the law favours parents who spend more time and effort on kids

Time is money, and this is especially true when it concerns children because the law favours parents who put in more time and effort to care for their kids.

When marriages fail, the parents who made such intangible contributions to take care of the family will get a higher share of the matrimonial assets.

Spouses are often treated as equal partners, but it does not mean that the law is blind to the fact that one party has put in more effort than the other.

When it comes to long marriages, courts tend to put a premium on non-monetary contributions such as taking care of children and running a household.

Here are five cases on how the courts have rated parents for their efforts.

Primary caregiver

This case concerns a wife who was a homemaker and the child’s primary caregiver. She did so without the father, a domestic helper or other family members.

The husband was often travelling for work, and while he did spend some time with the child, the High Court felt that this did not equate to his being an involved father.

So the wife was given an indirect contribution ratio of 70 to 30 in her favour.

Main breadwinner

Another example involves a marriage of 14 years, where the wife was both the primary caregiver and the family breadwinner.

She had a full-time job on a substantial salary, and also spent most of her free time taking care of her two kids as well as paying for most of the family expenses. In contrast, the husband was always busy running his own businesses, went on holidays spanning several months on his own, and had spent little time with the children.

As a result, her indirect contributions were assessed at 75 per cent. This was an unusual case because the wife was given a 95 per cent rating for financial contributions, and this enabled her to get 85 per cent of the family assets.

More effort in later years

This case involved a marriage of 20 years with two children. Both spouses’ contributions were roughly equal in the first decade of marriage, but in the second decade, the wife contributed significantly more, both in terms of money and effort.

The husband was absent from the family for substantial lengths of time and he also engaged in extramarital affairs. So the wife got a 75 per cent score for indirect contributions.

Homemaker’s contribution

This concerned a marriage of 16 years, where the parties had lived separately for six of those years. However, the husband maintained a significant physical presence in the child’s life even after separation.

Throughout the course of the marriage, the parties had moved multiple times, with the husband remaining with his employer, while the wife had to seek different jobs. After giving birth, the wife gave up work and was the child’s primary caregiver.

Indirect contributions were assessed at 60 to 40 in her favour.

Working overseas

For the most part of this nine-year marriage, both parties were working. In the early years, they made equal indirect financial contributions, such as for renovations to the matrimonial home and daily expenses.

But the wife had been their child’s primary caregiver since birth. Moreover, after she moved to Hong Kong with the child, she was responsible for all the expenses.

While the husband was not very involved as a father, he was given credit for making efforts to stay in touch with his child, such as by travelling to Hong Kong for visits.

Unlike the other cases involving full-time parents, the wife in this case worked as a banker and earned a substantial salary. So she was given a 70 per cent score for indirect contributions.

What this means is that even if a marriage does not work out, it still pays to be good and caring parents.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

ADV: Grabbing Opportunities in ASEAN Trade and Investment Agreements: What Legal Professionals Need to Know NOW When self-employed spouses don’t pay for family expenses