The stay-at-home parent's share: equal, plus 5% for the years ahead
- Together
- 16 years, married
- Children
- Two teenagers
- Net pool
- About $627,000
- Split
- 55% her / 45% him
Ms and Mr Vergara married in 2003 and had two children. She worked as a carer for the first three and a half years of the marriage. From 2006 she stayed at home with the children while he worked, a role they agreed on, and she was their primary carer from birth. Later, still overseas, she volunteered about 30 hours a week as a carer at the children's school in return for their free tuition. The family moved to New South Wales in 2015, where she found paid work as a carer, and in 2016 they bought a house. They separated in 2019, and the two teenagers lived with her.
By trial the pool was modest: the house at $600,000 less a $268,000 mortgage, plus savings, cars and super, $627,340 net. He wanted the house, and wanted her to pay him $94,367 towards money he said they owed his mother from 2006. She wanted to keep the house and refinance it.
Judge Carty disregarded the loan. No demand was made until after the separation, no repayment had ever been made, and it had been left off their home loan application. Neither side's spending after separation was added back. Contributions were assessed as equal, as both accepted: for most of the marriage he had earned the family's income, and she had made the home and raised the children, in roles they had agreed.
Then the court looked ahead. She had been out of the workforce from 2006 to 2011, which the judge found had limited her earning capacity compared with his, and she still cared for the children day to day. Because the pool was modest, those future-needs factors carried more weight. She asked for up to 15%. The judge made a 5% adjustment in her favour, worth $31,367.
The result was 55% to her and 45% to him. She keeps the house, refinances the mortgage and pays him $74,486. Each keeps their own super.
Staying home to raise the children is a contribution, just as earning is. Where the at-home parent's earning capacity has suffered and the pool is modest, a court may add a few percent for the years ahead.
Decided before the Family Law Amendment Act 2024 took effect on 10 June 2025. The future-needs factors used here are now in s 79(5) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), which also makes material wastage an express consideration. The court here found no spending that justified adding money back.
A published decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2), retold in plain English. Lawcaptain did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. General information about Australian family law, not legal advice about your situation.
Sort out your own property split.
Agreed on a split? Make it binding with consent orders. Call 1300 967 552, or get an instant quote online.
Equal & everyday splits
He earned the money and did most chores, yet the split ended near evenTogether13 years, de factoChildrenOne, aged 16Net poolAbout $618,000Split52.5% him / 47.5% herFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) · 5 February 2024Read the case study
A Perth de facto couple: his head start was worth 5% after 17 yearsTogether17 years, de factoChildrenThreeNet poolAbout $597,000Split55% him / 45% herFamily Court of Western Australia · 8 March 2019Read the case study
She earned more, but everything except super was split 50/50TogetherAbout 15 years, de factoChildrenTwo, aged 12 and 9Net poolAbout $485,000 + superSplit50/50 of propertyFederal Circuit Court of Australia · 7 May 2020Read the case study