Why work-from-home parents will score better in matrimonial disputes
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 06 Jul 2025
Author: Tan Ooi Boon
When it comes to indirect contributions, the spouse who is the homemaker is usually given more credits than the one who is working.
Parents who work from home are likely to be given more credit for taking care of their kids and families in general if the union sours and hits the divorce courts.
After all, being present in the home means they are always available when it comes to dealing with day-to-day chores. This still holds true even when they are engaged with their work at home or enjoying leisure activities such as watching TV or surfing the net.
The importance of work-from-home parents was highlighted in a recent matrimonial dispute in the High Court when the husband questioned the suitability of his ex-wife in taking care of their children as well as her contribution to the household.
In particular, the husband, a bank’s client adviser, was also upset at being rated 10 percentage points lower than his wife for indirect contributions even though he also worked from home for a brief spell during the pandemic.
His ex-wife also used to work for a bank but stopped for six years or so to take care of the household and their two kids, aged 20 and 12. She started working again as a part-time baker just months before the marriage ended and now runs a home-baking business.
The husband tried to show that his ex-wife was not as involved at home as she made out, as she was often away due to her work. To prove his point, he actually presented CCTV footage that showed her many absences from the home.
The wife countered that she was mostly away from home for just over a month due to a short-term stint as a pastry chef at a hotel although she was still able to take care of the meals for the younger child.
Moreover, she had since stopped working at the hotel to focus on her home-baking business.
High Court Judge Teh Hwee Hwee noted that the husband failed to show how the Family Justice Court was wrong in granting custody of their younger child to the wife and in assessing the couple’s contributions.
She also noted that the CCTV evidence had been selectively presented to show the husband “as a constantly available parent while portraying the wife as a constantly absent parent”. For instance, there were notable omissions of evidence for weekends, when the husband was likely engaged in other activities such as golf.
She noted that the Family Court found that the wife’s caregiving and homemaking contributions through the years surpassed the husband’s, given his frequent travelling.
In addition, the husband was also often occupied with customer appointments, entertainment and company events, and spent many evenings away from home. This meant the wife would likely have shouldered the daily tasks involved in raising and caring for the children.
So Justice Teh upheld the court’s assessment, even if the wife was, as the husband alleged, “an active day trader and spending substantial time watching Netflix and television shows, using social media, exercising and attending courses”.
More effort in caring for family
When it comes to indirect contributions, the spouse who is the home maker is usually given more credit than the one who is working.
In this case, the wife said she spent more time taking care of the family for at least six years and three months as she was not working then. Even if she had spent time on personal activities at home, she argued that her ex-husband would have spent more time away from the family, with his regular golf games and business trips.
Justice Teh saw no reason to alter the earlier ruling which rated the parties’ indirect contributions in the ratio of 55:45 in favour of the wife.
When this was considered together with the bigger financial contributions from the husband, the final ratio was in his favour at 51.45, with his ex-wife getting 48.55.
As the couple’s total assets were valued at about $2.3 million, the husband was given about $1.2 million while his ex-wife received $1.1 million.
What this means is that the law will not short-change stay-at-home parents since they spend more effort in taking care of their families.
Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
3044