Thirteen Years of Parenting, Just 2%? Why Caring for Children Matters in a Property Settlement
One partner brings the assets. The other takes primary responsibility for raising the children. When the relationship ends, how should those very different contributions be recognised?
In Tiang & Pen [2026] FedCFamC1A 121, a mother had undertaken the substantial majority of parenting responsibilities over approximately 13 years. Yet the trial judge assessed her contributions at just 2%, before making a separate adjustment for her circumstances.
On appeal, that outcome did not stand. Schonell J found the assessment plainly wrong and increased her overall share of the net property pool from 10.5% to 25%.
The decision is a reminder that the work of raising children cannot be understood simply by looking at who earned the income, held the assets or lived under the same roof.
A short period living together, a much longer parenting history
The parties had two children. Although their de facto relationship involved approximately three years and eight months of cohabitation, their contributions extended over a much longer period.
The mother had been the children’s primary carer throughout their lives. The trial findings included that she undertook most parenting tasks during cohabitation and continued caring for the children after separation.
The father, meanwhile, brought all significant assets into the relationship and made the overwhelming financial contributions. Those contributions were important and remained important on appeal.
The issue was not whether his financial contributions should count. It was whether her substantial parenting contributions had been properly recognised alongside them.
At trial, the net property pool was approximately $3.48 million. Contributions were assessed at 98% to the father and 2% to the mother. An additional 8.5 percentage-point adjustment in her favour produced an overall division of 10.5% to her and 89.5% to him.
Why the appeal succeeded
The appeal court accepted that property decisions involve a broad discretion. A different view about percentages is not, by itself, enough to overturn a decision.
Here, however, the findings established approximately 13 years of parenting contributions, including five years in which the mother undertook all parenting responsibilities. Assessing those contributions at 2% gave them only token recognition.
Schonell J emphasised that contributions require a holistic assessment, rather than a mathematical exercise confined to the period of cohabitation.
For separating parents, that distinction matters. A relatively short period living together does not necessarily tell the whole story of the contributions each person made to their family.
What changed in the settlement?
Rather than sending the case back for another hearing, the appeal court reassessed the division using the existing findings.
- Contributions assessment: 2% at trial → 16.5% on appeal.
- Separate adjustment under s 90SM(5): 8.5 percentage points at trial and on appeal.
- Overall share: 10.5% at trial → 25% on appeal.
Her final entitlement equated to $869,467.50 in property. After allowing for property she already held and the payment already received under the original orders, the father was ordered to pay a further $504,291.50.
These figures illustrate the consequence of the reassessment. They are not a tariff for parenting, and the case does not establish that a primary carer should receive 25%, half the property or any other fixed share.
What does this mean if you earned less or stayed home with the children?
If your former partner says, “I paid for everything,” that may describe an important financial contribution. It does not necessarily describe the full contribution history.
The practical question is how to present a clear, supported account of what each person contributed. Depending on your circumstances, relevant information may include:
- Who managed the children’s daily care, schooling, appointments and routines.
- How caring responsibilities affected each person’s employment and earning opportunities.
- The parenting and financial support provided before, during and after living together.
- The assets each person brought into the relationship and their later financial contributions.
The aim is to make the contribution history visible and properly evidenced—not to attach an hourly rate to parenting.
The reasoning is relevant to understanding contributions made by either parent. It should not be read as favouring mothers over fathers, or as discounting substantial financial contributions.
How Sambanis Family Law can help
A persuasive property settlement case needs more than a list of assets. It needs a clear explanation of the relationship, the contributions made by both parties and the circumstances relevant to the outcome.
Our Brisbane team assists with property settlements after separation, including identifying relevant financial records, preparing contribution histories and advising on negotiation or court proceedings.
Where arrangements for children also need attention, we provide advice about parenting arrangements, parenting plans and consent orders.
If you are concerned that your parenting contributions are being overlooked—or need advice about how your financial contributions should be recognised—contact Sambanis Family Law to arrange a confidential consultation.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Property settlement outcomes depend on the evidence and circumstances of each case. A consultation with a solicitor is a paid service.
Source: Tiang & Pen [2026] FedCFamC1A 121, Schonell J, 8 July 2026. Background and trial outcome: [5], [11]–[14]; appeal reasoning: [24]–[31]; reassessment: [41]–[50].