Professional Women's Alliance of Connecticut

By Karen A. Stansbury, Attorney at Law

A spouse agrees to suspend her/his education/career to become the Homemaker/Caregiver in the marriage.  Suddenly, s/he has depreciated in value under Connecticut law.  “Work” is defined by many family lawyers, and judges, as any activity which is remunerative.  Simply stated, if one earned it, one owns it.  Homemaking is not a contribution of equal worth.

The Scene:

A courtroom in a Connecticut Superior Court.  A divorce trial is taking place.  The plaintiff wife is testifying on the witness stand.

The wife’s attorney is asking her a series of questions relating to the work that she performed on the marital home.  The wife describes the labor intensive landscape designing, digging, hauling, and planting that she conducted during the course of the marriage, the length of which is over twelve years.  Her lawyer produces a book and asks her client to identify it.  The wife explains that the book is her detailed journal of gardening work, dating from the time of the wedding until shortly before she left the marital home.  Included are detailed layouts of vegetable beds and perennial borders.  The wife’s attorney offers the gardening journal as evidence, and the husband’s lawyer objects.  The judge agrees with the husband’s lawyer that the journal is not relevant, and sustains the objection.

The wife’s counsel inquires if her client had done any maintenance work on the marital home. The wife explains that she has done all of the interior painting, and most of the exterior painting on the house for the entirety of the marriage.  Her chores included scraping and painting windows, trim, and even the floor of the garage.  The wife describes scrubbing mildew, weeding the gravel driveway, sanding rusty patio furniture, and refinishing hard wood floors.  The husband’s attorney objects, claiming that this evidence is not relevant.  The judge allows the wife to continue, “For what it’s worth,” he growls at her attorney.

The wife’s lawyer asks her client about her work as a mother.  The wife testifies to the fact that the minor children of the marriage, aged ten and eight, have very active schedules, and that since they were born, she has always been the primary care giver.  The wife’s attorney produces a sheaf of papers and asks her client to identify it.  The wife explains that the papers in question are a printout of the children’s calendars for the last four years.  The information includes social functions, sporting events, parent/teacher meetings, musical practices and performances, and doctor/dentist appointments.  The wife’s lawyer offers the calendars as evidence, and the husband’s lawyer objects.  The judge agrees with the husband’s lawyer that the calendars are not relevant, and sustains the objection.

The wife’s attorney asks her client questions regarding the bookkeeping work that she has performed for the husband’s business.  The wife testifies that for the length of the marriage she has been the office manager and accountant for her husband’s contracting business.  She describes her duties as ranging from office work, to dealing with customers and subcontractors, to banking, to making regular visits to the Post Office and Staples.  She states that she was available to her husband 24/7, even if it meant having the children in the office, or in the car with her.  The wife never received a salary.  Her husband did not pay into her Social Security, nor did he provide her with a retirement plan.  All funds generated from the family business are in the husband’s name.  The wife’s lawyer produces copies of the Quicken records for the business for the last ten years.  The husband’s lawyer objects that this information is cumulative.  The judge rules that the business records are evidence of the wife’s contribution to the marriage, and overrules the objection.

What is wrong with this picture?

Connecticut General Statutes section 46b-81 is entitled “Assignment of property and transfer of title.”  Subsection (c) states in pertinent part:  “In fixing the nature and value of the property, if any, to be assigned, the court, after hearing the witnesses, if any, of each party . . . shall consider the length of the marriage, the causes for the annulment, dissolution of the marriage or legal separation, the age, health, station, occupation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate, liabilities and needs of each of the parties and the opportunity of each for future acquisition of capital assets and income.  The court shall also consider the contribution of each of the parties in the acquisition, preservation or appreciation in value of their respective estates.” (Emphasis added)

Sounds like the judge is dissolving a business partnership, doesn’t it?

The shocking fact is that the non remunerative contribution of a Homemaker is not considered “work” under Connecticut law.  Family courts in Connecticut are courts of equity.  That is to say, the parties will be awarded property from the marriage based on the theory of “equitable distribution.”  What does that mean?  Answer:  whatever the judge decides that it means.

And yet, the duties that are performed daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly by the average Homemaker are staggering.  The following is a sample list of the hats that Homemakers wear:

Household Work

Exclusive Sexual Partner

Food shopper

Clothes shopper

House manager/Delivery Receiver/Repairs Organizer

Car Maintenance Person

Cleaning Person

Cook

Dishwasher

Laundry Person

Dog/Cat/Pet Keeper

Errand Maker

Driver

Banker/Accountant/Financial Planner/Bill Paying Person

House Painter, Indoor/Outdoor

Landscape Architect/Gardener

Decorator

Vacation Planner

Holiday Planner

Parenting Work

Day Care Provider

Medical Care/Pharmacy Pick-up and Distribution

Tutor

Driver

Party Planner

Activity Planner

Sports Coach

Girl/Boy Scout Leader

Therapist/Counselor

Mediator with Teachers, Coaches, Doctors etc.

The non-Homemaker spouse banks the money saved by not hiring a professional to provide these services.  Ironically, had they been hired, the aforementioned professionals would have been “working.”  Suppose a single parent was forced to pay someone else to perform these tasks?  The cost would be astronomical.

Homemakers should be revered as Super Powers, wear capes, and have gigantic H’s emblazoned on their chests.  Instead, their contributions to a marriage are devalued and the law in Connecticut does not protect their interests in a divorce.  Statistically, a Homemaker’s life style decreases 25 to 40% after divorce, while that of the wage earner spouse increases by 15%.

Opportunity Cost

Typically, once a spouse is out of the work force for three years, his/her earning capacity is permanently dented.  Suppose that in this scenario the plaintiff is a car accident victim, rather than a party to a divorce.  The law in Connecticut regarding personal injury, which is a tort, or civil wrong, may include compensation for loss of wages, medical bills, pain and suffering, infliction of emotional distress, as well as “loss of consortium.” Consortium is defined as “The benefits that one person, especially a spouse, is entitled to receive from another, including companionship, cooperation, affection, aid, financial support and (between spouses) sexual relations.” Black’s Law Dictionary, 8^th Edition. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if family judges had the statutory authority to award the same damages to a spouse under the theory of equitable distribution?

Possible Solutions

Work outside the home/Daycare or Nannies/Housekeepers

Keep detailed records

Prenuptial Agreements

Postnuptial Agreements

Marital Mediation

Conclusion:  Change the Law

Many laws in Connecticut actually contribute to the problem of inequity before and after divorce.

Probate:  A spouse may will away the entire marital estate without notice to the
other spouse.

Pensions: A non-employee spouse has no legal right to review contributions to, or
withdrawals from, the employee spouse’s pension plan.

Health Insurance: Premiums for women are considerably higher than those for men in the same age bracket.  COBRA benefits, which are defined by federal law, are often unaffordable after divorce.

The only option is to apply pressure on State law makers to implement change. Write to the Chief Justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court.  Become acquainted with your legislators.  Attend talks.  Do research on the Internet.  The call for necessary changes must come from the public.