Why Focusing on Percentages Can Derail a “Just and Equitable” Outcome Post Separation or Divorce
** This article contains legal information and personal perspectives based upon lived experience. It is not legal or professional advice. Legal and professional advice should be obtained if you wish to understand your personal legal and financial position and what approach may be best suited to your situation**
Today, I had a powerful conversation with Ruby Kelly, Associate Family Lawyer based in Brisbane, that reaffirmed something I see again and again in my work with separating families.
We were talking about what I see as one of the biggest pitfalls of the traditional approach to financial separation:
the obsession with percentages from the outset
Ruby shared with me that when she enters mediation, she will often refuse to start with talk around percentage splits. Instead, she insists the conversation begin with a very different question along the lines of:
What outcomes will actually create stability for both parties and for the children moving forward?
In her experience, when mediation is framed this way, something important happens….
The tone immediately shifts and the process becomes more collaborative.
And when the time eventually comes to calculate percentages - because yes, the law ultimately requires this of a lawyer - the figures almost always fall naturally within the just and equitable percentage range.
This conversation landed deeply for me, because it’s the same discussion I repeatedly have with clients before joint sessions or when preparing them for mediation.
It’s also not the first time I’ve had this conversation with a family lawyer. In fact, I’m having it more and more often as the family law landscape slowly shifts away from traditional adversarial advocacy and toward more collaborative approaches.
But if I’m honest, this fixation on percentages isn’t solely the fault of the legal system. It runs much deeper than that.
Why Our Brains Get Hooked on Percentages
In my conversation with this family lawyer, I shared with her how I support my clients to reframe their focus away from percentages not because percentages are irrelevant (at least not from a legal perspective), but because human beings are neurologically wired for competition and to perceive fairness through the lens of equalness.
We also wired for self-preservation when under threat.
Separation is perceived by the nervous system as a profound threat to safety and security. And for many people, that threat is very real, particularly in a housing market where suitable housing is difficult to secure.
When we are under threat, our nervous system pushes us towards:
black and white perceptions of fairness – ie: half;
comparison;
“winning”;
securing the biggest piece of the pie; and
getting what we believe we deserve.
So, when the conversation centres on “What percentage am I entitled to?”, it almost inevitably fuels:
positional thinking;
resentment when positions are not met; and
a defensive, adversarial mindset.
This is especially true when people hear something like:
“My lawyer said I am entitled to X%.”
In my experience, an experienced family lawyer rarely speaks in such absolute terms.
What they usually provide is a broad range of what might be considered just and equitable and often at a point in time where they do not yet have all the information, disclosure, or a clear picture of the practical consequences.
Yet many people unconsciously latch onto the top end of that range, because it feels safer, fairer, or more validating in the moment.
The challenge is that once someone fixates on a number, tunnel vision sets in. And the practical impact of that, when left to run the show, is often the loss of opportunities to achieve outcomes that may actually be far more beneficial for both themselves and their evolving family dynamic.
The Practical Impact We Often Miss
One crucial step that’s often overlooked when people become fixated on percentages is the lived, practical impact of the position they’re holding.
Something Ruby and I discussed today was how, when clients are supported to really sit with the practical impact of their proposed outcome — not just for themselves, but for the other person — they often realise it creates consequences they never intended.
A simple example illustrates this clearly:
An extra 10% on paper does not mean a 10% difference in real life.
It usually means a 20% disparity between parties.
For example:
A 50/50 split of a $1 million property pool = $500,000 each
A 60/40 split = $600,000 to one party and $400,000 to the other
That’s not a small adjustment — it’s a significant difference in lived reality.
And yes, in some circumstances such a split may be entirely appropriate. But many people insist on these outcomes without ever pausing to consider:
What does this mean for my ability to re-establish?
What does it mean for the other person’s ability to do the same?
Do I actually need this much? Do they actually need more?
How does this impact housing stability, parenting capacity, emotional wellbeing, or future resentment?
When the focus stays narrowly on percentages, these questions often go unasked — and in my experience, that’s an avoidable misstep that sets families up to begin their next chapter on the wrong foot.
So how can we avoid this?
What “Just and Equitable” Really Requires
In our discussion today, something stood out clearly and it was this mutual perspective between us that just, equitable, and fair outcomes require consideration of practical impact first.
Not contributions.
Not percentages.
Not mathematical division.
But the lived realities and real-world consequences anticipated by Section 75(2) of the Family Law Act 1975.
While society - and historically legal practice - has conditioned separating families to believe that fairness is determined by percentages, I would argue the opposite, particularly where children are involved.
For most families, the practical impact of an outcome on both parties and the children ultimately determines whether something is truly just and equitable in reality. When we start with outcomes like:
stable housing for both parents;
financial viability post-separation;
reduced resentment and contempt; and
a foundation for workable co-parenting;
the numbers tend to fall into place far more naturally and without the unnecessary conflict and costs that are often driven by a percentage focus.
And when they do, they are far more likely to be outcomes people confidently can live with, not just legally, but emotionally and without resentment, because they align with values, make practical sense and support the wellbeing of the evolving family as a whole.
A Different Place to Put the Focus
This conversation today, reinforced something I return to again and again in my work:
Percentages matter legally — but where you place your initial focus matters far more to the bigger picture.
When separating couples focus first on outcomes, not entitlement, they are far more likely to:
reduce conflict;
preserve dignity;
avoid carrying resentment into their post-separation family dynamic; and
secure better outcomes on a whole to move forward on.
And Ruby demonstrated something critically important in her approach to mediation and that is this:
Often all it takes is one person in the separating dynamic to shift the focus — from “What percentage am I getting?” to “How do these options support everyone to re-establish well?”
If you have found yourself stuck on percentages, please know this is entirely normal and it is important to show yourself some compassion and not judge yourself for this. What is important, is what you might do now with this new insight.
Know it is never too late to change your focus and to obtain the right support to help you get clear on practical impacts.
If you would like support in reframing your approach, understanding practical impacts, and gaining clarity on outcomes that genuinely support your next chapter, you’re welcome to book a complimentary Next Steps Call to explore your options.
