How the Law Protects Submissive Stay-At-Home Moms And Their Children[i]

By Daniel Cox[ii], Valentines Day 2004 (this article is dedicated to my wife Valerie, and all those who have or now do, rock the cradle and rule the world)

            “Submissive” wives are considered evil or at least backwards in today’s culture of feminism.  Indeed, Andrew Sandlin, a so-called modern preacher and popular teen conference speaker, has recently called Christian mothers who embrace and invest in the eternal and priceless value of the souls of children “baby machines.”[iii]  This is a sick man in need of psychological help – he cannot differentiate between a human baby and a widget that is produced by a machine; nor can he discern the figure of a woman from the form of a plastic and metal vending contraption.

We wonder why there is a misconception and hatred of the beautiful position of motherhood, childrearing and homemaking when today’s men dishonor motherhood (and too often our own mothers).  But God highly values and protects this office under the headship of the husband and not surprisingly, the law backs it up with the same protection.

            In the law, a rule that includes an “element test” (as opposed to a factor test) is a highly protective rule and devoid of a judge’s subjective conclusions – every element must be met for the rule to be applied.        

The necessity of headship protection is seen in the Tort law[iv] of Joint Enterprises.  Joint Enterprises encompass undertakings “for the mutual benefit or pleasure of the parties.”[v]  The law of Joint Enterprises requires an element test that has held a special protection for a family enterprise when a wife did not exercise equal power in decision-making control in matters relating to the enterprise and its finances and when a child’s finances were not commingled with the family business.  It is this principle of law which prompts one to ask of godly wives, “how much control do you retain over your family decisions and financial matters”? 

The 1991 landmark case alluded to above held that a family enterprise then controlled by the husband-wife owner’s daughters, could not be held liable for that wife’s alleged negligence from a car accident in which she died.  The husband and wife were both involved in a family business (ranching). His wife and 7 year old daughter were on the way to pick up a 4-H calf when the accident occurred.  A year later, the husband died, leaving an opportunity for a neck-injured man to sue within the statute of limitations against the man’s estate, which was supporting the family ranch still run by the daughters.  However, he lost - there was no liability found under the Joint Enterprises test, since only three of the four elements were met.[vi]  Those four elements for a Joint Enterprise are[vii]:

1.      an agreement, either express or implied (a written or oral agreement between at least two people (including spouses) is enough to establish a joint venture);

2.      a common purpose;

3.      community of pecuniary interest (co-mingling of funds and joint profit); and

4.      an equal right to voice control and direction of the enterprise (decision making powers shared by all parties).

The last two elements are crucial.  In the case above, the Steinle family was engaged in the joint enterprise family business of ranching/farming and yet the court held that “there was absent…a [family] profit motive [in buying the calf for their daughter] and equal right of control [by husband and wife]…”.[viii]  The opposing plaintiff’s attorney attempted to prove that since the mother was at the time driving to get the calf, this showed she had an equal right of control in family business decisions.  The judge found that was a possibility (since the family financial records and depositions showed they both made major decisions concerning the farm business).  But he justly held instead that since the profit [from the calf] would go entirely to the daughter and the common parental purpose for the calf was “for child rearing and teaching”, then there was no joint profit or family enterprise under the second and third elements.[ix]  The injured party could not collect vicariously[x] against the family ranch estate.

However, the judge also held that where a family business showed all four elements met by both husband and wife, then liability would likely be found.[xi] 

I hope that this short case discussion demonstrates the importance and necessity of a godly husband, and a wife that submits herself to his loving, protective headship.  A marriage which rests regular decision-making responsibilities upon the wife, where she controls family pecuniary interests (instead of influencing through counsel), actually may remove from her substantial protection under the law.  It also may open up the family financial interests for liability attachment.

Of course, the Word of God instructed us in the joys of this protection for our own wife and family when it declared: “Eph 5:22-23  Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.” [emphasis added].  We husbands must also be protectors and “saviors” of our wives.  We must take the financial heat and stand in the gap of decisions, prayerfully freeing them from our painful joint enterprises which are of no eternal profit, nor temporal protection.  The best joint enterprise we share is that of raising and teaching our children in the love of God. Then our wives will be free to be women whose destiny will outshine that of the Proverbs 31 lady.  That is the kind of girl we married – the lady who has a vision for her home from God. 

[i] This article is not legal advice.  For legal advice, you may wish to contact a Christian attorney through http://www.shepherdsguide.com/ .

[ii] © Daniel Cox, 2004.  885 Hopwood Lane, Virginia Beach, VA 23455. All rights reserved

[iii] Reported by Doug Phillips of VisionForum.com: “Those World-Affirming Dudes — crack open your Bible, and mix a martini” by Andrew Sandlin, October 16, 2002, published at RazorMouth.com

[iv] A Tort is a legal harm.

[v] 46 Am.Jur.2d, Joint Ventures § 5, p.26.

[vi] Popejoy v. Steinle, 820 P.2d 545 (Wyo. 1991).

[vii] Restatement (Second) of Torts § 491 comment c at 548 (1965).

[viii] Popejoy, 820 P.2d at 449.

[ix] Id at 550.

[x] Vicarious Liability exists when a third party interest is responsible for your damages.

[xi] Id at 552.