Is There a Need for Legislative Recognition of Rehabilitative Maintenance in South Africa? Lessons from Specified States of the United States of America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper traces the development of rehabilitative maintenance in South Africa. It illustrates that while there is no statutory provision dealing with rehabilitative maintenance in the country, courts are nonetheless, willing to make maintenance orders for limited periods. This paper shows that the criteria that courts use to grant this type of maintenance is not clear, making it difficult for legal practitioners to predict their clients’ cases. Courts have wide discretion when adjudicating rehabilitative maintenance disputes. They can order specific amount of maintenance to be paid to the maintenance seeking spouse for a particular period without outlining the basis for their decisions. While rehabilitative maintenance is relatively new in South Africa, it is nonetheless, well established and legislated in some of the States within the United States of America. This paper argues that rehabilitative maintenance should be legislated in South Africa in order to provide adequate guidance to the courts. Further, that failure to legislate rehabilitative maintenance would lead to inconsistent approaches being developed by the courts. In particular, it recommends the amendments of the Divorce Act in order to make provision for rehabilitative maintenance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".