Lines Drawn in Blood: A Comparative Perspective on the Accommodation of Blended Families in Succession Law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Blended families, created by the coupling of individuals with children who are not common to both spouses, are not new to Canadian society. Yet, Canadian legal systems still struggle to find ways of accounting for their specificities in various legal regimes. This article focuses on the way laws on inheritance treat blended families: whether a stepchild can inherit, upon intestacy, from the father they grew up with if he is not listed on their birth certificate; whether, as intended, the child of one of the spouses really receives their parent’s full estate if this parent predeceases their spouse; whether an intestate’s younger “half-sister” receives as much as an estranged older sibling. I take a comparative approach to these questions, critically analyzing laws across Canada, France, England, and Scotland to discuss the strengths and shortcomings of various legislative approaches. My findings indicate that while blended families create new relationships that are inexistent in the nuclear family, the template for succession laws across the world remains the nuclear family. Yet, even the simple parental relationship, when placed in the unique framework of a blended family, functions differently in this context and can lead to the rerouting of a deceased’s inheritance. This in-depth look at the interplay of blended families and contemporary succession laws, their origins, and purposes allows me to evaluate whether Canadian laws are accomplishing their goals when it comes to blended families. I find that our laws on inheritance often fail to accommodate the specificity of blended families, and suggest a reframing of the way we approach inheritance so as to foster their inclusion.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.040 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".