The right of spouses to maintenance (alimony): comparative legal aspect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article uses the comparative legal method to study the peculiarities of legal regulation of spousal maintenance in the legal systems of foreign countries. The author focuses on the systemic problem of national legislation and law enforcement practice with regard to determining the amount of spousal maintenance (alimony), which is caused by the lack of clear criteria for determining the spouses’ right to maintenance and its amount. It is noted that the comparative legal method of research provides a detailed understanding of the essence of the legal phenomenon and facilitates the implementation of the leading legal trends in the area under study. The author provides a description of the legal provisions of foreign legislation on the criteria for maintenance, purposes and principles of spousal maintenance. The author details the provisions of English, German, American, South African and Canadian legislation on the grounds, conditions, criteria for spousal maintenance and current trends. The author discusses the issue of pension distribution during divorce, and provides the norms of national pension legislation on the distribution of pension assets during divorce. It is noted that the peculiarity of Canadian family law is that when deciding on spousal support, the court does not take into account the inappropriate behaviour of the spouses, i.e. the misconduct of the spouses in relation to the marriage. The author analyses in detail the unprecedented experience of Canada in developing and applying the Spousal Support Guidelines, which, despite their non-legislative status, significantly increase the effectiveness of spousal support legislation in Canada, as well as promote transparency and predictability in determining the right to spousal support and its amount. The recommendations have had a significant impact on the practice of family law in Canada and are now widely accepted and used by lawyers and judges across the country. As a result, the author concludes that it is necessary to detail the criteria for spousal support in national legislation and law enforcement practice, based on the relevant provisions of foreign legislation, taking into account current trends in family law.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".