backtop


Print 74 comment(s) - last by clovell.. on Nov 15 at 5:32 PM

The new service aims to save divorce filers time and money

It looks like you will soon be able to do more than just online shopping and download tunes via the internetThe South Florida Sun-Sentinel is reporting a new development in Broward County, South Florida, concerning online legality.  In what can perhaps be seen as a sad reflection of our times, the county has just launched online services which allow married couples to apply for divorce online.

The site will guide residents through the legal steps to getting a divorce.  The system is designed to help people with low income save money by foregoing attorney fees.  The various steps on the site contain full information, including legal definitions.  They also have sets of questions to help users determine which forms they need to fill out.

"It kind of guides you through, it asks questions. Once it knows your name, it will put it in every space it should go," Kris Mazzeo, director of the circuit/civil family division of the clerk of courts, said.

Once residents complete the online forms necessary, they merely have to mail the signed forms to the county clerk's office.  Some forms do require a notary signature.

Broward County officials feel the service will save its citizens time and inconvenience.

"People come downtown and it's expensive to park. If we can keep them from making extra trips to the courthouse, it would be great for them," director Mazzeo said.

The city may also have some selfish motives in adopting this change of policy.  The online application process is expected to simplify the paperwork needed by the county clerks and eliminate incomplete applications and angry customers.

Broward County is also launching similar legal services for small claims lawsuits and tenant evictions.

Broward County is not the first county to bring its divorce process online.  The opulent Palm Beach County also has adopted such a system, along with several others.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Cool
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 3:33:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The kid shouldn't suffer for your act of stupidity.

That could be used as an argument either for or against abortion, couldn't it? :o)

There are a lot of people who believe that abortion has helped to solve a lot of serious social problems, for example the theory that the drop in crime in the 1990's was related to the legalization of abortion in the United States.

And if you think about it, bringing unwanted children into the world is not exactly a very good situation either. The outcome for those children is typically pretty bad in general.


RE: Cool
By Ringold on 11/14/2007 3:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
I think the kicker is in where one decides to draw the line at abortion; at what week does it go from ethical to murder? Brain stem activity, according to wiki, shows up starting around 54 days; some women may not even be sure they're pregnant at that point.

Of course, could say that once the process is started, being that the natural outcome is a child without intervention then at any week its murder, but society has moved much too far in favor of abortion to ever look at it like that again.

At any rate, once it crosses societies magical dateline of death, what ever that may be, I would say that there really arent many fates worse than death.

As for the women that try to get abortions all the way out in the 3rd trimester, I say abort the women, but that's just me.


RE: Cool
By clovell on 11/14/2007 3:46:04 PM , Rating: 1
> As for the women that try to get abortions all the way out in the 3rd trimester, I say abort the women, but that's just me.

Agreed.


RE: Cool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/14/2007 7:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
Until the fetus can live on its own without the mother its nothing more than a parasite. Parasites can be removed if the host deems it necessary. The fetus is no different than any other paraside that dies when we medically remove it from the host (Worms, etc...). People pose moral dilema's, but the details in regards to abortion is pretty clear cut from a medical and scientific point of view.


RE: Cool
By TomZ on 11/14/2007 7:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
Referring to an unborn child as a "parasite" is prety cold. Technically a child is a "parasite" even after birth, if you choose to look at it that way.

I'm guessing you're not a parent... :o)


RE: Cool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/14/2007 8:57:14 PM , Rating: 2
I just don't let my paternal emotions get in the way of logic.


RE: Cool
By Parhel on 11/14/2007 8:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
That's inaccurate. Parasites, by definition, are of different species from the host organism. In addition, a one year old child couldn't live on his or her own without the mother. Would you then go so far as to say that "aborting" a born infant is morally neutral as well?


RE: Cool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/14/2007 9:11:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's inaccurate. Parasites, by definition, are of different species from the host organism.

Incorrect. You read the definition from Wikipedia which is inaccurate. Normally I would have no problem with wikipedia information but it didn't seem quite right. I rechecked the definition of Parasite with Encarta, Dictionary.com, and a Biology text book.
An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
That's the definition of a parasite. A Fetus fits this definition. Moving on.

quote:
In addition, a one year old child couldn't live on his or her own without the mother.

Sure it can, premature babies survive just fine without their mothers all the time. So do babies who's mother dies in child birth. The child has basic needs that can be satisfied by any caretaker, the mother is not required. After a year this becomes even easier as many internal organs are more developed and can handle harsher environments.

quote:
Would you then go so far as to say that "aborting" a born infant is morally neutral as well?

No. Even premature babies can survive without their mother. (See above). You are jumping to a conclusion based on an incorrect interpretation of my statement.


RE: Cool
By clovell on 11/15/2007 11:56:08 AM , Rating: 1
In that case, Mr. Kenobi, you're wrong. Pregnancy boosts a woman's immune system, and therefore does not qualify as a parasite since it does contribute something to the host.

As for the the post-partum aspesct - the child would still be a 'parasite' by your reasoning - the hsot would simply be different.

I see where you're coming from with this, but in all reality, medicine and science are practiced with ethics - so the argument is rather moot.


RE: Cool
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/15/2007 3:18:41 PM , Rating: 1
Ethics are a notion. Made up by people who are trying to apply morality to process.


RE: Cool
By clovell on 11/15/2007 5:32:35 PM , Rating: 1
um... ok?


RE: Cool
By Synastar on 11/14/2007 8:00:19 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not a fan of abortion, however, you are wrong on one count for sure. My wife is a social worker, and believe me, many unwanted children go through fates worse than death on a daily basis. The ones who make it through the system relatively undamaged mentally and/or physically are few and far between.


RE: Cool
By clovell on 11/14/2007 3:44:51 PM , Rating: 1
> That could be used as an argument either for or against abortion, couldn't it? :o)

Maybe - although how well it would actually stand up would depend on whether you consider a fetus a person.

> There are a lot of people who believe that abortion has helped to solve a lot of serious social problems, for example the theory that the drop in crime in the 1990's was related to the legalization of abortion in the United States.

I haven't heard that before. I don't see how those dots connect - I mean, Roe v Wade happened decades before the 1990s.

> And if you think about it, bringing unwanted children into the world is not exactly a very good situation either. The outcome for those children is typically pretty bad in general

It's definitely a lose-lose. Depending on your moral convictions, though, your choice of which loss to take can vary.


RE: Cool
By retrospooty on 11/14/2007 9:40:09 PM , Rating: 2
"> There are a lot of people who believe that abortion has helped to solve a lot of serious social problems, for example the theory that the drop in crime in the 1990's was related to the legalization of abortion in the United States.

I haven't heard that before. I don't see how those dots connect - I mean, Roe v Wade happened decades before the 1990s."


What he mant, and I agree is that Roe v wade in the early 70 = less unwanted unattended and un(properly)parented kids in the 70's and 80's = less criminals in the 90's and today.


RE: Cool
By glitchc on 11/15/2007 12:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
Sheesh, how tiresome...

Need I remind people on this forum, once again, that that particular theory from Freakonomics has been thoroughly and completely debunked.

The correlation did not hold water, fellas and lassies. The analysis was flawed. Give it up.


"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki