ILNews

Committee taking another look at emancipation law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee meets Tuesday to discuss the law passed during the 2012 legislative session that reduced the age of emancipation to 19 for child support purposes.

Senate Enrolled Act 18 changed the emancipation age from 21 to 19 and has led to questions as to whether children could be treated differently by the courts depending on whether their parents were ever married.

There are concerns that if children of divorce don’t file for a petition for educational support before they turn 19, despite when their child support orders were issued, they may not be able to receive the support.

According to its agenda, the committee will also consider Preliminary Draft 3246 on educational child support and other business.  It meets at 10 a.m. in Room 233 of the Statehouse.

The Probate Code Study Commission meeting will meet at 1:30 p.m. Tuesday in Room 404 of the Statehouse. The commission will consider the 2013 legislative proposals from the Probate, Trust and Real Property Section of the Indiana State Bar Association.

The Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee meets at 10 a.m. Thursday in Room 233. An agenda for the meeting was not posted by IL deadline. The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission meets at 1 p.m. in Room 431 and will look at protected zones, probation issues and hear public testimony.

Visit the Legislature’s website to watch the meetings online.
 

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT