ILNews

Court grants visitation for partner in guardianship case

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
When Patrick Atkins suffered a brain hemorrhage and subsequent stroke on a business trip in 2005, his partner of almost 30 years wanted to be there and visit.

While Atkins' family didn't approve of the relationship, Brett Conrad was allowed to visit and have contact with his partner at first. But the family began cutting off that contact and eventually the two sides went to court over visitation rights and guardianship. Conrad lost in Hamilton Superior Court before Judge Steven Nation, who granted guardianship to Atkins' family and allowed them control of visitation - which they'd said in trial would not be allowed for Conrad.

Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed that lower court's decision and gave the Fishers man visitation rights and contact with Atkins. The 2-1 ruling came in Guardianship of Patrick Atkins; Brett Conrad v. Thomas Atkins and Jeanne Atkins, No. 29A02-0606-CV-471.

"We are confronted here with the heartbreaking fracture of a family," Chief Judge John Baker wrote. "Brett and Patrick have spent twenty-five years together as life partners - longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents - and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's future.

"Although we are compelled to affirm the trial court's order that the Atkinses be appointed Patrick's co-guardians under our standard of review, we reverse the trial court with respect to Brett's request for visitation inasmuch as all credible evidence in the record establishes that it is in Patrick's best interest to continue to have contact with his life partner."

The appellate court also found that the trial court should have required Patrick's presence at the hearing, but that his court-appointed guardian ad litem waived that right by failing to enforce it. Additionally, the court concluded the lower court properly set off the couple's Charles Schwab account to the guardianship estate, but that it erroneously refused Conrad's request for the estate to pay some of his attorney fees and costs.

Judge Carr Darden was the lone dissenter on this case, writing a nearly four-page separate opinion.

Noting that the majority relied on Indiana Code section 29-3-5-3(b) to declare the trial court was required to enter orders encouraging development of Patrick's self-improvement and well-being, Judge Darden wrote, "I can agree that such would indeed be a laudable goal of a guardianship order, but I cannot agree this is what the statute requires."

He also notes that the majority has "impermissibly reweighed evidence and assessed witness credibility in violation of our long accepted standard of review."
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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT