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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Bob Stochel was opposing counsel to me in several federal cases (including a jury trial before Judge Tinder) here in SDIN. He is a very competent defense and trial lawyer who knows federal civil procedure and consumer law quite well. Bob gave us a run for our money when he appeared on a case.

  2. Awesome, Brian! Very proud of you and proud to have you as a partner!

  3. Oh, the name calling was not name calling, it was merely social commentary making this point, which is on the minds of many, as an aside to the article's focus: https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100111082327AAmlmMa Or, if you prefer a local angle, I give you exhibit A in that analysis of viva la difference: http://fox59.com/2015/03/16/moed-appears-on-house-floor-says-hes-not-resigning/

  4. Too many attorneys take their position as a license to intimidate and threaten non attorneys in person and by mail. Did find it ironic that a reader moved to comment twice on this article could not complete a paragraph without resorting to insulting name calling (rethuglican) as a substitute for reasoned discussion. Some people will never get the point this action should have made.

  5. People have heard of Magna Carta, and not the Provisions of Oxford & Westminster. Not that anybody really cares. Today, it might be considered ethnic or racial bias to talk about the "Anglo Saxon common law." I don't even see the word English in the blurb above. Anyhow speaking of Edward I-- he was famously intolerant of diversity himself viz the Edict of Expulsion 1290. So all he did too like making parliament a permanent institution-- that all must be discredited. 100 years from now such commemorations will be in the dustbin of history.

ADVERTISEMENT