Guardianship, power of attorney bills on 3rd reading

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A bill that would prevent the termination of the guardianship of an incapacitated minor once the minor turns 18 and legislation that allows a copy of a power of attorney to have the same effect as the original are before the Indiana House of Representatives on third reading Monday.

In the House, legislators will hear Senate Bill 32, which looks to prevent the courts from ending the guardianship of a minor who has been adjudicated as an incapacitated person once the minor turns 18. The bill also will allow a minor who hasn’t been adjudicated an incapacitated person and the minor’s guardian to jointly petition the court to extend the guardianship beyond the minor’s 18th birthday to a termination date set forth in the petition or the date the minor turns 22, whichever occurs first.

In addition to providing that a copy of a power of attorney has the same force and effect as the original if the person granting the POA certifies that the copy is true and correct, SB 157 also urges the Legislative Council to study issues related to powers of attorney during the 2012 interim session.

In the Senate, legislators will discuss Simple Resolution 9, authored by Sen. Jean Leising, R-Oldenburg, which urges the Legislative Council to establish a study committee to look at Public Law 209. Last session, House Bill 1402 made changes to Indiana law that now require undocumented immigrants to pay out-of-state tuition to attend college. That resolution is eligible for adoption.

Also being discussed on the Senate floor Monday on second reading:
•    HB 1033 on sentencing and criminal history matters. The bill includes a definition of a “criminal history provider” and discusses when a court can convert a Class D felony to a Class A misdemeanor.
•    HB 1049 on problem-solving courts, courts, and inspector general matters. The bill allows problem-solving courts to collect program fees and also allows the inspector general to directly institute civil proceedings against people who haven’t paid civil penalties imposed by the state ethics commission.
•    HB 1258 on estate planning matters, which includes a provision that the practice of law by someone who isn’t an attorney is considered racketeering for purposes of the law concerning racketeer influence and corrupt organizations.
•    HB 1273, which asks for the Legislative Council to study the idea of creating a centralized department of administrative law judges within the Office of the Indiana Attorney General.

Both the House and Senate reconvene at 1:30 p.m.

The House Judiciary Committee met Monday morning to discuss several bills, including SB 152, which would give Allen Circuit Court a second full-time magistrate; SB 190, which denies parenting rights to rapists; and SB 156, which establishes a new procedure for partitioning real and personal property that requires a court refer the matter to mediation.

On Tuesday, the Senate Corrections, Criminal and Civil Matters Committee meets to discuss four bills, including HB 1204 on matters involving the sex and violent offender registry. On Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear three bills, including HB 1365 on dual juvenile and criminal jurisdiction.

Feb. 29 is the last day for third reading of House bills in the Senate; Senate bills have through March 5 to make it out of the House of Representatives. House Speaker Brian Bosma, R-Indianapolis, recently said he and Senate President Pro Tempore David Long, R-Fort Wayne, want to wrap up the session early. The session is formally scheduled to end March 14.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues