ILNews

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.

 

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