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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT