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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  2. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  3. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  4. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

  5. Unlike the federal judge who refused to protect me, the Virginia State Bar gave me a hearing. After the hearing, the Virginia State Bar refused to discipline me. VSB said that attacking me with the court ADA coordinator had, " all the grace and charm of a drive-by shooting." One does wonder why the VSB was able to have a hearing and come to that conclusion, but the federal judge in Indiana slammed the door of the courthouse in my face.

ADVERTISEMENT