ILNews

IBA: Legislative Committee takes action on grandparents rights

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana General Assembly grappled with some hefty family law issues during the recent legislative session and the IBA was up to the challenge.

A letter from the Indianapolis Bar Association's Legislative Committee was read during discussion in the Indiana House on Senate Bill 59. The Legislative Committee and the Family Law Section had been keeping a close eye on Senate Bill 59 as it progressed through the legislature. The bill, which set out to expand the parameters surrounding grandparent and great-grandparent visitation, was opposed by section members because it would open the door for potentially contentious litigation in intact families.

IBA Members were kept abreast of legislation this year via updates in the IBA E-Bulletin electronic newsletter and targeted e-mails. "It is critical that members of the Bar be aware and involved in the issues being addressed by the legislature," said Kerry Hyatt Blomquist, co-chair of the IBA's Legislative Committee. "In general terms, our legislators are passing laws that we, as lawyers, will be referencing and that we, as judges, will be interpreting."

Senate Bill 59 was defeated on third reading in the Indiana House on Feb. 25. As of press time, no further action had taken place, but the bill could be revived in conference committee or attached to another piece of legislation.

A letter written by Blomquist outlining the IBA's opposition to SB 59 was read by Rep. Cindy Noe (R-Indianapolis), during discussion before the final vote.

In part, the letter stated: "This bill would create a cause of action for every disgruntled grandparent and allow them the remedy of filing a law suit when they are not allowed to see their grandchildren. Please understand that we are talking about an intact, married couple losing the ability to decide together, as parents of their children, whether to limit or restrict grandparent visitation. That is a right that all parents have, and we believe it is a right that should not be challengeable unless there is a viable concern for the safety or well being of their children."

Chris Worden, a family law attorney and member of the Family Law Section's executive committee, also had testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the bill could have a negative impact on intact families and children. "So many family law attorneys oppose this legislation because they've seen how destructive parenting time litigation is for children and parental relationships. It can be stressful and financially devastating," he said.

Members of the Family Law Section had received a number of e-mail updates about this bill and Senate Bill 178, which dealt with custody issues. Members also had a chance to share their comments on an online survey.

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. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  2. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  3. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  4. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  5. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

ADVERTISEMENT