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

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT