Judiciary committee to consider guardians being able to file for divorce

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tackling an issue that has appeared in the Court of Appeals twice in recent months, the Senate Judiciary Committee will hear legislation that would allow guardians to file for divorce on behalf incapacitated adults.

Senate Bill 59 is one of eight bills on the committee’s agenda Wednesday. Under the proposed bill, a court would be able to grant a guardian’s request for permission to file for divorce only if the guardian proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the dissolution is in the best interest of the protected person.

The guardian must be named in a petition for dissolution of marriage and must file with that petition a copy of the court order granting the request for permission to file the petition.

Indiana law does not currently allow a guardian to petition for dissolution of marriage on a ward’s behalf. The Indiana Court of Appeals issued opinions in October and July on this topic, in one case reversing the grant of a divorce filed by an incapacitated man’s daughters, who are his co-guardians.

The appellate judges cited caselaw from 1951 to support their rulings and also pointed out that the current laws governing dissolution of marriage and guardianship of incapacitated persons do not provide a means for a guardian to file for divorce on behalf of his or her ward. Court of Appeals Judge Paul Mathias wrote in In Re the Marriage of Leora McGee v. Robert McGee, 45A04-1301-DR-33, “In a world full of subsequent marriages and available pre-nuptial agreements, we will not read into a statute such a sweeping and potentially overreaching authority, authority that is not the clearly expressed intent of the General Assembly.”

The committee meets at 9 a.m. in Room 130 at the Statehouse. Also being heard Wednesday:

•    SB 41 provides that property sold at auction in a partition sale shall be sold without relief from valuation or appraisement laws.
•    SB 138, on victim advocates in civil proceedings, removes restrictions on grants from the victim services division of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute for certain entities to enter into a contract with the domestic violence prevention and treatment council. The bill also provides that a court may allow a victim advocate to attend a civil proceeding and confer with a victim as necessary. A victim advocate is not considered to be practicing law when performing certain services.
•    SB 227 expands immunity from arrest or prosecution for certain alcohol offenses if the arrest or prosecution is due to the person reporting a medical emergency, being the victim of a sex crime, or witnessing and reporting a crime. Current law provides immunity only if the person reports a medical emergency that is due to alcohol consumption.
•    SB 229 on firearm buyback programs
•    SB 305 on Schedule I drugs and “spice”
•    SB 291 on human trafficking investigations
•    SB 312, on the assignment of lottery prizes, allows a person who wins a prize payable in installments from the lottery commission to assign the future prize payments under certain circumstances upon court approval.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.