ILNews

Lawmakers fly through bills to meet deadlines, beat weather

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana General Assembly has adjourned for the week after working quickly to move bills out of the House of Representatives and Senate by their respective deadlines. The legislators also kept an eye on a winter storm heading toward Indiana Tuesday.

The legislative deadline for bills to move out of the House was Monday. Representatives passed numerous bills, including House Bill 1145, giving Vanderburgh County two magistrates in July 2015; and HB 1222, which establishes an interim committee on adoption and provides an adjusted gross income tax credit for a person who is eligible to claim the federal adoption credit.

The Senate approved and sent to the House:
•    Senate Bill 36 – probate, trust and transfer on death matters
•    SB 40 – nonparty immunity
•    SB 59 – guardians being able to file for divorce on behalf of incapacitated adults
•    SB 60 – urges a study committee on judicial mandates
•    SB 88 – mental health witnesses in criminal court
•    SB 171 – pilot project consolidating Marion County community corrections services
•    SB 223 – senior and special prosecutors
•    SB 294 – workers’ compensation
•    SB 366 – Marion County Small Claims courts and garnishments
•    SB 395 – bail

Other legislative matters of note:

•    HJR3 is scheduled to be heard in the Senate Rules Committee Feb. 10 after adjournment.

•    Senate Bill 109, which would remove the mandatory retirement age of 75 for Indiana justices and appellate judges, failed to pass the Senate after a 24-24 vote.
 

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. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  2. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  3. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  4. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT