ILNews

South Bend probate judge candidate forum

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The six candidates for Probate Court in St. Joseph County will participate in a forum from 3 to 4 p.m. April 28 at Indiana University South Bend.

The event is scheduled to last about 90 minutes and is sponsored by the St. Joseph County Bar Association, the League of Women Voters of the South Bend Area and two IU South Bend groups – the Political Science Club and American Democracy Project. Sponsors will prepare questions in advance. Candidates will make opening and closing remarks of 90 seconds and will have 90 seconds to answer each question.

Candidates are: Democrats Andre Gammage, Mark Kopinski, Catherine Andres, Ken Sheetz and Stephen Drendall; and Republican James Fox.

St. Joseph County is the only county in Indiana with a Probate Court, which is a court of limited or special jurisdiction. The Probate Court consists of one judge elected to a six-year term and three magistrates appointed by the judge. The court has authority over estates, wills, trusts, guardianships, adoptions and paternity disputes. It also has a family court that deals with domestic matters such as divorce, child support and visitation rights.  The Probate Court has jurisdiction over all juvenile matters, including the administration of the Juvenile Justice Center.

The candidate forum will be in the University Grill, Administration Building, 1700 Mishawaka Ave. For further information, contact Elizabeth A. Bennion, associate professor of political science at IU South Bend, at 574-520-4128, or at ebennion@iusb.edu.

 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT