« Environment - More on the U.S. Steel Gary Works/Grand Calumet permit, and related issues | Main | Ind. Decisions - "Appeals Court reduces former firefighter's sentence" »

Monday, August 06, 2007

Ind. Decisions - Indy Star discovers Atkins guardianship/visitation rights dispute

The Indianapolis Star appears to be playing "catch-up" this week with stories it failed to cover in the past. Yesterday the Star discovered the BP permitting dispute in Lake County, giving it front-page play. (See ILB entry here.)

Today the Star is giving front-page coverage to a Court of Appeals decision from June 27th, the case of the Guardianship of Patrick Atkins; Brett Conrad v. Thomas Atkins and Jeanne Atkins.

Some quotes from the lengthy story by Melissa Patterson:

Brett Conrad spent more than half his life as Patrick Atkins' partner. For 25 years, the men shared bank accounts, apartments and eventually a home in Fishers.

But when Atkins, 47, fell seriously ill in 2005, Conrad faced what many gay Hoosiers consider a travesty: no law guaranteeing them the same rights as married couples to participate in care decisions for their ill partners.

Conrad, 47, spent much of the past two years trying to win guardianship of Atkins from Atkins' parents, Thomas and Jeanne of Carmel. Jeanne Atkins is quoted in court documents as saying she believes homosexuality is a sin and that she disapproves of the men's relationship. The parents have barred Conrad from visiting their now-disabled son in their home where he lives.

In June, Conrad won visitation rights from the Indiana Court of Appeals, but the court upheld an earlier Hamilton County ruling that left control of Atkins' care to his parents.

Gay-rights activists say the men's story illustrates the discrimination embedded in Indiana law and underscores why gay marriage should be allowed.

On the other side, opponents of same-sex marriage say the case could have been prevented if Conrad and Atkins had used existing laws that can give unmarried couples -- straight and gay -- the legal right to act on each other's behalf.

In its ruling, the appeals court recognized the human suffering at the center of the case:

"We are confronted here with the heartbreaking fracture of a family," the judges wrote in their ruling. "Brett and Patrick have spent 25 years together as life partners -- longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents -- and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's lifestyle." * * *

Before falling ill, Atkins had been chief executive of his family's business, Atkins Elegant Desserts and Atkins Cheesecake. * * *

Jeanne Atkins testified at trial that it was "probably true" she would not let the men see each other unless required by law.

The record also shows that she told Conrad that if her son was going to return to life with his partner after recovering from his stroke, she would prefer he not recover at all.

In the bid for a rehearing, the Atkinses' lawyer denies Jeanne Atkins made the comment.

Apparently neither side is happy with the Court of Appeals result: the senior Atkins retain guardianship of their 47-year-old son, while his life-partner, Brett Conrad, has been granted visitation rights by the COA ruling. According to a sidebar to the story:
The Atkins' family attorney, David Richey, said he is in the process of filing an appeal of an appellate court ruling granting Brett Conrad visitation rights. The state Supreme Court could decide to hear the case or let the appellate court's decision stand.

Conrad's attorney, Jeffrey Dible, declined to comment on whether Conrad would appeal again.

The side-bar continues with a useful ABA list of the documents that should constitute "the bare-minimum protection couples should have to protect their property, health, assets and relationship."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 6, 2007 06:20 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions