In re Guardianship of Atkins
868 N.E.2d 878 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When appointed guardians of an incapacitated person refuse to allow visitation with the person's long-term partner, a court must order such visitation if overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the contact is in the incapacitated person's best interest.
Facts:
- Brett Conrad and Patrick Atkins were in a committed, romantic relationship for twenty-five years, living together since 1978.
- Patrick's parents, Thomas and Jeanne Atkins, vehemently disapproved of the relationship due to their religious beliefs, with Jeanne Atkins stating she would prefer Patrick not recover if it meant he would return to his life with Brett.
- During their relationship, Brett and Patrick pooled their earnings into accounts titled solely in Patrick's name and purchased a house together as joint tenants.
- In March 2005, Patrick suffered a ruptured brain aneurysm that rendered him incapacitated with severe memory and cognitive deficits.
- While Patrick was hospitalized, the Atkinses restricted Brett's visits and, after moving Patrick into their home in November 2005, completely refused to allow Brett any visitation or contact.
- A court-appointed guardian ad litem and an impartial neuropsychologist both concluded that continued contact between Patrick and Brett was paramount and would be beneficial to Patrick's recovery and well-being.
- The Atkinses acknowledged at trial that they would not permit any contact between Patrick and Brett unless ordered to do so by the court.
Procedural Posture:
- Brett Conrad filed a guardianship petition in the trial court, requesting to be appointed guardian of Patrick Atkins's person and property.
- Thomas and Jeanne Atkins filed a cross-petition requesting they be appointed co-guardians.
- Brett Conrad withdrew his request to be guardian of the property, seeking only guardianship of Patrick's person.
- Brett Conrad filed a separate petition requesting an order to compel the Atkinses to allow him to visit Patrick.
- A trial was held on the competing guardianship petitions and the visitation request.
- The trial court issued an order appointing the Atkinses as co-guardians of Patrick's person and estate and denied Brett Conrad's petition for visitation, giving the Atkinses sole discretion over visitation.
- Brett Conrad appealed the trial court's order to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a petition for visitation from an incapacitated person's long-term partner when the appointed guardians object, but overwhelming evidence indicates that visitation is in the incapacitated person's best interest?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, C.J.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying visitation when the evidence overwhelmingly establishes it is in the incapacitated person's best interest. Although the trial court did not abuse its discretion in appointing the parents as guardians, it erred in denying visitation because all credible evidence—including testimony from a guardian ad litem and a neuropsychologist—showed that continued contact with Brett, Patrick's life partner of twenty-five years, was critical for Patrick's emotional well-being and recovery. The Atkinses' refusal to permit visitation, based on their personal disapproval of the relationship, was not in Patrick's best interest. Given their stated intent to bar contact absent a court order, it was incumbent upon the trial court to order visitation to encourage Patrick's self-improvement and contribute to him living as normal a life as possible.
Dissenting - Darden, J.
No. The trial court did not abuse its discretion because its decision was supported by some evidence in the record. The standard of review requires the appellate court to be highly deferential and not to reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility. The Atkinses' expert witness, a psychologist, testified that visitation with Brett might not be positive for Patrick from a psychological standpoint. Because there was evidence supporting the trial court's order denying visitation, the decision is sustainable upon a theory consistent with the evidence and should be affirmed. The majority impermissibly substituted its own judgment for that of the trial court.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing the visitation rights of unmarried, long-term partners in guardianship proceedings, particularly in a pre-marriage equality context. It affirms that the 'best interest of the incapacitated person' standard can override the personal or religious objections of appointed guardians, even when those guardians are the person's parents. The decision provides a legal basis for courts to protect established, non-marital relationships by compelling visitation, thereby recognizing the partner's central role in the incapacitated person's life and well-being. This precedent strengthens the legal standing of non-traditional family members in guardianship and healthcare disputes.
