US Lawyer Database

29-3.5-5-3. Application

Sec. 3. (a) This article applies as follows: (1) To guardianships and protective orders in existence on July 1, 2011. (2) To guardianship and protective proceedings begun after June 30, 2011. (b) In the case of a guardianship or protective proceeding begun in Indiana before July 1, 2011, jurisdiction is established under IC 29-3. (c) […]

29-3.5-2-3. Jurisdiction of Indiana Courts; Criteria

Sec. 3. A court of this state has jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order for a respondent if: (1) this state is the respondent’s home state; (2) on the date the petition is filed, this state is a significant connection state and: (A) the respondent does not have a home state […]

29-3.5-2-4. Special Jurisdiction

Sec. 4. (a) A court of this state lacking jurisdiction under section 3(1) through 3(3) of this chapter has special jurisdiction to do any of the following: (1) Appoint a temporary guardian in an emergency as permitted by IC 29-3-3-4 for a term not exceeding ninety (90) days for a respondent who is physically present […]

29-3-14-9. Termination of Supported Decision Making Agreements

Sec. 9. (a) Except as provided in the supported decision making agreement, a supported decision making agreement terminates in the following situations: (1) The adult subject of the supported decision making agreement dies. (2) The adult subject of the supported decision making agreement revokes the agreement under section 8 of this chapter. (3) The named […]

29-3-14-10. Presumption of Validity

Sec. 10. A supported decision making agreement that complies with section 7 of this chapter is presumed valid. A party may rely on the presumption of validity unless the party has actual knowledge that the supported decision making agreement was not validly executed. As added by P.L.68-2019, SEC.4.

29-3-14-11. Immunity; Exception

Sec. 11. (a) Except as provided in subsection (c), a person who, in good faith, relies on an authorization in a supported decision making agreement or who, in good faith, declines to honor an authorization in a supported decision making agreement is not subject to civil or criminal liability or to discipline for unprofessional conduct. […]

29-3-14-12. Meaning and Effect of Supported Decision Making Agreement

Sec. 12. The meaning and effect of a supported decision making agreement is determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the supported decision making agreement was executed, unless the supported decision making agreement provides otherwise. As added by P.L.68-2019, SEC.4.