Tremendously helpful information, thank you so much!
I'm reading the "Jurisdiction" section right now:
2011 Indiana Code :: TITLE 29. PROBATE :: ARTICLE 3.5. UNIFORM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS JURISDICTION ACT :: CHAPTER 2. JURISDICTION
SABBM:
IC 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 or a court of the respondent's home state has declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is a more appropriate forum; or
(B) the respondent has a home state, a petition for an appointment or order is not pending in a court of that state or another significant connection state, and, before the court makes the appointment or issues the order:
(i) a petition for an appointment or order is not filed in the respondent's home state;
(ii) an objection to the court's jurisdiction is not filed by a person required to be notified of the proceeding; and
(iii) the court in this state concludes that it is an appropriate forum under the factors set forth in section 6 of this chapter;
(3) this state does not have jurisdiction under either subdivision
(1) or (2), the respondent's home state and all significant connection states have declined to exercise jurisdiction because this state is the more appropriate forum, and jurisdiction in this state is consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States; or
(4) the requirements for special jurisdiction under section 4 of this chapter are met.
As added by P.L.178-2011, SEC.10.
IC 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 in this state.
(2) Issue a protective order with respect to real or tangible personal property located in this state.
(3) Appoint a guardian or conservator for an incapacitated or protected person for whom a provisional order to transfer the proceeding from another state has been issued under procedures similar to IC 29-3.5-3-1.
(b) If a petition for the appointment of a guardian in an emergency is brought in this state and this state was not the respondent's home state on the date the petition was filed, the court shall dismiss the proceeding at the request of the court of the home state whether dismissal is requested before or after the emergency appointment.
As added by P.L.178-2011, SEC.10.
The significant connection state is defined in the article code as:
(15) "Significant connection state" means
a state, other than the home state, with which a respondent has a significant connection other than mere physical presence and in which substantial evidence concerning the respondent is available.
_________________________
So, if I'm reading the jurisdiction criteria correctly, it looks like BM is filling in IN on the basis that it's a "significant connection state."
What's unclear is whether or not BM is asking for an emergency appointment, i.e., temporary for 90 days, or not.
If he's filed for an emergency appointment, what would trigger a court of the home state requesting dismissal of an emergency appointment?
JMO.
