| (continued) Battle over visitation, care of disabled man flares between parents and longtime partner At the time of the trial, Atkins was able to walk, dress, bathe and feed himself with some help, to read accurately but understand only 25 percent of what he read, and to engage in simple conversations, court documents show. He still required close supervision and had significant problems with short-term memory and maintaining a prolonged attention span. His condition today remains much the same, according to the most recent court filings. The recent decision In the June 27 decision, the appeals court ordered the lower court to grant Conrad the right to visit Atkins but not the right to be his guardian. While judges have discretion in awarding guardianship, their decision is guided by state statute, which spells out that guardianship of an incapacitated person should fall to whoever has power of attorney, which is the legal authorization to act on behalf of that person. If no power of attorney exists, next in line comes the spouse, then an adult child, then a parent and still more options related to marriage or blood. There is no specific right for gay partners. Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven R. Nation sided with the Atkins family, noting the lack of a power of attorney. The appellate court affirmed that decision, saying it found no evidence the lower court had abused its discretion and that it was clear the Atkinses were committed to providing Patrick the best possible care. In its decision, however, the court expressed misgivings about how the Atkinses feel about their son's sexuality. "We are extraordinarily skeptical that the Atkinses are able to take care of Patrick's emotional needs," said Chief Judge John G. Baker, writing for the 2-1 majority. That, in part, is why the judges granted Conrad visitation rights, citing the findings of a court-appointed guardian who testified that Atkins would only stand to benefit if Conrad were allowed to visit him. Gay-rights advocates say nothing short of marriage rights can provide the legal shield necessary to defend against a partner's relatives. Without such protection, says the Rev. Jeff Miner, a pastor at Jesus Metropolitan Community Church, a gay-affirming congregation in Indianapolis, "you're thrown upon the mercy of the family, and in some cases they're not merciful." Others who fought for a same-sex marriage ban in the Indiana Constitution this year see the issue differently. "The problem isn't the couple couldn't get married," said Curt Smith, president of the conservative Indiana Family Institute. "The energy from the intervention comes from the parents' disapproval. . . . They think it's wrong, and that's not something the law can address." While Conrad v. Atkins is a tragic case, Smith said, it doesn't merit changing Indiana laws. The same circumstance could have befallen an unmarried straight couple, and there are a number of protections available to unwed couples that Conrad and Atkins didn't use, he said. For example, he said, gay couples can appoint a health-care representative to ensure they are cared for in times of illness. Partners can include each other in wills. But many gay couples aren't confident of those methods, saying nothing can match the unassailable rights of marriage. For Kim Allman and Leisa Waggoner, disapproving families aren't the only threat to the layers of contracts in place to protect their assets, health and two children. Waggoner, who adopted Allman's children, is painfully aware that when the family travels to Oklahoma to visit Allman's brother, state law there explicitly forbids her adoptive status. "That would mean that if something happened to Kim (in Oklahoma), I could lose the kids," Waggoner said. "I'm scared." Regardless of how the courts rule in the Conrad-Atkins case, the Atkinses aren't likely to change their minds about their son's relationship. 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. |
| Posted on: http://growingsense.wordpress. com/tag/patrick-atkins/ Move Over Joan, Fishers Has A New Mommie Dearest August 7th, 2007 Isn’t this sweet? The Star carried a story about Jeanne Atkins. She owns a Cheesecake company in Fishers, an Indianapolis suburb and hosts a daily prayer meeting for her workers:
wisdom,” said the member of St. Luke Catholic Church who is a devout Catholic and attends Mass daily. “Prayer is my strength.”… “You’re making God’s heart smile,” Atkins told the 36 employees at the June 28 prayer time. But the true nature of her cheesy faith is revealed in the hateful way she and her family are treating her son and his partner of 27 years. Atkin’s son, Patrick had a stroke on a business trip back in 2005 that left him disabled. When Brett, Patrick’s partner (they met in college, owned a home together, shared bank accounts, etc.) rushed to Atlanta where he was hospitalized, Patrick’s family left orders with the ICU that only family and clergy were allowed to see Patrick. And though they’d been together for over 20 years by that time, Brett was not “legally” family. Since then, the Atkins have refused to let Brett care for or even visit Patrick, who is now mentally and physically disabled. This is the man Brett has spent over half his life loving. Because Brett and Patrick were not married and had not crafted a living will (heads up folks!), Patrick has no legal recourse. Even if they’d spent the thousands of dollars required to draw up necessary (for couples who can’t get married) documents, there are no guarantees that they hold up in a state like ours when you have wealthy holy-rollers like Jeanne willing to clog things up indefinitely. A recent court decision, while not allowing Brett to care for his partner, insisted that he at least be allowed to visit him. The Atkins’ are appealing the decision in order to keep Brett away. I wonder if God’s heart smiled when Jeanne Atkins said this: The record also shows that she told (Brett) 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. With this kind of motherly love, it’s no surprise that this letter from Patrick back in 2000 had no effect on his family’s lack of compassion:
best friend in the whole world and I love him more than life itself. I beg all of you to reach out to him with the same love you have for me, he is extremely special and once you know him you will understand why I love him so much. Trust me, God loves us all so very much, and I know he approves of the love that Brett and I have shared for over 20 years." Sorry Patrick. Posted by Troy |
| Response to the Letter to the Editor The Indianapolis Star jeffw Avon, IN Monday Aug 13 Interestingly enough, I received a return phone call today from Jeanne Atkins. I had called and left a message about a month ago, when this situation was first brought forth in the paper. She made the statement, among several, that the Indystar will not give her voice to state her case, and that homosexuals are running the paper and making this one sided. She also gave Brett credit for ruining her family. I was very surprised to get this call after such a long time, and have yet to respond. She claims, which at this point the claim is not able to be substantiated, that Patrick wanted out of this relationship. This is her word against the evidence since Patrick is not able to speak for himself now. She claims she and her family have reached out to Brett, to try to help him as well. All very interesting. She also spewed out all the hate verses that the fundamentalist christians try to use to support their view that homosexuality is wrong. The problem here is that these verses were not dealing with the same issues then that we are looking at today. The text in Romans refers to the sin of "lust" and changing the natural or innate desire for one that is foreign to you. Most people that are homosexual cannot change their desire, and it is not some flippant choice to be attracted to the same sex. I have made several posts here over the last week or so, but mostly I am interested in the truth of the matter. We cannot ask for Patrick's opinion any longer, since he is unable to answer now. We have circumstantial evidence that would make most with common sense realize that the situation has been mishandled in regards to Brett's exclusion from visitation. At best, Jeanne has not demonstrated the love of Christ, in dealing with Brett, whose lifestyle she does not agree with. I hope this whole situation speaks to the hearts of all people of conscience and common sense, and that someday soon, the law will provide the ability to keep this hateful discrimination out of our lives forever. |
| The Indianapolis Star Letter to the Editor August 12, 2007 Mom's statement in custody case of gay son is appalling I am writing in response to the actions and statements of Patrick Atkins' mother (Aug. 6, "Custody case stirs gay-marriage debate''). Whether she accepts her son's homosexuality or not, he is entitled to the life given to him. He chose to make a life with Brett Conrad, and they were evidently content since they spent 25 years together. This is notably longer than many heterosexual relationships. The court record shows Jeanne Atkins making the statement (since denied by her attorney) that she would rather her son not recover from his illness than return to his partner. This is absolutely the most selfish, appalling statement ever uttered by a mother. She obviously does not have her son's best interests at heart and is just using him to make a personal or religious statement of some kind. Thankfully, the Indiana Court of Appeals realized it was in Patrick Atkins' best interest to see his partner. Todd M. Simmonds Indianapolis |
| Indianapolis Star Thursday Aug 9
"I find it unreal how many people know what is right for Patrick when none of you have ever meet him. Oh Yah boycott the Atkins store so that his family has no money to take care of him, Cause god knows Brett can on his $30,000 a year job." family? Then I'm sure you'll recall the letter he wrote asking his Atkins family for acceptance? He wrote that long before his stroke. And since you knew him, wouldn't you agree that he had full control of his faculties then? Of course his mother, Jeanne, had always vowed that she would never accept HIS choice of lifestyle and instead is now forcing her own choices upon him. The bottom line is this is not a gay issue, this is an issue of a 73 year old woman forcing her beliefs, opinions and views upon her son who is recovering from a stroke and should be allowed to live his life as he intended. I would never take the same action with any of my children if put in the same circumstances. Also It's my understanding that Pat is not as incapacitated as they would like everyone to believe. Although he is never allowed to do much on his own, certainly never without an Atkins nearby, he is anything but a vegatable. It would be very interesting to allow Pat to decide who he sees and who he talks to...to make HIS OWN decisions...to allow him to say the names of his extended family members outloud again...and by the way- it appears that YOU are fixated on the money issue. It's not about money. It's about allowing a 47 year old man to live his life as he chose to do, NOT being kept a virtual prisoner by his own mother who is forcing her own views of life down his throat. And what do you have against someone earning an honest living? It appears that you, just like Jeanne, have a bias against those "lowly" folks who work in food service. Ironic that those same servers, who you and Jeanne look down your noses at, are actually the ones selling those cheesecakes and desserts after serving dinner ...I wonder what will happen to Atkins sales when the servers in this country hear how they are viewed by those who see themselves at the top of the food chain. Yes, a few of you have posted that a local "boycott" won't hurt the company. You might want to re- think your logic. A few posts were downright brilliant stating that they would step up to the plate and buy chessescakes to offset any boycott...do the math, Einstein. If you have not read the June 27 Appeals Court Ruling go to: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/0627... Also I heard that the court documents for the original trial were unsealed in the last couple of days. I called the court in Noblesville and was told that Noblesville is not on-line. |
| August 16, 2007 http://www.intakeweekly. com/articles/2/027838-4622-158.html What 'God of love'? Tanisha Neely INtake columnist The words were so cold. In an Indianapolis Star online post, "Sickofit" said:
gay one. At least if he's dead he has a chance at heaven, but if he's gay there is no way. I'm sick and tired of these faggs trying to tell us that we're a bunch of backwoods hillbillys if we don't see things their way." state has co-conspired with the parents of 47- year-old Patrick Atkins to rid their son of the man he loved "more than life itself." Atkins' parents, who disapproved of his "gay lifestyle," were granted guardianship over their now-disabled son. And they refuse him the company of the man with whom he spent 25 years of his life. He once wrote to his family:
world and I love him more than life itself. I beg all of you to reach out to him with the same love you have for me; he is extremely special and once you know him you will understand why I love him so much." But his mother still vehemently denies his request, reportedly saying that she would rather her son not recover if he intends to return to his partner. As a mother of four beautiful children, I can't even begin to wrap my mind around these sentiments. I don't understand how "righteous indignation" drives parents to physically, verbally and/or emotionally batter their gay and lesbian identified kids. I don't comprehend the holy justification for maligning their kids into depression, substance abuse, superficial hetero marriages, homelessness or suicide. As a lesbian, I find the situation heartbreaking. I know all too well that the hatred of many gays and lesbians begins in their own home. And anyone who would argue that this is not really hate needs a reality check. Any parent who would deny their child love and furthermore wish for their death in the name of God (who ironically is also known as Life and Love) is hateful. God is nowhere to be found in them. |
| Terry Schiavo, Patrick Atkins, and YOU Filed by: Jen Jorczak June 28, 2007 6:05 PM If you, like me, have been meaning to set up power of attorney and a living will and everything else that you need to have things in order, "just in case"--especially if you, like me, don't have even the protection of a marriage license--please go read the Advance Indiana summary of the recently decided court case of In Re the Guardianship of Patrick Atkins. The bottom line is, this nice gay couple that's been together 25 years is torn apart when one partner has a stroke. That partner happens to be the one with all the money, and the parents who still haven't accepted 25 years of their son's gay couplehood (Go. Read the words of the loving mother.), so the other partner is pretty much screwed financially, and had to appeal to even be allowed to see the sick partner. Luckily, the Appellate court granted him visitation rights, but he's still screwed financially. And if the couple had set up power of attorney, all of this legal hassle could've been avoided. But power of attorney isn't just for gay couples anymore--earlier this week, I was reading in Newsweek that: In the wake of the Terri Schiavo case, in which her husband and parents fought over whether to remove her feeding tubes, right-to-life activists have been working on state legislatures. Their objective: requiring doctors and families to keep life support going for patients in a permanently comatose state. Honest. According to Jane Bryant Quinn's column, 23 state legislatures have introduced bills that would force families, doctors and hospitals to keep someone "alive" as a vegetable unless they left specific written instructions that they want to be left the hell alone to die in peace. This legislation--which has already passed in North Dakota and Oklahoma--was brought to you by our good friends at National Right to Life. That's right, they drafted the model bill. Apparently, forcing women to give birth wasn't enough--now they're going to prohibit people from dying. It's too bad some of them don't break off to form an organization called "National Right to a DECENT Life"--you know, the sort of agency that would advocate for all those kids who are already born and adults who are still kicking, to ensure that their lives don't totally suck. I'm not talking about making sure everybody has an iPhone. I mean food and shelter and clean water and child care and education and health care and other basic stuff like that that so many people don't have, that would help them have a decent life. But no, apparently, it's much more important to advocate that we use the full power of modern medical technology not to heal people (stay back, stem cell researchers!!), but to make sure they're technically still breathing. Then, given what I've seen of the (lack of) capacity for logical thought some of these people have, I shouldn't be so surprised that they're so protective of their brain-dead brethren. I don't know about you, but I'm going to go fill out the packet of paperwork from our (prospective) attorney. |
Visit often as this page will be used to post news, articles and
comments related to this case either directly or indirectly.
News, Opinions
and Comments
and Comments
 |  |  |  |
| Response to the Letter to the Editor Indianapolis, IN Monday Aug 13 Yesterday, my Red Hat group was at a restaurant in Plainfield. When it was time for dessert, one of the gals asked about their cheesecake and what kind it was. The server hesitated and said it was Atkins. Due to Momma Atkins' terrible treatment of her gay son, only one person was willing to order it. Thanks to the Red Hats!!!! |
| Comment received August 21, 2007 by curious george Just what kind of a judge would concede all of these rights to the mother of a grown man who vowed in his presence if I understand correctly never to permit contact with Pat's partner? and who was the spineless child advocate who must have melted under the pressure of such an influential citizen of the county in which he was running for election? It sounds as though he forgot for whom he was to advocate? |
| | | |