I'm still new to this particular message board, so I'm not sure on multi-quote yet (don't worry, I'm tech savvy so I'll figure it out soon enough) and I wanted to reply to you as well as TKG. I hope
@TKG will suffice.
I am an attorney, and I have to reply ethically, and thus this will be a general statement. In other words, I can't say I have any special insight into this case. I don't, so take this with a grain of salt, and know this isn't legal advice. But, generally speaking, temporary guardianships are much more restrictive than general.
As far as notice, the provisions are seemingly laid out at 29-3.5-2-8 of the Indiana Code:
2011 Indiana Code :: TITLE 29. PROBATE :: ARTICLE 3.5. UNIFORM ADULT GUARDIANSHIP AND PROTECTIVE PROCEEDINGS JURISDICTION ACT :: CHAPTER 2. JURISDICTION
I have no doubt that the Indiana District Judge made sure that notice requirements were met in this case.
We only have read that, apparently, one family member states he/she didn't receive notice. It could be her dad, it could be her siblings (don't know that she has any), it could be great aunt Margo twice removed. I can only assume that notice was given "in the same manner as required to be given in" Indiana.
Vague enough for you?