I wonder if these two ever had any marriage counseling.
Thank you for these insights, Seattle1.CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26
^^See the entire post quoted by OP for clarity at link #26 above.
@RumorMonger,
I don't believe I've had the privilege to know you or your posts so I apologize in advance if I get this wrong.
But before I advance one keystroke further, I have to say that I'm absolutely dumbfounded by OP's ability to retrieve my post of 18 August from three (3) locked threads ago. BRAVO??!!!
I'm sure I speak for others in desiring OP's knowledge of how to quote archived posts from a locked thread. Please tell! My practice limits me to only linking my locked posts from thread #26 (linked above for clarity).
I'm also not sure about this "putting me on the spot."
When one is addressed directly, is the courtesy of a reply not required?
(Don't say it-- probably another redundant British practice)...
OK, getting back to your stated assumptions that people that know the respondent and the family dynamics are supposed to speak for the missing person and protect their interest, and they are allowed and encouraged to have legal counsel themselves, I agree in part, and offer the following:
To be clear, my quoted posts on the matter of guardianship for a missing person are not intended to challenge or allege in any form that BM has done anything illegal or underhanded by petitioning for guardianship of SM.
I cannot find fault with BM, or any other petitioner, for using the only law available to them under the circumstances of a missing wife. That would make no sense to me.
However, what I am doing in this post is using BM's petition, and his circumstances, to further my opinion that serious flaws exist in the Indiana State Statute providing for guardianship of missing persons.
Indiana Law defines who is entitled to notice that a petition has been filed for your loved one and that a guardianship hearing has been scheduled. If you're not entitled to be notified, there is no provision in the IC for a guardianship petition hearing regarding your loved one to be publically advertised to alert or otherwise notify interested parties such as, in this case, SM's father, siblings, Godmother, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc.. People, that as you stated, are best suited to understand the family dynamics of the missing person in order to determine where intervention is needed.
More specifically, IC 29-3-6-1(a) states:
(4) If it is alleged that the person is an incapacitated person, notice of the petition and the hearing on the petition shall be given to the following persons whose whereabouts can be determined upon reasonable inquiry:
(A) The alleged incapacitated person, the alleged incapacitated person's spouse, and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children, or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents.
Applying the Indiana guardianship rules pursuant to IC 29-3-6-1(a) to BM's circumstances and petition for guardianship of his wife, only two people were required notified that the serious issue of guardianship of SM was even before the Indiana court. I don't understand how any intervention, as you stated, would be possible under this law.
(A) The alleged incapacitated person [SM], [missing, cannot be notified],
the alleged incapacitated person's spouse [BM],
and the alleged incapacitated person's adult children [MM],
or if none, the alleged incapacitated person's parents [not applicable].
According to public records, BM filed a Petition to Establish Guardianship of SM and other documents including Consent of Interested Party in Hamilton County, IN, on June 1, 2020 - only weeks after SM was reported missing. Court records also indicate a Motion was filed to Waive the Hearing, and by Court Order, BM was granted Temporary Guardianship of SM on June 5, 2020.
In the Hamilton Superior Court 1, Hamilton County, Indiana
Case No. 29D01-2006-GU-000096
A Guardianship Has been established for:
Suzanne R. Morphew
Incapacitated Adult/Minor
Year of Birth: 1971
Guardianship Type: Temporary
Guardian(s) Guardianship Of Issue Date Expiration Date
Barry L. Morphew Individual and Estate
6/5/2020
9/3/2020
https://public.courts.in.gov/grp/Search/Detail/187708?Detail=True
Indiana Supreme Court public access case search - MyCase
Since June 5, 2020, BM has had Letters of Guardianship for SM, empowering him to have full control over his Ward's (wife) entire estate without anybody ever knowing except for his adult daughter (and/or anyone BM chose to tell or confide in).
Reportedly, none of SM's family had any knowledge whatsoever that the issue of SM's guardianship was before any court! If not for a reporter reaching an unnamed sibling, seeking any comment about BM selling real estate located in Hamilton County, IN while SM was missing, it's quite likely they still would not know that BM was granted guardianship by court order.
Again, let me be clear that according to Indiana law, BM had/has no legal requirement and was under no obligation to inform anybody about his petition for guardianship except for his adult daughter, who also provided her consent. BM is guided by the law for missing persons, and it's my position that Indian law fails to protect missing persons including SM.
It's my opinion that Indiana law approving a grieving spouse and adult child--probably in shock, to consent to life-changing decisions on behalf of their missing wife and mother (pretty much in secret), less than a month since she vanished does not adequately protect the missing, respondent. I believe it was the fore founders of probate court that recognized the need to prohibited certain actions for six months as a safeguard to protect the grieving from bad decisions during a fragile period.
To answer your last question, I do not believe the solution here is "just providing a free lawyer."
I've made other suggestions on what I think the Indiana General Assembly might consider changing in a subsequent post in closed Thread #26, linked below.
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26
CO - CO - Suzanne Morphew, 49, did not return from bike ride, Chaffee County, 10 May 2020 #26
MOO
@Dr.StClements sbm Thank you for your post.
{{{ETA: after reading @Seattle1 's comments as quoted in @marylamby 's post 528, upthread, I feel Seattle1 may have more info and insight into specifics of BM's petition and the ct. order, but I'll leave this post intact, as FYI re what I believe to be gen bus. practice. TYVM, @Seattle1 }}}
Bbm #1. Iiuc, BM was given authority by ct, to close June?July? IN. prop sale. Not sure if BM has free rein already w all their jt. assets. Iiuc (and not saying I do, because I have not seen pleadings, ct orders, & other dox), ct appt'ed him as Gdn/granted him auth'y. to act only as to that one home prop, which would imo have been specifically listed in the petition originally filed.
Also iirc, BM/BM's atty did not file an inventory until after first ct order/apptmt re that one prop. was issued.
Bbm #2. Based on gen business practices described below, I doubt that now/before Sept(?) hearing, that BM can manage to wangle any real est or brokerage a/c transactions. But no predictions from me about what will happen in the fall or re bank accts.
Stepping away from the M's specifically, say,Harry Husband & Wanda Wife, (
Inventory: 1st Nat'l Bk checking a/c ($5,000); Derrill-Bynch brokerage ($ 15,000 IBM common stock); Gedility Mutual Funds ($ 30,000); Rental house ($ 125,000); Rental duplex ($ 200,000); Rental office bldg ($ 350,000),
< in WW's name only.
Iirc, the court (virtually? always) specifies in its Order/Letter, the properties, assets, accts, which HH has auth'ty to handle. At least IME at HQ of a national investment brokerage, HH is not allowed to place buy or sell orders for stocks, mut fds, etc, or make withdrawals, write checks, etc , in WW's a/c, unless/until home office law/compliance dept had reviewed ct doc's to verify that HH had been given auth'ty by the ct do do so.*
IME w real est, title ins. co's exercise similar scrutiny over real est transactions.
Personally cannot address bank practices, so hoping some others , esp'ly our legal professionals, will weigh in, to
comment, clarify, or correct. And if their exp. w other types of businesses or institutions is different from mine.
my2cts
----------------------------------------------------------
* Of course, some other situations allow HH to transact business for WW, for ex. if WW is named as trustee of WW's trust agreement of tr dox, or if WW executed a power of atty authorizing him to do so.
Thank you very much for taking the time to provide information re Q I raised in my post - much appreciated! -@Dr.StClements sbm Thank you for your post.
{{{ETA: after reading @Seattle1 's comments as quoted in @marylamby 's post 528, upthread, I feel Seattle1 may have more info and insight into specifics of BM's petition and the ct. order, but I'll leave this post intact, as FYI re what I believe to be gen bus. practice. TYVM, @Seattle1 }}}
Bbm #1. Iiuc, BM was given authority by ct, to close June?July? IN. prop sale. Not sure if BM has free rein already w all their jt. assets. Iiuc (and not saying I do, because I have not seen pleadings, ct orders, & other dox), ct appt'ed him as Gdn/granted him auth'y. to act only as to that one home prop, which would imo have been specifically listed in the petition originally filed.
Also iirc, BM/BM's atty did not file an inventory until after first ct order/apptmt re that one prop. was issued.
Bbm #2. Based on gen business practices described below, I doubt that now/before Sept(?) hearing, that BM can manage to wangle any real est or brokerage a/c transactions. But no predictions from me about what will happen in the fall or re bank accts.
Stepping away from the M's specifically, say,
Inventory: 1st Nat'l Bk checking a/c ($5,000); Derrill-Bynch brokerage ($ 15,000 IBM common stock); Gedility Mutual Funds ($ 30,000); Rental house ($ 125,000); Rental duplex ($ 200,000); Rental office bldg ($ 350,000),
< in WW's name only.
Iirc, the court (virtually? always) specifies in its Order/Letter, the properties, assets, accts, which HH has auth'ty to handle. At least IME at HQ of a national investment brokerage, HH is not allowed to place buy or sell orders for stocks, mut fds, etc, or make withdrawals, write checks, etc , in WW's a/c, unless/until home office law/compliance dept had reviewed ct doc's to verify that HH had been given auth'ty by the ct do do so.*
IME w real est, title ins. co's exercise similar scrutiny over real est transactions.
Personally cannot address bank practices, so hoping some others , esp'ly our legal professionals, will weigh in, to
comment, clarify, or correct. And if their exp. w other types of businesses or institutions is different from mine.
my2cts
----------------------------------------------------------
* Of course, some other situations allow HH to transact business for WW, for ex. if WW is named as trustee of WW's trust agreement of tr dox, or if WW executed a power of atty authorizing him to do so.
Boy, I get this! And I don't have cancer! But I do think when people go thru difficult experiences in their lives and reflect how they've felt and handled situations prior that they felt uncomfortable about, they make decisions to handle things differently in the present. This may have happened with SM, which could feel threatening to a controlling mate. moo
I'd sign up if the initial meeting place was Puma Path. Would love to see 1,000 people crawling all over that property while BM heads out for the gym.
BM worships at the altar of barrymorphew, IMO
Amen
Maybe he smelled a trap. MOO.
Thank you so much for attending Suzanne’s vigil last night and sharing your observations and thoughts. The pictures brought tears to my eyes. The anguish SM Family is going through breaks my heart. Someone knows exactly where SM is, and to put her Family and loved ones through this torture is unconscionable, beyond the pale!
