| If You Think Your Parents Are Bad… Timothy Kincaid August 13th, 2007 Patrick Atkins knew that his family was judgmental and unaccepting. And he knew that after 25 years together, Brett Conrad was the person he trusted to love, honor and cherish him. But he did not know that he would suffer a ruptured aneurysm on a business trip which would leave him mentally impaired at the age of 47. And so, like many gay couples, Brett and Patrick did not prepare the extensive and often expensive legal documents that would have given each other the protection and control over their own lives. And now Patrick’s illness is a stark illustration of what can happen if legal protections are forgotten and family members are allowed to put their own biases above your happiness or care: Conrad traveled to the Atlanta hospital to be with Atkins but was soon denied access by the family. Hospital staff defied the family’s wishes and let Conrad visit Atkins during off-hours. Atkins eventually was moved to a nursing facility in Carmel, where Conrad would arrive after regular visiting hours so the Atkinses would not see him. He filed his guardianship request in June 2005. That November, the Atkinses moved Patrick into their home and have since refused to let Conrad visit. They also have refused his phone calls. It is inarguable that the Atkinses are cruel people. And their behavior cannot be justified. And, sadly, as long as gay couples are denied the easy remedy of marriage and instead are subjected to legal barriers and multiple forms, this story will repeat itself. So each of us take a moment to ask ourselves if we trust those who have legal claim to us to honor and respect our lives. And if the answer is “no” then take the steps necessary to protect yourself from those who might believe that their dogma or bigotry can justify any level of cruelty. Kevin August 13th, 2007 | LINK And what steps can legally “single” people really take that are ironclad when the statutes are still grounded in the 19th century and being reinforced by these bogus constitutional amendments “protecting” marriage? The states treat legally “single” people as if they are permanent adolescents who are wards of their parents, then their siblings, and finally the state. Legally “single” people are essentially not considered adult enough to form their own “families” nor have their own meaningful relationships. To allow them legal status is exactly what the fundies scream about. . . Jim Burroway August 13th, 2007 | LINK My thoughts on this was “well of course, it’s partly their fault because they didn’t have powers of attorney, living wills, etc.” But then I thought about Russell Groff and realized that even with a mountain of documents, estranged parents can tie partners up in costly legal knots for years. Lynn David August 14th, 2007 | LINK It is inarguable that the Atkinses are cruel people. And their behavior cannot be justified. Their behavior can and has been justified in Indiana! I wonder if Conrad had the correct paperwork if Georgia would have given him proper just in the face of a legal assault from the Atkins family. I just see this as having gone bad for Conrad no matter what. I get the feeling the Atkins could have shopped for a judge who would have ruled in their favor. David August 15th, 2007 | LINK Thanks for the hat tip, Tim. I invite all readers to contact national news outlets to strongly encourage them to cover this story. The more attention we draw to the cruely of the Atkins toward their son Patrick, the more likely they can be shamed into relenting. To help encourage you to spread the news of Patrick and Brett’s plight, here are some of the comments left on the Indystar site by parents Jeanne and Tom Atkins’ supporters: “He obviously deliberately chose his parents to serve in that capacity and not his fruity so claimed “friend”.” “Homosexuals are like children. It feels good and they want it, so it MUST be right.” “A fudgepacker can’t see his boyfriend and it makes the paper? Oh brother” “The filthiness that is homosexuality is one of the greatest threats in todays society. I for one am glad to see that the family is doing the right thing by their son, and I support their Christian efforts fully. It’s a shame that so many of you think you know what is better for this man than his family. It’s not your business, or that gay guy’s business, it’s a FAMILY MATTER.” Should the likes of those I’ve quoted above triumph, with the approval of the Indiana judiciary? |
| legal documents Gay-rights advocates say the following documents are the bare-minimum protection couples should have to protect their property, health, assets and relationship. • Power of attorney: Gives someone the power to act on behalf of another. It may be limited to a particular activity (e.g., closing on the sale of a home) or more general. Many couples have separate powers of attorney for financial and medical issues. A "durable" power of attorney remains valid until the signer dies or revokes the document. • Living will: In Indiana, a living will is a written expression of how one wants to be treated if suffering from a terminal illness or injury in which death is imminent. It may express whether the signer wants life- sustaining treatments, including nutrition and hydration. • Appointment of health-care representative: Sometimes called a health-care proxy, often combined with a medical power of attorney, this document appoints a person to make medical decisions on behalf of another. In the case of a gay couple, one partner may need to have the document on hand to gain access to the other partner's hospital room. A medical power of attorney also may nominate the partner to be appointed as the person's guardian if he or she becomes disabled. Without these health-care documents, only the person's biological relatives will have authority to make medical decisions and will be viewed by the courts as the priority choice as guardians. • Will: Provides for the distribution of one's property and assets after death. Gay people should specify their partners and all unrelated beneficiaries in the will to ensure assets are transferred without intervention from blood relatives. Without a will, only blood relatives of a single person have a right of inheritance. Source: American Bar Association |
| July 4, 2007 Time out for prayers At 3 p.m. daily, Atkins president leads workers to pray for others, themselves By Katie Merlie katie.merlie@indystar.comTheNoblesvilleLedger.com NOBLESVILLE -- Jeanne Atkins takes pride in her employees who make thousands of confections, and each afternoon she assembles a handful of them for a time of sweet reflection. Atkins is president of the Noblesville-based Atkins Elegant Desserts, which specializes in cheesecakes and other delectable desserts. She started the company in her barn and moved the operation in 1990 to Stony Creek Way. Not long after the move, Atkins started a prayer time at the plant. It stopped for a period of time, then resumed in September. "I thought we all need prayer in our lives," said the Carmel resident, adding that participation is voluntary and those who don't attend aren't thought of any differently. "I pray for my strength, my joy and my wisdom," said the member of St. Luke Catholic Church who is a devout Catholic and attends Mass daily. "Prayer is my strength." So at 3 p.m. each day -- which is between shifts and allows employees who are leaving for home or just starting their workday to participate -- a handful of her 150 workers gather in the lunchroom. Many are still wearing the white coats and hair protectors that are required dress on the production line. Several don't speak English so an interpreter translates Atkins' words into Spanish. "You're making God's heart smile," Atkins told the 36 employees at the June 28 prayer time. The group read aloud a prayer titled "You Are Mine" in Spanish and English, and Atkins recited from a little blue book where names of those needing extra prayer are handwritten, sometimes with notes about their special need. Joe Mazero, Atkins vice president of operations, often leads the prayer in the lunchroom where employees sit at tables or line the walls surrounding the room. Jane Bernhardt started working for Atkins in October and has attended just about every prayer time. "I believe in prayer and that prayer changes things," Bernhardt said. "It's a very important part of my life." Before and after prayer time, Atkins stops and talks with employees about events happening in their lives and encourages them to come to the next prayer time. "When people tell me that our prayers have helped, I just love it," she said. |
| What’s really important? Published at August 21, 2007 on sherylhugill.com Look around you, at your life. What’s most important to you? Is it your friends? Your family? Your possessions? Your beliefs? Your thoughts and ideas? You may immediately claim it’s your friends and family, but how important are they to you really? What you say may not quite match up with what is evidenced by how you live your life. I hesitate to write this blog, not because it’s something that I have nothing to say about, but because I feel very emotional about its content. I have a lot of feelings on it, and I’m honestly just not quite sure how to express them. Browsing the INtake site the other day, I came across both Matt and Tanisha’s columns about Patrick Atkins and his family and their situation. Here’s a summary of the story from Matt’s column: In 2005, Atkins’ son, Patrick Atkins, suffered a debilitating aneurysm followed by a stroke. Before his illness, Patrick Atkins had been in a life partnership with Brett Conrad, whom he met at Wabash College more than 25 years ago. Atkins’ parents strongly disapproved of the relationship from the beginning, but there was little they could do. Atkins was, after all, an adult capable of making his own decisions. But his sudden illness forced Patrick Atkins to depend on others to make decisions for him. And because he had never thought to give Conrad power of attorney to act on his behalf, he was entrusted to his parents, who believe being gay is an abomination. The Atkins family hoped to forbid Conrad from seeing their son, but Conrad won visitation rights from the Indiana Court of Appeals in June. The following month, the Atkinses asked the court to revoke Conrad’s visitation rights. Asked if she would refuse to allow Conrad to see her son unless required to do so by law, Jeanne Atkins answered that it was “probably true.” You would hope that Jeanne Atkins and her husband would say that Patrick was one of the most important things to them. But sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case. Here’s a quote from the article about the situation in the Indy Star: 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. It’s at this point that I have to ask - what the hell is wrong with these people?? The reason I feel so personally about this situation is because it mirrors a situation I’ve been through in my own family. You see, my older brother is gay too. And he also suffered a stroke. And he had also been with his partner for several years at the time. And my parents are also Christians. Eerily similar, isn’t it? So what do you think my parents did when my brother became unable to take care of himself? Get custody of him and refuse to let his partner see him? HELL NO! Because they LOVE their children and want what’s best for them, even if how their children live their lives happens to conflict with their own beliefs. Now, I can’t say that the Atkins don’t love their son. But evidenced by their actions and statements - their beliefs and need to be right about what they believe seem to be getting in the way of Patrick’s best interest. If the situation were different, and it was a man and woman in this situation - do you think any loving parent would keep their child from their spouse or partner of 25 years? Of course not. For their child’s emotional wellbeing if nothing else - they would be supportive of that person being around. There’s nothing to indicate that Brett Conrad did anything to hurt Patrick - on the contrary, Patrick’s letter to his family in 2000 seems to point to just the opposite: Brett is my 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. My brother and his partner are no longer together - but to this day I don’t see how my brother would’ve made it without him. He truly loved my brother and devoted himself to taking care of him for several years. And while my parents may not have agreed with the nature of their relationship - even they realize that. And they loved their son enough to not let being right about their own beliefs stand in the way of doing what was best for him. My parents are far from perfect, but I love them very much and am so grateful for who they are. Their character and actions are evidence that tells the world that they really do mean it when they say their children are important to them. Too bad not everyone’s that way… |
Together in life, apart in illness SUMMARY: Brett Conrad and Patrick Atkins met in college and were together for 25 years, until Patrick had an incapacitating stroke and his parents stepped in. The horrifying case of an Indiana gay couple separated after one partner's incapacitating illness makes clear the necessity of partners obtaining legal directives for each other to the extent the law allows . Brett Conrad and Patrick Atkins, both 47, met in college and were together for 25 years. Atkins was CEO of his family's company, Atkins Elegant Desserts; Conrad, a waiter. They shared a house and bank accounts; both men's names were on their home's deed. In March 2005, traveling on business, Atkins suffered an aneurysm and then a stroke that rendered him unable to care for himself. Atkins' deeply religious parents took over, refusing to recognize the men's relationship or even to let Conrad see him. Conrad has spent two years trying to win guardianship of his partner. On June 27, an Indiana appellate court ruled that Conrad could have visitation rights. The Atkinses have petitioned the court to reconsider its ruling. "Unmarried couples -- it doesn't matter whether straight or gay -- ought to have documents in place that address whom they want to make health care decisions, generally a durable power of attorney and an advance health care directive," Conrad's lawyer, Jeffrey Dible of Indianapolis , told Gay.com . "If you don't have them, you are at the mercy of state law, which usually favors blood relatives." Indiana courts have so far sided with the Atkins family, even while noting that "it is in Patrick's best interest to continue to have contact with Brett, his life partner of 25 years." "Given the Atkinses' lack of support of their son's personal life through the years and given his mother's astonishing statement that she would rather that he never recover than see him return to his relationship with Brett, we are extraordinarily skeptical that the Atkinses are able to take care of Patrick's emotional needs," wrote Chief Judge John G. Baker in the appellate court's ruling. At one point, the court noted, sympathetic hospital staffers were sneaking Conrad onto the premises to see his partner. Jeanne Atkins, Patrick's mother, "testified that no amount of evidence could convince her that Brett and Patrick were happy together," the opinion read. The case's growing publicity "just seems to inflame things," Dible told Gay.com "I hope that you will share this story with your friends and encourage them to avoid purchasing Atkins products," wrote Karen Celestino-Horseman, a former Indianapolis city councilwoman, on Bilerico.com . The Atkinses -- who run regular Christian prayer meetings at their dessert company -- have the right as guardians to dispose of his and Conrad's house, even though it is owned jointly. A lower court gave Conrad one third of the pair's checking account, but gave the parents most of the other assets, which were in Patrick's name. Atkins, meanwhile, now lives at his parents' home. He is "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," according to the court. (Barbara Wilcox, The Advocate ) |
| The Indianapolis Star, August 6, 2007 Custody case stirs gay-marriage debate Battle over visitation, care of disabled man flares between parents and longtime partner As of August 21, 2007 there were more than 1200 comments posted to this story before the Indianapolis Star website disabled the thread. By Melissa Patterson melissa.patterson@indystar.com Brett Conrad spent more than half his life as Patrick Atkins' partner. For 25 years, the men shared bank accounts, apartments and eventually a home in Fishers. But when Atkins, 47, fell seriously ill in 2005, Conrad faced what many gay Hoosiers consider a travesty: no law guaranteeing them the same rights as married couples to participate in care decisions for their ill partners. Conrad, 47, spent much of the past two years trying to win guardianship of Atkins from Atkins' parents, Thomas and Jeanne of Carmel. Jeanne Atkins is quoted in court documents as saying she believes homosexuality is a sin and that she disapproves of the men's relationship. The parents have barred Conrad from visiting their now- disabled son in their home where he lives. In June, Conrad won visitation rights from the Indiana Court of Appeals, but the court upheld an earlier Hamilton County ruling that left control of Atkins' care to his parents. (Read the appeals court decision.) Gay-rights activists say the men's story illustrates the discrimination embedded in Indiana law and underscores why gay marriage should be allowed. On the other side, opponents of same-sex marriage say the case could have been prevented if Conrad and Atkins had used existing laws that can give unmarried couples -- straight and gay -- the legal right to act on each other's behalf. In its ruling, the appeals court recognized the human suffering at the center of the case: "We are confronted here with the heartbreaking fracture of a family," the judges wrote in their ruling. "Brett and Patrick have spent 25 years together as life partners -- longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents -- and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's lifestyle." Court debates go on The Atkins family attorney, David Richey, Lebanon, in July asked the appeals court to reconsider granting visitation, arguing the judges failed to recognize that, as guardians, the Atkinses should have final say on who can see and have contact with their son. Conrad and his attorney, Jeffrey Dible, Indianapolis, declined to be interviewed for this story because the case is pending. According to the case file, Atkins and Conrad met in 1978 while attending Wabash College in Crawfordsville. Atkins came from a deeply religious family that disapproved of the relationship. In 2000, he begged for acceptance from his family through a letter.
have shared for over 20 years." Conrad and Atkins lived together in various apartments for 12 years until buying a home in Fishers in 1992, which they titled jointly, court documents say. Before falling ill, Atkins had been chief executive of his family's business, Atkins Elegant Desserts and Atkins Cheesecake. On March 11, 2005, Atkins collapsed while on a business trip to Atlanta. He had a ruptured aneurysm and later suffered a stroke while hospitalized. Conrad traveled to the Atlanta hospital to be with Atkins but was soon denied access by the family. Hospital staff defied the family's wishes and let Conrad visit Atkins during off-hours. Atkins eventually was moved to a nursing facility in Carmel, where Conrad would arrive after regular visiting hours so the Atkinses would not see him. He filed his guardianship request in June 2005. That November, the Atkinses moved Patrick into their home and have since refused to let Conrad visit. They also have refused his phone calls. (click to continue) |
JusticeForPat
 |  |  |  |
| What's next The Atkins' family attorney, David Richey, said he is in the process of filing an appeal of an appellate court ruling granting Brett Conrad visitation rights. The state Supreme Court could decide to hear the case or let the appellate court's decision stand. Conrad's attorney, Jeffrey Dible, declined to comment on whether Conrad would appeal again. |
| Read the Indiana Court of Appeals June 27, 2007 decision: http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/062 70701jgb.pdf |
| When the outrage of the people becomes too loud to ignore, the resolve of the people will help bring change in the law. Express Your Outrage! Help Bring Pat Home. |
The court record also shows that Pat's mother 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 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. |
"Brett and Patrick have spent 25 years together as life partners - longer than Patrick lived at home with his parents - and their future life together has been destroyed by Patrick's tragic medical condition and by the Atkinses' unwillingness to accept their son's lifestyle," the Appeals Court ruling read. |
| "She (Pat's mother) 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." |
| Atkins came from a deeply religious family that disapproved of the relationship. In 2000, he begged for acceptance from his family through a letter: "I want you all to know that Brett is my 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." |
| | | |
| By the way, this is the Noblesville Trial Court's judgment from May 10,2006: The trial court entered two orders, making very limited findings of fact and disposing of the case by: • Appointing the Atkinses as co-guardians of Patrick’s person and estate; • Denying Brett’s visitation petition and ordering that “it is and shall be the ultimate and sole responsibility of [the Atkinses] to determine and control visitation with and access of visitors to Patrick Atkins in his best interest”; • Denying Brett’s attorney fee petition; • Determining that the home owned by Patrick and Brett should be split equally between Brett and the guardianship estate after reimbursing the estate for mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, utilities, and maintenance expenses incurred after March 10, 2005, and permitting the Atkinses to maintain the real estate, to sever and sell it, or to bring an action for partition; • Ordering that $16,469.73—approximately one-third of the balance in Patrick’s checking account—be disbursed to Brett as the portion attributable to his earnings and contributions, with the rest to be set off to the guardianship estate; • Ordering that the funds in the Charles Schwab account be set off to the guardianship estate; • Ordering that the household goods and other tangible property be split equally between Brett and the guardianship estate; and • Ordering Patrick’s interest as a shareholder in the family business to be set off to the family estate. |
Express YOUR outrage by making a Donation to the Legal Fund. Help continue the court battle to change the law so this never happens to anyone else ever again! |
Express YOUR outrage by making a Donation to the Legal Fund. Help continue the court battle to change the law so this never happens to anyone else ever again! |
| August 16, 2007 http://www.intakeweekly.com/articles/4/027833-8514-158.html Controversial case reflects poorly on the city as a whole Matt Gonzales INtake columnist Earlier this year, a few heavyweight corporations -- including Eli Lilly, Wellpoint and Emmis -- voiced their opposition to a proposed ban on gay marriage in Indiana. Such a measure, they argued, would hurt their efforts to recruit new talent. The proposed gay-marriage ban collapsed shortly afterward, not least of all because of the lobbying power of big money. But the true measure of a city's tolerance is not in the public opinions of its faceless corporations, but in the private opinions of its individuals. This is why the recent news about the custody battle for Patrick Atkins between his parents and his life partner should depress all Hoosiers hoping to be viewed as something other than bigoted, backward religious zealots. If you don't keep up with the news, you may not have heard the story: Earlier this summer, The Indianapolis Star ran a story about Fishers entrepreneur Jeanne Atkins, who leads a voluntary prayer session every day at 3 p.m. for the employees at her business, Atkins Elegant Desserts. "You're making God's heart smile," Atkins told her employees during a June 28 prayer session, according to the article. A month later, The Star published a much longer and much more controversial story involving Atkins. In 2005, Atkins' son, Patrick Atkins, suffered a debilitating aneurysm followed by a stroke. Before his illness, Patrick Atkins had been in a life partnership with Brett Conrad, whom he met at Wabash College more than 25 years ago. Atkins' parents strongly disapproved of the relationship from the beginning, but there was little they could do. Atkins was, after all, an adult capable of making his own decisions. But his sudden illness forced Patrick Atkins to depend on others to make decisions for him. And because he had never thought to give Conrad power of attorney to act on his behalf, he was entrusted to his parents, who believe being gay is an abomination. The Atkins family hoped to forbid Conrad from seeing their son, but Conrad won visitation rights from the Indiana Court of Appeals in June. The following month, the Atkinses asked the court to revoke Conrad's visitation rights. Asked if she would refuse to allow Conrad to see her son unless required to do so by law, Jeanne Atkins answered that it was "probably true." This story is terribly sad for everyone involved. But it can't be ignored that messy public disputes like this reflect poorly on all of us in Central Indiana -- more poorly than a proposed gay marriage ban ever did. |
"I pray for my strength, my joy and my wisdom," said the member of St. Luke Catholic Church who is a devout Catholic and attends Mass daily. "Prayer is my strength. "We pray that Jeanne Atkins will eventually truly understand the teachings of the religion she professes so she comes to see that her son's choices in life are more important than her opinion of his lifestyle. -Amen. |