Court Opinion

ID: 9737017
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:12:57.911557+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:55.931645
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
Appellants seem to take the position that they, as guardians of Victoria, have authority to consent to the sterilization and that this consent may confer upon a health care provider the authority to effect such sterilization without a carefully considered judicial order.1 The majority opinion seems to adopt this position when it states that “IND.CODE § 16-8-12-4(a) (1988 Ed.) permits a judicially appointed guardian to consent to health care for an adult incapable of making decisions regarding health care.”
I am not at all convinced that sterilization under circumstances such as before us constitutes “health care” as defined by I.C. 16-8-12-1(2). In any event sterilization under Indiana law must, in my view, occur only after an evidentiary hearing, following which the court finds clear and convincing evidence that sterilization is in the best interests of the individual concerned without regard to whether a guardian has consented.
In the case before us the evidentiary hearing was conducted but the court, as correctly noted by the majority, utilized the wrong standard of proof. I therefore concur in the reversal and remand for further proceedings.

. The State of Indiana by the Attorney General has waived the filing of a brief and states that it is not opposed to the granting of the relief sought by the appellants.