A.J.H. v. M.H.S.

Missouri Court of Appeals

A.J.H. v. M.H.S.

459 S.W.3d 464, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 330, 2015 WL 1476763

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 31, 2015

DocketNo. ED 100900

StatusPublished

This text of 459 S.W.3d 464 (A.J.H. v. M.H.S.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

A.J.H. v. M.H.S., 459 S.W.3d 464, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 330, 2015 WL 1476763 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM

M.A.H.S. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s judgment modifying a custody decree awarding M.J.H. (“Father”) sole physical and legal custody of the couple’s son, A.H., age 11 at the time of the judgment, and restricting Mother’s visitation with A.H. to four consecutive hours of supervised visitation every other weekend.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

PER CURIAM

M.A.H.S. (“Mother”) appeals the trial court’s judgment modifying a custody decree awarding M.J.H. (“Father”) sole physical and legal custody of the couple’s son, A.H., age 11 at the time of the judgment, and restricting Mother’s visitation with A.H. to four consecutive hours of supervised visitation every other weekend.

We have reviewed the briefs and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum, for their information only, setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

459 S.W.3d 464, 2015 Mo. App. LEXIS 330, 2015 WL 1476763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ajh-v-mhs-moctapp-2015.