C.A.W. v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County

Missouri Court of Appeals

C.A.W. v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County

122 S.W.3d 594, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2003 WL 22076602

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 9, 2003

DocketNo. ED 82462

StatusPublished

This text of 122 S.W.3d 594 (C.A.W. v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County) 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

C.A.W. v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County, 122 S.W.3d 594, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2003 WL 22076602 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

C.A.W. (Mother) appeals from a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor child, W.J.H., II (Child), pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo. (2000). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child is supported by substantial evi-

dence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of F.N.M., 951 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Mo.App.E.D.1997). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

C.A.W. (Mother) appeals from a trial court judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor child, W.J.H., II (Child), pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo. (2000). We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court terminating Mother’s parental rights to Child is supported by substantial evi-

dence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of F.N.M., 951 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Mo.App.E.D.1997). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

122 S.W.3d 594, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 1412, 2003 WL 22076602, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/caw-v-juvenile-officer-of-st-louis-county-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack