Denkewalter v. Stockmann

Missouri Court of Appeals

Denkewalter v. Stockmann

200 S.W.3d 90, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 835, 2006 WL 1601797

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 13, 2006

DocketED 86484

StatusPublished

This text of 200 S.W.3d 90 (Denkewalter v. Stockmann) 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

Denkewalter v. Stockmann, 200 S.W.3d 90, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 835, 2006 WL 1601797 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Marjorie Denkewalter (“Mother”) appeals from a Judgment entered pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Mother contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing an arbitrary rule that, before moving her and Father’s child to Chicago, Mother had to first warn and seek approval from Father; (2) failing to provide written findings as to public policy considerations and the best interest of the child before reaching its custody determination; and (3) rejecting Mother’s proposed parenting plan.

*91 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Mwrphy v. Car-rón, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

We affirm the award 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.

Marjorie Denkewalter (“Mother”) appeals from a Judgment entered pursuant to the Uniform Parentage Act by the Circuit Court of St. Louis County. Mother contends that the trial court erred by: (1) imposing an arbitrary rule that, before moving her and Father’s child to Chicago, Mother had to first warn and seek approval from Father; (2) failing to provide written findings as to public policy considerations and the best interest of the child before reaching its custody determination; and (3) rejecting Mother’s proposed parenting plan.

*91 We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The judgment is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. Mwrphy v. Car-rón, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law applicable to this case would have no prec-edential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 S.W.3d 90, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 835, 2006 WL 1601797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denkewalter-v-stockmann-moctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack