D.J.B. Ex Rel. Boschert v. Brown

Missouri Court of Appeals

D.J.B. Ex Rel. Boschert v. Brown

284 S.W.3d 761, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 592

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 12, 2009

DocketED 91850

StatusPublished

This text of 284 S.W.3d 761 (D.J.B. Ex Rel. Boschert v. Brown) 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

D.J.B. Ex Rel. Boschert v. Brown, 284 S.W.3d 761, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 592 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Kelly Brown (Mother) appeals from the judgment granting Kristopher Boschert’s (Father) prayer to change the surname of the parties’ minor child (D.J.B.) as part of a paternity judgment and order. On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred in granting Father’s request to change the surname of D.J.B. from Brown to Boschert because Father presented no evidence that the name change was in the child’s best interests. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order 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.

Kelly Brown (Mother) appeals from the judgment granting Kristopher Boschert’s (Father) prayer to change the surname of the parties’ minor child (D.J.B.) as part of a paternity judgment and order. On appeal, Mother argues the trial court erred in granting Father’s request to change the surname of D.J.B. from Brown to Boschert because Father presented no evidence that the name change was in the child’s best interests. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 S.W.3d 761, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/djb-ex-rel-boschert-v-brown-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack