Estate of Van Vacter v. Van Vacter

Missouri Court of Appeals

Estate of Van Vacter v. Van Vacter

570 S.W.3d 630

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 19, 2019

DocketWD 81533

StatusPublished

This text of 570 S.W.3d 630 (Estate of Van Vacter v. Van Vacter) 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

Estate of Van Vacter v. Van Vacter, 570 S.W.3d 630 (Mo. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jocelyn Van Vacter appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Boone *631County, which denied her petition to terminate the guardianship of her aunt and uncle, Kelly and Martin Blecha, over Van Vacter's minor daughter. Van Vacter argues that the judgment should be reversed because: the circuit court failed to make findings of fact she requested; the judgment is against the weight of evidence; the circuit court erroneously refused to reopen the evidence following the evidentiary hearing on her petition; the circuit court erroneously ordered Van Vacter to pay the fees of the Guardian ad Litem ; and the trial court erroneously disregarded the presumption that, as a natural parent, she is her daughter's proper custodian. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

PER CURIAM:

Jocelyn Van Vacter appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Boone *631County, which denied her petition to terminate the guardianship of her aunt and uncle, Kelly and Martin Blecha, over Van Vacter's minor daughter. Van Vacter argues that the judgment should be reversed because: the circuit court failed to make findings of fact she requested; the judgment is against the weight of evidence; the circuit court erroneously refused to reopen the evidence following the evidentiary hearing on her petition; the circuit court erroneously ordered Van Vacter to pay the fees of the Guardian ad Litem ; and the trial court erroneously disregarded the presumption that, as a natural parent, she is her daughter's proper custodian. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

570 S.W.3d 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/estate-of-van-vacter-v-van-vacter-moctapp-2019.