In re K.S.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In re K.S.

100 S.W.3d 142, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, 2003 WL 1214677

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 2003

DocketNo. ED 81617

StatusPublished

This text of 100 S.W.3d 142 (In re K.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

In re K.S., 100 S.W.3d 142, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, 2003 WL 1214677 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

David Sanders (hereinafter, “Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to K.S., his minor child, pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo (2001). Father argues the trial court erred in that he did not abandon K.S., the mere passage of time was not sufficient in and of itself as a grounds for termination, and the termination of his parental rights was not in K.S.’s best interest.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court’s judgment terminating [143]*143Father’s parental rights was supported by substantial evidence on the record, and that one or more of the statutory grounds set forth in Section 211.447 RSMo (2001) was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In the Interest of C.N.W., 26 S.W.3d 386, 393 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed 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.

David Sanders (hereinafter, “Father”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to K.S., his minor child, pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo (2001). Father argues the trial court erred in that he did not abandon K.S., the mere passage of time was not sufficient in and of itself as a grounds for termination, and the termination of his parental rights was not in K.S.’s best interest.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the transcripts and find the trial court’s judgment terminating [143]*143Father’s parental rights was supported by substantial evidence on the record, and that one or more of the statutory grounds set forth in Section 211.447 RSMo (2001) was supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence. In the Interest of C.N.W., 26 S.W.3d 386, 393 (Mo.App. E.D. 2000). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion only for the use of the parties setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

100 S.W.3d 142, 2003 Mo. App. LEXIS 360, 2003 WL 1214677, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-ks-moctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack