In the Interest of A.D.G.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of A.D.G.

329 S.W.3d 395

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided November 2, 2010·No. No. ED 93876·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

B.G. appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to A.D.G. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not contrary to the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re S.R.J., Jr., 250 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion [396]*396would 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.

B.G. appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to A.D.G. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not contrary to the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re S.R.J., Jr., 250 S.W.3d 402, 406 (Mo.App. E.D.2008). An extended opinion [396]*396would 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).

In the Interest of A.D.G., 329 S.W.3d 395 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

329 S.W.3d 395 (In the Interest of A.D.G.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related