In the Interest of A.D.R.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of A.D.R.

362 S.W.3d 487, 2012 WL 944188, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 366

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided March 20, 2012·No. No. ED 96855·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

L.R. (“Mother”) appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to A.D.R. and C.L.R. (“Children”). We find that the [488] trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to continue. We also find that the trial court did not err in finding statutory grounds for termination existed under section 211.447.5(6) RSMo Supp.2011. Finally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of Children.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

L.R. (“Mother”) appeals the judgment terminating her parental rights to A.D.R. and C.L.R. (“Children”). We find that the [488] trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Mother’s motion to continue. We also find that the trial court did not err in finding statutory grounds for termination existed under section 211.447.5(6) RSMo Supp.2011. Finally, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination was in the best interests of Children.

An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

In the Interest of A.D.R., 362 S.W.3d 487, 2012 WL 944188, 2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 366 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

362 S.W.3d 487 (In the Interest of A.D.R.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.