In the Interest of A.P.T.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of A.P.T.

247 S.W.3d 594, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 343, 2008 WL 707367

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 18, 2008

DocketED 89900

StatusPublished

This text of 247 S.W.3d 594 (In the Interest of A.P.T.) 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 the Interest of A.P.T., 247 S.W.3d 594, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 343, 2008 WL 707367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

F.T. (“Father”) appeals from a judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County terminating his parental rights to his daughter (“Child”). Father claims three points on appeal.

On appeal, Father contends that the court erred in terminating his parental rights under Section 211.477 1 because there was not clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting termination. First, Father argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Child had been adjudicated abused or neglected pursuant to Section 211.447.4(2). Second, Father argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Child had continuously been under the jurisdiction of the trial court for a period over one year and the continuation of the parent-child relationship greatly diminishes her prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home pursuant to Section 211.447.4(3). Third, Father argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of Child pursuant to Section 211.447.6.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No *595 jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statute references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

F.T. (“Father”) appeals from a judgment in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County terminating his parental rights to his daughter (“Child”). Father claims three points on appeal.

On appeal, Father contends that the court erred in terminating his parental rights under Section 211.477 1 because there was not clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting termination. First, Father argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Child had been adjudicated abused or neglected pursuant to Section 211.447.4(2). Second, Father argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Child had continuously been under the jurisdiction of the trial court for a period over one year and the continuation of the parent-child relationship greatly diminishes her prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home pursuant to Section 211.447.4(3). Third, Father argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that termination of Father’s parental rights was in the best interest of Child pursuant to Section 211.447.6.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No *595 jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All statute references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 S.W.3d 594, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 343, 2008 WL 707367, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-apt-moctapp-2008.