In the Interest of B.S.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of B.S.

171 S.W.3d 118, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1299, 2005 WL 2130111

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 6, 2005

DocketNo. ED 85533

StatusPublished

This text of 171 S.W.3d 118 (In the Interest of B.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 the Interest of B.S., 171 S.W.3d 118, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1299, 2005 WL 2130111 (Mo. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Elliott Smith appeals from a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, B.S., pursuant to Section 211.447, RSMo 2000. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of F.N.M., 951 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). An extended opinion would 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 [119]*119affirm 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.

Elliott Smith appeals from a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, B.S., pursuant to Section 211.447, RSMo 2000. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of F.N.M., 951 S.W.2d 702, 703 (Mo.App. E.D.1997). An extended opinion would 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 [119]*119affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 S.W.3d 118, 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1299, 2005 WL 2130111, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-bs-moctapp-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack