In the Interest of C.A.T.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of C.A.T.

453 S.W.3d 287, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1284, 2014 WL 6463962

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 18, 2014

DocketNo. ED 101167

StatusPublished

This text of 453 S.W.3d 287 (In the Interest of C.A.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 C.A.T., 453 S.W.3d 287, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1284, 2014 WL 6463962 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

E.T. (Father) appéals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, C.A.T., contending he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at the termination proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re M.A.J., 998 S.W.2d 177, 180 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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.

E.T. (Father) appéals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, C.A.T., contending he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at the termination proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re M.A.J., 998 S.W.2d 177, 180 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

453 S.W.3d 287, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1284, 2014 WL 6463962, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cat-moctapp-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack