In the Interest of C.J.B.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of C.J.B.

188 S.W.3d 460, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 247, 2006 WL 538928

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 7, 2006

DocketED 86398

StatusPublished

This text of 188 S.W.3d 460 (In the Interest of C.J.B.) 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.J.B., 188 S.W.3d 460, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 247, 2006 WL 538928 (Mo. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from the judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, C.J.B. On appeal, Father argues there was not sufficient clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings under Sections 211.447, RSMo 2000. 1 Father also argues the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Jeremy Pierce (Pierce) over Father’s objection because this testimony was highly prejudicial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Father appeals from the judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, C.J.B. On appeal, Father argues there was not sufficient clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings under Sections 211.447, RSMo 2000. 1 Father also argues the trial court erred in accepting the testimony of Jeremy Pierce (Pierce) over Father’s objection because this testimony was highly prejudicial. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. Unless otherwise indicated, all further statutory references are to RSMo 2000.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 S.W.3d 460, 2006 Mo. App. LEXIS 247, 2006 WL 538928, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-cjb-moctapp-2006.