In the Interest of D.H.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of D.H.

250 S.W.3d 837, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 584

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 29, 2008

DocketNo. ED 89757

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 250 S.W.3d 837 (In the Interest of D.H.) 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 D.H., 250 S.W.3d 837, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 584 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals from the judgment of the family court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children D.H., (D.O.B. 9/4/02), D.W., (D.O.B. [838]*83811/7/98), and T.H. (D.O.B. 6/15/01),¹ pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo 2000.²

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The family court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of P.D., 144 S.W.3d 907, 910 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals from the judgment of the family court terminating her parental rights with respect to her minor children D.H., (D.O.B. 9/4/02), D.W., (D.O.B. [838]*83811/7/98), and T.H. (D.O.B. 6/15/01),¹ pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo 2000.²

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal. The family court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of P.D., 144 S.W.3d 907, 910 (Mo.App. E.D.2004). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 S.W.3d 837, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-dh-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack