In the Interest of D.J.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of D.J.

73 S.W.3d 708, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, 2002 WL 215906

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2002

DocketNo. ED 79714

StatusPublished

This text of 73 S.W.3d 708 (In the Interest of D.J.) 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.J., 73 S.W.3d 708, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, 2002 WL 215906 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Louise Little (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to D.J., a male minor child born on March 2,1998. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the trial court is not unsupported by substantial evidence or against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of D.L.M., 31 S.W.3d 64, 68 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. In the Interest of L., 888 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. 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.

Louise Little (Appellant) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to D.J., a male minor child born on March 2,1998. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find that the judgment of the trial court is not unsupported by substantial evidence or against the weight of the evidence, nor does it erroneously declare or apply the law. In the Interest of D.L.M., 31 S.W.3d 64, 68 (Mo.App. E.D.2000). We further find the trial court did not abuse its discretion. In the Interest of L., 888 S.W.2d 337, 341 (Mo.App. E.D.1994). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

73 S.W.3d 708, 2002 Mo. App. LEXIS 277, 2002 WL 215906, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-dj-moctapp-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack