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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 13, 2002·No. No. ED 79714·Published

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).

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

Pincite

73 S.W.3d 708 (In the Interest of D.J.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related