In the Interest of D.S.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of D.S.

233 S.W.3d 771, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1305

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in In the Interest of D.S.. Read the opinion of the Court — 2005 Mo. App. LEXIS 1898 →

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided September 25, 2007·No. No. ED 89135·Published

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Sleydin (“Father”) appeals from the judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, D.S. On appeal, Father argues there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings under Sections 211.447, RSMo 2000. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be [772]*772without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or 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).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Charles Sleydin (“Father”) appeals from the judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, D.S. On appeal, Father argues there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the trial court’s findings under Sections 211.447, RSMo 2000. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claim of error to be [772]*772without merit. An extended opinion would have no precedential value or 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).

In the Interest of D.S., 233 S.W.3d 771, 2007 Mo. App. LEXIS 1305 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

233 S.W.3d 771 (In the Interest of D.S.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.