In the Interest of Elc & Amc

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of Elc & Amc

309 S.W.3d 308, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 67, 2010 WL 286646

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

DocketED 92820

StatusPublished

This text of 309 S.W.3d 308 (In the Interest of Elc & Amc) 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 Elc & Amc, 309 S.W.3d 308, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 67, 2010 WL 286646 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sheila Kemper (hereinafter, “Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children, E.C. and A.C. (hereinafter and collectively, “Children”). Mother raises six points on appeal, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.5(2) RSMo (2008) 1 ; (2) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.5(3); (3) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.5(6); (4) failing to admit the prior transcript testimony of Lee Bo-rowiak; (5) failing to admit the prior transcript testimony of Mindy Weber; and (6) terminating her parental rights because it was not in the best interests of Children.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error *309 of law appears. The trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, we are providing a memorandum to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references herein are to RSMo (2008) unless otherwise indicated.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Sheila Kemper (hereinafter, “Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children, E.C. and A.C. (hereinafter and collectively, “Children”). Mother raises six points on appeal, arguing the trial court erred in: (1) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.5(2) RSMo (2008) 1 ; (2) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.5(3); (3) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.5(6); (4) failing to admit the prior transcript testimony of Lee Bo-rowiak; (5) failing to admit the prior transcript testimony of Mindy Weber; and (6) terminating her parental rights because it was not in the best interests of Children.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error *309 of law appears. The trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to Children is supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence on the record. No precedential or jurisprudential purpose would be served by an opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. However, we are providing a memorandum to the parties, for their use only, setting forth the reasons for this order. We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

1

. All further statutory references herein are to RSMo (2008) unless otherwise indicated.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

309 S.W.3d 308, 2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 67, 2010 WL 286646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-elc-amc-moctapp-2010.