In the Interest of H.J.G.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of H.J.G.

245 S.W.3d 263, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 207, 2008 WL 375597

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 13, 2008

DocketED 89832

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 245 S.W.3d 263 (In the Interest of H.J.G.) 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 H.J.G., 245 S.W.3d 263, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 207, 2008 WL 375597 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

B.G. (“Father”) appeals from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County terminating his parental rights to his son, H.G. Father claims that there was insufficient evidence to support termination under Section 211.447.4. Father also argues that there was insufficient evidence under Section 211.447.6 that termination was in H.G.’s best interests.

On appeal, Father contends that the court erred in terminating his parental rights under Section 211.477 because there was not clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting termination. Father argues that he complied with the terms of the service agreement, he provided a suitable home and support for the child and that he has a seizure disorder that prevents him from obtaining substantial employment. In his second point, Father argues that the court erred in terminating his parental rights because there was insufficient evidence that termination was in H.G.’s best interests.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

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.

B.G. (“Father”) appeals from a judgment in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County terminating his parental rights to his son, H.G. Father claims that there was insufficient evidence to support termination under Section 211.447.4. Father also argues that there was insufficient evidence under Section 211.447.6 that termination was in H.G.’s best interests.

On appeal, Father contends that the court erred in terminating his parental rights under Section 211.477 because there was not clear, cogent and convincing evidence supporting termination. Father argues that he complied with the terms of the service agreement, he provided a suitable home and support for the child and that he has a seizure disorder that prevents him from obtaining substantial employment. In his second point, Father argues that the court erred in terminating his parental rights because there was insufficient evidence that termination was in H.G.’s best interests.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, which sets forth the facts and reasons for this order.

We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 S.W.3d 263, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 207, 2008 WL 375597, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-hjg-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack