In the Interest of J.M.T.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of J.M.T.

400 S.W.3d 429, 2013 WL 1209970, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 368

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 26, 2013

DocketNo. ED 98961

StatusPublished

This text of 400 S.W.3d 429 (In the Interest of J.M.T.) 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 J.M.T., 400 S.W.3d 429, 2013 WL 1209970, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 368 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Leonard Stevens (Father) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, J.M.T. (Child), contending there was insufficient evidence supporting the grounds for termination and the court’s finding that termination was in the best interests of Child. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment that grounds for termination of Father’s parental rights exist is supported by substantial evidence, In re T.E, 35 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Mo.App. E.D.2001), and that such termination is in Child’s best interest and was not an abuse of discretion. In re A.M.S., 272 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Mo.App. W.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. 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.

Leonard Stevens (Father) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating his parental rights to his son, J.M.T. (Child), contending there was insufficient evidence supporting the grounds for termination and the court’s finding that termination was in the best interests of Child. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court’s judgment that grounds for termination of Father’s parental rights exist is supported by substantial evidence, In re T.E, 35 S.W.3d 497, 501 (Mo.App. E.D.2001), and that such termination is in Child’s best interest and was not an abuse of discretion. In re A.M.S., 272 S.W.3d 305, 308 (Mo.App. W.D.2008). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

400 S.W.3d 429, 2013 WL 1209970, 2013 Mo. App. LEXIS 368, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-jmt-moctapp-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack