In the Interest of M.R.M.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of M.R.M.

266 S.W.3d 865, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2008 WL 4633935

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 21, 2008

DocketED 90902

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 S.W.3d 865 (In the Interest of M.R.M.) 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 M.R.M., 266 S.W.3d 865, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2008 WL 4633935 (Mo. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Y.C. (hereinafter, “Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children, J.O.C. and M.R.M. (hereinafter and collectively, “the Children”). Mother raises three 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 211.447.4(2) RSMo (2000); (2) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.4(3) RSMo (2000); and (3) terminating her parental rights because it was not in the Children’s best interests.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the 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. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

Y.C. (hereinafter, “Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children, J.O.C. and M.R.M. (hereinafter and collectively, “the Children”). Mother raises three 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 211.447.4(2) RSMo (2000); (2) terminating her parental rights because there was not clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support the findings made pursuant to Section 211.447.4(3) RSMo (2000); and (3) terminating her parental rights because it was not in the Children’s best interests.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and no error of law appears. The trial court’s judgment terminating Mother’s parental rights to the 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. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 S.W.3d 865, 2008 Mo. App. LEXIS 1426, 2008 WL 4633935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-mrm-moctapp-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack