In the Interest of P.L.-W.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of P.L.-W.

474 S.W.3d 221, 2015 WL 6689358

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 3, 2015

DocketNo. ED 102634

StatusPublished

This text of 474 S.W.3d 221 (In the Interest of P.L.-W.) 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 P.L.-W., 474 S.W.3d 221, 2015 WL 6689358 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant J.L. (“Father”)-, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Francois County terminating his parental rights to his daughter P.L.-W. (“Child”). Father claims the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights to Child because: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that grounds existed for termination; and (2) the trial coqrt failed to make statutorily required findings of fact.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on- appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only;' setting forth the reasons for our decision. 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.

Appellant J.L. (“Father”)-, appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of St. Francois County terminating his parental rights to his daughter P.L.-W. (“Child”). Father claims the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights to Child because: (1) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that grounds existed for termination; and (2) the trial coqrt failed to make statutorily required findings of fact.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on- appeal and find the trial court’s decision was not clearly erroneous. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum opinion for the use of the parties only;' setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the' judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

474 S.W.3d 221, 2015 WL 6689358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-pl-w-moctapp-2015.