In the Interest of T.A.

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Interest of T.A.

299 S.W.3d 341, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1843, 2009 WL 5124581

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 29, 2009

DocketED 93291

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 299 S.W.3d 341 (In the Interest of T.A.) 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 T.A., 299 S.W.3d 341, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1843, 2009 WL 5124581 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

L.A. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children T.A. and L.A. Mother claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that grounds existed for termination and that termination was in T.A.’s and L.A.’s best interests. We affirm.

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.

L.A. (“Mother”) appeals from the trial court’s judgment terminating her parental rights to her minor children T.A. and L.A. Mother claims that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that grounds existed for termination and that termination was in T.A.’s and L.A.’s best interests. We affirm.

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)

299 S.W.3d 341, 2009 Mo. App. LEXIS 1843, 2009 WL 5124581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-interest-of-ta-moctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack