In the Matter of C_____ S_____ C

Missouri Court of Appeals

In the Matter of C_ S_ C

514 S.W.2d 97

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 10, 1974

DocketNo. 35588

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 514 S.W.2d 97 (In the Matter of C_____ S_____ C) 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 Matter of C_____ S_____ C, 514 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

The natural father of a minor child appeals from a judgment in a court-tried case holding it in the best interests of the child that the child remain in the custody of a Mr. & Mrs. J_ L_The natural father was granted weekly visitation rights.

In determining the issue of custody of a child, the predominate consideration is the welfare of the child. Testerman v. Frederich, 323 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App.1959); Stockton v. Guthary, 415 S.W.2d 308 (Mo.App.1967); Maupin v. Neels, 451 S.W.2d 381 (Mo.App.1970). The record here does not demonstrate that the conclusion of the trial court on this issue is erroneous. An opinion reciting the facts which support that conclusion would have no precedential value. We therefore affirm the judgment in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M. R.

Judgment affirmed.

CLEMENS, McMILLIAN and GUNN, JJ., concur.

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

SMITH, Presiding Judge.

The natural father of a minor child appeals from a judgment in a court-tried case holding it in the best interests of the child that the child remain in the custody of a Mr. & Mrs. J_ L_The natural father was granted weekly visitation rights.

In determining the issue of custody of a child, the predominate consideration is the welfare of the child. Testerman v. Frederich, 323 S.W.2d 522 (Mo.App.1959); Stockton v. Guthary, 415 S.W.2d 308 (Mo.App.1967); Maupin v. Neels, 451 S.W.2d 381 (Mo.App.1970). The record here does not demonstrate that the conclusion of the trial court on this issue is erroneous. An opinion reciting the facts which support that conclusion would have no precedential value. We therefore affirm the judgment in compliance with Rule 84.16(b), V.A.M. R.

Judgment affirmed.

CLEMENS, McMILLIAN and GUNN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 S.W.2d 97, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-the-matter-of-c_____-s_____-c-moctapp-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack