J.S.N. v. B.M.N.

Missouri Court of Appeals

J.S.N. v. B.M.N.

450 S.W.3d 465

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 2014

DocketNos. WD 77026, WD 77027

StatusPublished

This text of 450 S.W.3d 465 (J.S.N. v. B.M.N.) 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

J.S.N. v. B.M.N., 450 S.W.3d 465 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

B.M.N. (“Mother”), through and with her mother and father acting as her co-guardians and co-conservators (collectively “Guardians”), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of Henry County, which terminated her parental rights to her children B.N. and A.N., and authorized their adoption -without Mother’s consent by their Step-Mother. Appellants challenge the court’s acceptance of Mother’s testimony during the termination hearing, arguing that she was incompetent to testify by virtue of her prior adjudication as incapacitated and disabled. Appellants also argue that there was insufficient evidence to find that Mother intentionally abandoned her children under § 453.040(7), RSMo. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

B.M.N. (“Mother”), through and with her mother and father acting as her co-guardians and co-conservators (collectively “Guardians”), appeal the judgment of the Circuit Court of Henry County, which terminated her parental rights to her children B.N. and A.N., and authorized their adoption -without Mother’s consent by their Step-Mother. Appellants challenge the court’s acceptance of Mother’s testimony during the termination hearing, arguing that she was incompetent to testify by virtue of her prior adjudication as incapacitated and disabled. Appellants also argue that there was insufficient evidence to find that Mother intentionally abandoned her children under § 453.040(7), RSMo. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order has been provided to the parties. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 S.W.3d 465, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jsn-v-bmn-moctapp-2014.