Juvenile Officer v. C.F.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Juvenile Officer v. C.F.

516 S.W.3d 858, 2017 WL 765926

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedFebruary 28, 2017

DocketWD 79623

StatusPublished

This text of 516 S.W.3d 858 (Juvenile Officer v. C.F.) 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

Juvenile Officer v. C.F., 516 S.W.3d 858, 2017 WL 765926 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Order

Per Curiam:

C.F. (Mother) appeals from the family court’s assumption of jurisdiction over Z.R. (Child) on the finding that Child was in need of care. Mother raises two claims on appeal. First, she argues that the court erred in failing to exclude testimony from Children’s Division workers and Kansas City Police Department officers pertaining to statements made to them by Child because Mother had not received the required statutory notice before Child was interviewed. Second, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s determination that Child was in [859]*859need of care when it assumed jurisdiction. Finding no merit in either claim, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Order

Per Curiam:

C.F. (Mother) appeals from the family court’s assumption of jurisdiction over Z.R. (Child) on the finding that Child was in need of care. Mother raises two claims on appeal. First, she argues that the court erred in failing to exclude testimony from Children’s Division workers and Kansas City Police Department officers pertaining to statements made to them by Child because Mother had not received the required statutory notice before Child was interviewed. Second, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the court’s determination that Child was in [859]*859need of care when it assumed jurisdiction. Finding no merit in either claim, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 S.W.3d 858, 2017 WL 765926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juvenile-officer-v-cf-moctapp-2017.