Juvenile Officer v. C.F.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Juvenile Officer v. C.F.

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

Missouri Court of Appeals·Decided February 28, 2017·No. WD 79623·Published

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] need 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] need of care when it assumed jurisdiction. Finding no merit in either claim, we affirm. Rule 84.16(b).

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

Pincite

516 S.W.3d 858 (Juvenile Officer v. C.F.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.