Juvenile Officer v. C.W.

Missouri Court of Appeals

Juvenile Officer v. C.W.

523 S.W.3d 555, 2017 WL 2644845, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 624

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 20, 2017

DocketWD 80264

StatusPublished

This text of 523 S.W.3d 555 (Juvenile Officer v. C.W.) 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.W., 523 S.W.3d 555, 2017 WL 2644845, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 624 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:'

C.W. (“Mother”) appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County terminating her parental rights over her four children, Mother contends that the trial court erroneously found that a statutory ground for termination existed, because the evidence concerning her men[556]*556tal health on which the court relied was outdated by the time of trial. Mother also argues that the judgment should be reversed because her appointed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that one of Mother’s witnesses complied with the court’s witness-sequestration order, which resulted in the exclusion of the witness’ testimony. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:'

C.W. (“Mother”) appeals a judgment entered by the Circuit Court of Jackson County terminating her parental rights over her four children, Mother contends that the trial court erroneously found that a statutory ground for termination existed, because the evidence concerning her men[556]*556tal health on which the court relied was outdated by the time of trial. Mother also argues that the judgment should be reversed because her appointed trial counsel was ineffective for failing to ensure that one of Mother’s witnesses complied with the court’s witness-sequestration order, which resulted in the exclusion of the witness’ testimony. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

523 S.W.3d 555, 2017 WL 2644845, 2017 Mo. App. LEXIS 624, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juvenile-officer-v-cw-moctapp-2017.