Juvenile Officer v. R.D.F. (In re Interest of J.F.)

Missouri Court of Appeals

Juvenile Officer v. R.D.F. (In re Interest of J.F.)

548 S.W.3d 454

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 2018

DocketWD 80915; C/w WD 80916, WD 80917, WD 80922, WD 80923, WD 80924

StatusPublished

This text of 548 S.W.3d 454 (Juvenile Officer v. R.D.F. (In re Interest of J.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. R.D.F. (In re Interest of J.F.), 548 S.W.3d 454 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

T.M.F. (Mother) and R.D.F. (Father) appeal the circuit court court's judgment terminating parental rights to their children: J.F., M.D.F., and R.A.F. Appellants contend the judgment should be reversed because it is not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of parental unfitness as the statutory basis for termination. Appellants also contend the court abused its discretion in determining that the termination was in the best interest of the children. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

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

Per Curiam

T.M.F. (Mother) and R.D.F. (Father) appeal the circuit court court's judgment terminating parental rights to their children: J.F., M.D.F., and R.A.F. Appellants contend the judgment should be reversed because it is not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of parental unfitness as the statutory basis for termination. Appellants also contend the court abused its discretion in determining that the termination was in the best interest of the children. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. We have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision, because a published opinion would have no precedential value.

AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

548 S.W.3d 454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juvenile-officer-v-rdf-in-re-interest-of-jf-moctapp-2018.