Juvenile Officer v. S.L. (In re Interest of C.J.L.)

Missouri Court of Appeals

Juvenile Officer v. S.L. (In re Interest of C.J.L.)

568 S.W.3d 27

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 6, 2018

DocketWD 81692 Consolidated with WD 81694; WD 81696

StatusPublished

This text of 568 S.W.3d 27 (Juvenile Officer v. S.L. (In re Interest of C.J.L.)) 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. S.L. (In re Interest of C.J.L.), 568 S.W.3d 27 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

S.L. appeals the judgments terminating his parental rights to three children, C.J.L., S.L.L., and L.D.L. He contends the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights for failure to rectify because the juvenile officer failed to establish that Children's Division ("Division") made diligent and repeated efforts to utilize all available services related to meeting his needs. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments. 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

S.L. appeals the judgments terminating his parental rights to three children, C.J.L., S.L.L., and L.D.L. He contends the circuit court erred in terminating his parental rights for failure to rectify because the juvenile officer failed to establish that Children's Division ("Division") made diligent and repeated efforts to utilize all available services related to meeting his needs. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgments. 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)

568 S.W.3d 27, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/juvenile-officer-v-sl-in-re-interest-of-cjl-moctapp-2018.