M.A.G. v. B.E.K. (In re A.M.K.)

Missouri Court of Appeals

M.A.G. v. B.E.K. (In re A.M.K.)

554 S.W.3d 462

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedMay 29, 2018

DocketWD 80802

StatusPublished

This text of 554 S.W.3d 462 (M.A.G. v. B.E.K. (In re A.M.K.)) 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

M.A.G. v. B.E.K. (In re A.M.K.), 554 S.W.3d 462 (Mo. Ct. App. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

B.E.K., the natural father of A.M.K., appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Benton County granting the petition for adoption of A.M.K. by her maternal grandfather M.A.G. and his wife S.L.G. The adoption was granted without B.E.K.'s consent, based on the circuit court's finding *463that B.E.K. had willfully neglected A.M.K. for the six months preceding the filing of the adoption petition. See § 453.040(7), RSMo. On appeal, B.E.K. argues that the circuit court's finding of neglect is against the weight of the evidence, that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that adoption was in A.M.K.'s best interest, and that he is entitled to a new trial because he received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed counsel. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order.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

PER CURIAM:

B.E.K., the natural father of A.M.K., appeals the judgment of the Circuit Court of Benton County granting the petition for adoption of A.M.K. by her maternal grandfather M.A.G. and his wife S.L.G. The adoption was granted without B.E.K.'s consent, based on the circuit court's finding *463that B.E.K. had willfully neglected A.M.K. for the six months preceding the filing of the adoption petition. See § 453.040(7), RSMo. On appeal, B.E.K. argues that the circuit court's finding of neglect is against the weight of the evidence, that the circuit court abused its discretion in finding that adoption was in A.M.K.'s best interest, and that he is entitled to a new trial because he received ineffective assistance from his court-appointed counsel. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties with an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 S.W.3d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mag-v-bek-in-re-amk-moctapp-2018.