R.K.H. v. L.K.P.

Missouri Court of Appeals

R.K.H. v. L.K.P.

450 S.W.3d 465, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1086, 2014 WL 4823654

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedSeptember 30, 2014

DocketNo. WD 77247

StatusPublished

This text of 450 S.W.3d 465 (R.K.H. v. L.K.P.) 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

R.K.H. v. L.K.P., 450 S.W.3d 465, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1086, 2014 WL 4823654 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellants R.K.H. and T.D.H. appeal from a judgment entered in the Family Court Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying their petition seeking the termination of the parental rights of L.K.P. (“Mother”) to her daughter E.K.P., the termination of the parental rights of the putative fathers of E.K.P., and a decree making Appellants the adoptive parents of E.K.P. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that' no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appellants R.K.H. and T.D.H. appeal from a judgment entered in the Family Court Division of the Circuit Court of Jackson County denying their petition seeking the termination of the parental rights of L.K.P. (“Mother”) to her daughter E.K.P., the termination of the parental rights of the putative fathers of E.K.P., and a decree making Appellants the adoptive parents of E.K.P. After a thorough review of the record, we conclude that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and that' no error of law appears. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a formal, published opinion; however, a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision has been provided to the parties.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

450 S.W.3d 465, 2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 1086, 2014 WL 4823654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rkh-v-lkp-moctapp-2014.