In re Interest of C.A.T.

Full title: In the Interest of: C.A.T.

Court: In the Missouri Court of Appeals Eastern District DIVISION TWO

Date published: Nov 18, 2014

453 S.W.3d 287 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014)

Opinion

No. ED 101167

11-18-2014

In the Interest of: C.A.T.

Lawrence G. Gillespie, 120 S. Central, Suite 650, Clayton, MO 63105, For Appellant. Abigail Woodward Sapp, 400 First Street, Hillsboro, MO 63050, For Respondent Juvenile Officer. Theodore R. Allen, Jr., P.O. Box 100, Hillsboro, MO 63050, Co–Counsel, Respondent Juvenile Officer. William C. Dodson, P.O. Box 966, Imperial, MO 63052, Guardian ad Litem for Juvenile.

PER CURIAM.

Lawrence G. Gillespie, 120 S. Central, Suite 650, Clayton, MO 63105, For Appellant.

Abigail Woodward Sapp, 400 First Street, Hillsboro, MO 63050, For Respondent Juvenile Officer.

Theodore R. Allen, Jr., P.O. Box 100, Hillsboro, MO 63050, Co–Counsel, Respondent Juvenile Officer.

William C. Dodson, P.O. Box 966, Imperial, MO 63052, Guardian ad Litem for Juvenile.

Before Sherri B. Sullivan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Philip M. Hess, J.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

E.T. (Father) appeals from the trial court's judgment terminating his parental rights to his daughter, C.A.T., contending he did not knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel at the termination proceeding. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the judgment of the trial court was supported by substantial evidence, was not against the weight of the evidence, and did not erroneously declare or apply the law. In re M.A.J., 998 S.W.2d 177, 180 (Mo.App.E.D.1999). An extended opinion would have no precedential value. We have, however, provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision to the parties for their use only. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Missouri Rule of Civil Procedure 84.16(b).