IN THE INTEREST OF M.M.H., A MINOR, IN THE INTEREST OF C.E.C., A MINOR, IN THE INTEREST OF J.C.C., A MINOR, IN THE INTEREST OF I.M.H., A MINOR, JUVENILE OFFICER, RESPONDENT, v. C.V.H., APPELLANT.

Nos. ED76099, ED76100, ED76101, ED76102.Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
April 18, 2000.

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS OPINION IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION OR TRANSFER TO THE SUPREME COURT.]

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY HONORABLE MELVYN W. WIESMAN, JUDGE.

Robin Ransom Vannoy, Family Court of St. Louis County, 501 S. Brentwood Blvd., St. Louis, MO 63105, for respondent.

John R. Bird 906 Olive Street, Suite 1115, St. Louis, MO 63101, for appellant.

René E. Lusser, Lusser, Hughes Lusser, 400 North 4th Street, Suite 2410, St. Louis, MO 63102, Guardian ad Litem for Juveniles.

Kathianne Knaup Crane, P.J., Robert G. Dowd, Jr., J. and Sherri B. Sullivan, J., concurring.

Page 722

ORDER
PER CURIAM.

In this consolidated appeal, mother appeals from the judgments of the trial court terminating her parental rights to her four minor children. The judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo.App. 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion, for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).

Tagged: