Case ID: sw3d_56/html/0470-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Interest of I.G., M.G., M.G., Plaintiffs, Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. I.G. (Mother), Appellant, M.A.G. (Putative Father), Defendant.
    No. WD 59185.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
    Aug. 10, 2001.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 2, 2001.
    Lloyd Lyle Messick, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
    Laura Higgins Tyler, Kansas City, MO, for Plaintiff.
    Mary Kathryn O’Malley, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
    Before ULRICH, P.J., BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM:

I.G. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her daughters, I.G. and M.G., and son, M.G., pursuant to § 211.447.4(3), RSMo 2000. Mother contends there was not clear, cogent and convincing evidence that conditions of a potentially harmful nature continue to exist and that the continuation of the parent-child relationship greatly diminishes the children’s prospects for early integration into a stable and permanent home. Mother also claims that the trial court erred in finding that termination of her parental rights is in the children’s best interest after consideration of the factors listed in § 211.447.6, RSMo 2000. This court finds that there was sufficient evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that termination of Mother’s parental rights to I.G., M.G., and M.G. was appropriate under § 211.447.4(3), RSMo 2000, and in the children’s best interest. Since a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).