Case ID: sw3d_210/html/0413-01.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 A.P.G. A minor child.
    No. ED 87443.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.
    Nov. 21, 2006.
    Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Dec. 26, 2006.
    Application for Transfer Denied Jan. 30, 2007.
    Mary Dames Fox, University City, MO, for Paul and Faye Granda.
    Suzanne Epstein-Lang, Guardian Ad Li-tem, St. Louis, MO, for A.P.G., minor.
    Grandparents Rights Organization, Tara Anne Nealey, Roger Kent Heidenrich, St. Louis, MO, Attorney and Co-Counsel for Amicus Curiae.
    Scott Tiegs Filmore, St. Louis, MO, Co-Counsel for Amicus Curiae.
    Juvenile Officer, Margaret Gangle-Ca-singer, St. Louis, MO, Thomas Schrautem-eier, Catherine Ward Keefe, Lori Schrau-temeier, Keefe & Brodie, Clayton, MO, for Respondent.
    Before CLIFFORD H. AHRENS, P.J., and MARY K. HOFF, J., and NANNETTE A. BAKER, J.
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Paul A. Granda and Faye S. Granda (referred to collectively as Grandparents) appeal from the trial court’s judgment and decree of adoption establishing the Grandparents’ biological grandson, A.P.G., as the child of T.J.S. and L.A.S.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file, and the record on appeal, and find the claims of error to be without merit. No error of law appears. An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for the order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).