Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): GARY W. LYNCH, P.J., and NANCY STEFFEN RAHMEYER, J., concur. 1 .It is the duty of this Court to determine the propriety of the appeal. Krause v. Tullo, 835 S.W.2d 488, 490 (Mo.App. S.D.1992). J.L.G. was included in the caption in E.W.G.’s appeal and a separate “Notice of Appeal” was filed for her. However, E.W.G. is not J.L.G.’s biological father. The parental rights of J.L.G.’s biological father were terminated on April 17, 2000. The only action the trial court took regarding J.L.G. was termination of the parental rights of J.L.G.’s biological mother (“Mother”). Mother is not a party to this appeal; therefore, we dismiss the separate Notice of Appeal for J.L.G. in that E.W.G. has no standing to assert parental rights for her. See In re Q.M.B., 85 S.W.3d 654, 662 (Mo.App. W.D.2002) (<HOLDING>). We refer to evidence about Mother and/or 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that as a matter of contract no party can be forced to arbitrate unless that party has entered into an agreement to do so (B) holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child (C) holding that an evicted plaintiff has no legal interest in property and therefore has no standing to bring a cercla claim (D) holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal (E) holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal
Output (English): holding that party standing in loco parentis has standing to seek custody of child