Case Name: In the Interest of C.R.H., a minor. David Homan, Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-02-18
Citations: 99 S.W.3d 32
Docket Number: No. ED 81249
Parties: In the Interest of C.R.H., a minor. David Homan, Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent.
Judges: Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 99
Pages: 32–33

Head Matter:
In the Interest of C.R.H., a minor. David Homan, Appellant, v. Juvenile Officer of St. Louis County, Missouri, Respondent.
No. ED 81249.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.
Feb. 18, 2003.
David Allyn Shaller, St. Louis, MO, for Appellant.
Robin Ranson Vannoy, Clayton MO, for Respondent.
Celeste Leritz Endicott, St. Louis, MO, for Juvenile.
Before WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., P.J., SHERRI B. SULLIVAN, J., and GLENN A. NORTON, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
David Homan (Father) appeals from a trial court judgment terminating his parental rights to his minor child, C.R.H. (Child), pursuant to Section 211.447 RSMo. (2000). Father argues that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that termination is in Child's best interest. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that termination of parental rights is in Child's best interest. In re A.S., 38 S.W.3d 478, 486 (Mo.App. S.D.2001). An extended opinion would have no prece-dential 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).