Case Name: In the Interest of: E.K.M. and L.K.M. L.K.M., Appellant, and Appellant, v. Audrain County Juvenile Office, Respondent
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2003-06-10
Citations: 111 S.W.3d 504
Docket Number: Nos. ED 81572, ED 81579
Parties: In the Interest of: E.K.M. and L.K.M. L.K.M., Appellant, and Appellant, v. Audrain County Juvenile Office, Respondent.
Judges: Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, C.J., and WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 111
Pages: 504–504

Head Matter:
In the Interest of: E.K.M. and L.K.M. L.K.M., Appellant, and Appellant, v. Audrain County Juvenile Office, Respondent.
Nos. ED 81572, ED 81579.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.
June 10, 2003.
Application for Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 24, 2003.
Application for Transfer Denied Aug. 26, 2003.
Edward M. Berg, Columbia, MO, for appellant L.K.M.
J. Kevin Hamlett, Mexico, MO, for appellant J.D.M.
Carla Wood Tanzey, Randall P. Baker, Mexico, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Before LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, C.J., and WILLIAM H. CRANDALL, JR., and ROBERT G. DOWD, JR., JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
L.K.M. (Mother) appeals the termination of her parental rights to her two daughters, E.K.M. and L.K.M. arguing the evidence does not support termination under Section 211.447.2(1) and (2), RSMo 2000, or Section 211.447.4(1), (2), and (3), RSMo 2000, and that termination was not in either child's best interest. J.D.M. (Father) also appeals the termination of his parental rights to E.K.M. and L.K.M, arguing the termination was not supported by substantial evidence under the same statutes. Because we find substantial evidence supported the trial court's determination that the conditions for termination were met and that termination was in the children's best interests, we affirm.
We . have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion would have no precedential value nor serve any jurisprudential purpose. The parities have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).