Case Name: In re MARRIAGE OF Lyndon W. HARR and Christina R. Harr. Lyndon W. HARR, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Christina R. HARR, n/k/a Stevenson, Respondent, and State ex rel. Missouri Division Of Family Services, Assignee, and Dorothea G. Moore, Intervenor/Respondent, and Thomas P. Moore, Intervenor
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 1997-12-16
Citations: 959 S.W.2d 896
Docket Number: No. 71455
Parties: In re MARRIAGE OF Lyndon W. HARR and Christina R. Harr. Lyndon W. HARR, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Christina R. HARR, n/k/a Stevenson, Respondent, and State ex rel. Missouri Division Of Family Services, Assignee, and Dorothea G. Moore, Intervenor/Respondent, and Thomas P. Moore, Intervenor.
Judges: Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Second Series
Volume: 959
Pages: 896–896

Head Matter:
In re MARRIAGE OF Lyndon W. HARR and Christina R. Harr. Lyndon W. HARR, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Christina R. HARR, n/k/a Stevenson, Respondent, and State ex rel. Missouri Division Of Family Services, Assignee, and Dorothea G. Moore, Intervenor/Respondent, and Thomas P. Moore, Intervenor.
No. 71455.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.
Dec. 16, 1997.
Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Feb. 9, 1998.
Michael A. Peetz, Chesterfield, Lloyd M. Nolan, Clayton, for appellant.
Donald H. Clooney, Clooney and Anderson, St. Louis, for respondent.
Elizabeth Harris Christmas, Mo. Dept, of Social Services, St. Louis, for assignee.
Peter T. Sadowski, St. Louis, for Guardian Ad Litem.
Before CRANE, P.J., and RHODES RUSSELL and JAMES R. DOWD, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a judgment modifying child custody and awarding physical and legal custody of a child to the child's maternal grandmother. The trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a written memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.
The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).