Case Name: C.A.H., Petitioner/Respondent, v. J.A.T., Respondent/Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2016-12-08
Citations: 477 S.W.3d 700
Docket Number: ED 102396
Parties: C.A.H., Petitioner/Respondent, v. J.A.T., Respondent/Appellant.
Judges: Before Lisa S. Van Amburg, C.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 477
Pages: 700–700

Head Matter:
C.A.H., Petitioner/Respondent, v. J.A.T., Respondent/Appellant.
ED 102396
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.
Filed: December 8, 2016
Cheryl A. Hunter, 1233 Cliff Ridge L'ane, Valley Park, MO 63088, for Petitioner/Respondent.
James W. Whitney, Jr., 7905 Forsyth Blvd., Clayton, MO 63105, for Respondent/Appellant.
Before Lisa S. Van Amburg, C.J., Sherri B. Sullivan, J., and Kurt S. Odenwald, J.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
J.A.T. (Appellant) appeals from the trial court's Judgment and Full Order of Protection. We have reviewed Appellant's brief and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court's judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not misstate or misapply the law. K.M.D. v. Alosi, 324 S.W.3d 477, 479 (Mo.App.W.D.2010). Further, we find the court did not lack the authority to award or abuse its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. Id. An extended opinion would have no precedential 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).
. C.A.H. did not file a responsive brief.