Case Name: In the Interest of L.C., M.C. and L.C., Plaintiffs. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. L.C. (Father), Appellant, M.C. (Mother), Defendant John Doe (Putative Father), Defendant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2006-04-25
Citations: 189 S.W.3d 211
Docket Number: No. WD 65815
Parties: In the Interest of L.C., M.C. and L.C., Plaintiffs. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. L.C. (Father), Appellant, M.C. (Mother), Defendant John Doe (Putative Father), Defendant.
Judges: Before SMART, P.J., ULRICH and HARDWICK, JJ.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 189
Pages: 211–211

Head Matter:
In the Interest of L.C., M.C. and L.C., Plaintiffs. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. L.C. (Father), Appellant, M.C. (Mother), Defendant John Doe (Putative Father), Defendant.
No. WD 65815.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
April 25, 2006.
Deborah G. Baron, and Guardian, Kansas City, MO.
Frederick J. Wilkins, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Debra J. Gronewoller, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Robert S. Halas, Independence, MO, for defendant.
Before SMART, P.J., ULRICH and HARDWICK, JJ.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
L.C. appeals from the judgments terminating parental rights to his three sons. He contends the trial court violated Section 211.443, RSMO 2000, by failing to give any consideration to placing the children with their paternal grandmother. Because the placement determination will be made in separate and ongoing proceedings, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
Pursuant to Rule 84.16(b), the parties have been provided with a memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision because a published opinion would have no precedential value.
AFFIRMED. Rule 84.16(b).