Case Name: In the Interest of A.P.D., A.C.D. and A.M.D. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. B.D. (Father), Appellant
Court: Missouri Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Missouri
Decision Date: 2014-10-07
Citations: 443 S.W.3d 738
Docket Number: No. WD 77398
Parties: In the Interest of A.P.D., A.C.D. and A.M.D. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. B.D. (Father), Appellant.
Judges: Before Division Three: GARY D. WITT, Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge.
Reporter: South Western Reporter Third Series
Volume: 443
Pages: 738–738

Head Matter:
In the Interest of A.P.D., A.C.D. and A.M.D. Juvenile Officer, Respondent, v. B.D. (Father), Appellant.
No. WD 77398.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Oct. 7, 2014.
Katie A. Rooney and Lori A. Fluegel, Kansas City, MO, for respondent.
Elizabeth E. Patterson, Kansas City, MO, for appellant.
Before Division Three: GARY D. WITT, Presiding Judge, JOSEPH M. ELLIS, Judge and THOMAS H. NEWTON, Judge.

Opinion:
ORDER
PER CURIAM:
B.D. ("Father") appeals the consolidated judgment of the trial court terminating parental rights to his children, A.P.D., A.C.D., and A.M.D. While his Points Relied On are less than artfully drafted, it appears that he claims on appeal that the trial court erred in making three findings: that Father had a chemical dependency, that Father failed to make progress and comply with the terms of the social service plan, and that Father failed to properly care for the children. The judgment is affirmed. Because a published opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, the parties have been provided a memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).