In Re Ll, 282 S.W.3d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Ll, 282 S.W.3d 398 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 12× by 12 distinct cases, 2010–2024 · …there is no requirement, statutory or otherwise, that all seven of these factors must be negated before termination can take place; likewise, there is no minimum number of negative factors necessary for termination. at p. 409 ⚠ not in text Topic ↗
114 citation events (114 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 27 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) IN THE INTEREST OF M.L.P. and M.R.P., WAYNE COUNTY CHILDREN'S DIVISION v. A.N.B.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2024 · confidence medium
C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) IN THE INTEREST OF N.D.P.H. and Z.L.P.H, Minor children under seventeen years of age, K.E.H. v. GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICER, Petitioner-Respondent (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
In re A.L.M., 354 S.W.3d 645, 655-56 (Mo. App. 2011); C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) IN THE INTEREST OF: H.M.W. and W.E.L., children under seventeen years of age. GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent v. R.W.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“There is no requirement, statutory or otherwise, that all seven of these factors must be negated before termination can take place; likewise, there is no minimum 15 number of negative factors necessary for termination.” In the Interest of C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398, 409 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) IN THE INTEREST OF: T.T.O., J.J.O., T.N.O., J.A.O., C.D.O., III, and T.M.O. children under seventeen years of age GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent v. C.D.O., Jr.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2020 · confidence medium
S.D. 2010) (quoting In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) E.P. v. J.G. (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
The parent aide, therapist, and caseworker all similarly testified that termination of Father's rights was in Child's best interest because Child's foster home provides her safety and stability and a parent-child bond had not developed between Father and Child. "[A] lack of bonding is substantial evidence supporting that termination is in the best interest of the child[.]" In re C.A.M. , 282 S.W.3d at 408 (citations omitted); see also Missouri Dep't of Soc.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) IN THE INTEREST OF A.R.T., R.A.T. v. GREENE COUNTY JUVENILE OFFICE, Petitioner-Respondent, and MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, CHILDREN'S DIVISION (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
M., 282 S.W.3d at 409; In re A.L.M., 354 S.W.3d 645, 655-56 (Mo. App. 2011).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In the Interest of S.Y.B.G, Minor
Mo. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Adoption of C.M. v. E.M.B.R. (2×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greene County Juvenile Office v. C.N.B.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
“There is no requirement, statutory or otherwise, that all seven of these factors must be negated before termination can take place; likewise, there is no minimum number of negative factors necessary for termination.” C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409.
examined Cited as authority (rule) M.H. v. Greene County Juvenile Office (3×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405.
examined Cited as authority (rule) S.L.D. v. Greene County Juvenile Office (3×)
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Srf
Mo. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
S.D.2008) (finding "innumerable factors ... may be considered in determining whether an adoptive placement is in the children's best interests" and that "the best-interests analysis is very fact-intensive and may turn on very subtle factors.") (internal quotation and citation omitted); In re CAM, 282 S.W.3d 398, 409 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) A.M.B. v. Greene County Juvenile Office
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
Finding no merit to Mother’s points, we affirm the judgments of the trial court. 2 Factual and Procedural History While our recitation of the relevant facts is generally in accordance with the principle that the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the judgment, see In re CAM., 282 S.W.3d 398, 401 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Greene County Juvenile Office v. B.D.W. (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In re CAM., 282 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Mo.App.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re Kmw (2×) also: Cited "see"
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In re CAM., 282 S.W.3d 398, 405 (Mo.App.
examined Cited as authority (rule) D.L.M. v. Greene County Juvenile Office (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405.
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Alm (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405.
cited Cited as authority (rule) C.V.E. v. Greene County Juvenile Office
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
In the Interest of C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398, 409 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) R.J.M. v. Phelps County Juvenile Office
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
In the Interest of C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398, 409 (Mo.App.
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Lm
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
In the Interest of C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398, 409 (Mo. App. S.D.2009).
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Trw
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In Re ZLR
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
NOTES [1] Statutory references are to RSMo as amended through 2008. [2] We view the record favorably to the judgment ( C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 401) and describe the salient evidence accordingly. [3] Father had gone to jail in March 2007.
cited Cited as authority (rule) R.M. v. Greene County Juvenile Office
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
We view the record favorably to the judgment (C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 401) and describe the salient evidence accordingly. .
cited Cited "see" In Re Zlr
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 409.
cited Cited "see" Greene County Juvenile Office v. M.E.G.
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405 n. 5 (Mother makes the same combination of legal challenges — substantial evidence and weight of the evidence — in point two, as well).
cited Cited "see" In Re XDG
Mo. Ct. App. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
See C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d at 405 n. 5 (Mother makes the same combination of legal challenges — substantial evidence and weight of the evidence — in point two, as well).
cited Cited "see" State v. Marshall
Mo. Ct. App. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
Rule 84.04(d)(1)(A); see In re C.A.M., 282 S.W.3d 398 , 405 n. 5 (Mo.App.2009).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Interest of: L.L. and R.D., Juvenile Officer, Respondent,
v.
L.L. (Father), Appellant.
WD 70225.
Missouri Court of Appeals.
Apr 7, 2009.
282 S.W.3d 398
Lisa White Hardwick, P.J., Harold L. Lowenstein, Judge and Victor C. Howard, Judge.
Published

Kathleen Winger, Harrisonville, MO, for Respondent.

John A. Lozano, Harrisonville, MO, for Appellant.

Before LISA WHITE HARDWICK, P.J., HAROLD L. LOWENSTEIN, Judge and VICTOR C. HOWARD, Judge.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

L.L. appeals the judgment of the trial court terminating his parental rights to his children, R.D. and L.L. On appeal, he claims that the trial court erred in terminating his parental rights because the Juvenile Officer did not present clear, cogent, and convincing evidence to support termination upon any statutory ground. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).