
    In the Interest of A.T.M.
    No. 73843.
    Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.
    Jan. 19, 1999.
    David O. Fischer, St. Louis, for appellant.
    Phillip E. Jones, Sr., John E. Bird, St. Louis, for respondent.
    Before PAUL J. SIMON, P. J., KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, and LAWRENCE E. MOONEY, JJ
   ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Danielle Renee Jones (“Appellant”) appeals the trial court’s termination of her parental rights to her minor child (“A.T.M.”). We find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence, is not against the weight of the evidence, and does not erroneously declare or apply the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976).

An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order.

We affirm pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).  