NO. 93-366 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1994 

IN THE MATTER OF THE INQUIRY 

into N.L., A Youth in Need of Care. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Tenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Fergus, 

The Honorable Peter Rapkoch, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Tina LaRocque, Winifred Montana (pro se) 

For Respondent: 

Hon. Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Mike 

Wellenstein, Assistant Attorney General, Helena, 

Montana; Thomas P. Meissner, Fergus County Attorney, 

Lewistown, Montana; Craig R. Buehler, ~ewiston, 

Montana; Jim Simonich, Department of Family 

Services, Lewistown, Montana: Monte J. Boettger, 

Lewistown,, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: August 4, 1994 

OCT 04 1994 Decided: October 4, 1994 

Filed: fJ 1 6.: 
Justice Fred J. Weber delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

This is an appeal by N.L.'s mother oP the termination of her 

parental rights. The father's rights were also terminated; he has 

not appealed. The termination was made by the Tenth Judicial 

District Court, Fergus County, following a termination hearing held 

on April 16, 1994. 

The only issue on appeal is whether the District Court abused 

its discretion in terminating the parental rights of N.L.'s mother. 

N.Lts mother (Tina) and N.L.'s father (Eric) are the natural 

parents of N.L. who was born on October 11, 1990. The record shows 

a long history of alcohol and drug abuse by both parents. Also 

evident is a serious domestic abuse problem by both Tina and Eric. 

Eric's parents became concerned at the condition of their 

granddaughter after Tina and Eric moved in with them. Eric's 

parents testified that the baby did not appear to be getting the 

proper nutrition and that both Tina and Eric partied continuously. 

When Eric's parents attempted to communicate their concern, Tina 

and Eric simply took their daughter with them while they drank in 

local bars and then subsequently moved from the premises. 

In addition to Eric's parents, who eventually called the 

Department of Family Services about the child, witnesses at the 

hearing included Tina and Eric, friends of the young couple, 

relatives of the couple, and personnel from the Department of 

Family Services and the rehabilitation programs in which Tina and 

Eric had been enrolled. 

The file of this case presents a gloomy picture of abuse and 

2 
neglect. The record indicates that the child was taken out of the 

home once temporarily. When the child was returned to them, the 

parents again reverted to their destructive behavior resulting in 

the loss of their daughter. 

When the child was taken a second time, the Department of 

Family Services established a plan that the parents had to complete 

successfully before the child would be returned to them. Neither 

parent finished all programs, including the Drug and Alcohol 

program, involved in this plan, although the record indicates that 

Tina finished the parenting program a month before the hearing. 

Repeated testimony at the hearing indicates that neither parent has 

stopped using drugs or alcohol. 

Tina argues on appeal that if she is given custody of her 

daughter she will return to her home in Kalispell where her family 

resides and that they will help her. The record indicates that 

Tina's father testified that he would give Tina and the baby a 

home. However, testimony of other witnesses indicates that he also 

helped supply her with drugs. 

The record is devoid of any substantiation that Tina's family 

has been supportive to her in any way. The court determined that 

it had no indication before it that a change of residence would 

alter Tina's family's indifference. Further and of more 

importance, the record is devoid of any showing that Tina has made 

any serious attempt to change herself or her lifestyle other than 

to superficially impress the court. 

The court in this matter was charged with a serious concern. 
Termination of parent rights is not something that is easily 

arrived at in this state. Butthere is no evidence here that Tina 

will commit to even a serious attempt at change. Her statements 

that she will stop using drugs and alcohol if she gets custody are 

not borne out by the record. The court must consider the "best 

interests" of the child and the notion that someone who has been 

unsuccessful and insincere throughout two separate attempts to 

change will somehow miraculously do it a third time after being 

granted custody of the child is an argument without substance. The 

court correctly determined that such a course of action would not 

be in the best interests of the child. 

The court must consider the following elements when 

determining whether termination of parental rights is appropriate: 

i. an appropriate treatment plan that has been approved 

by the court has not been complied with by the parents or 

has not been successful: and 

ii. the conduct or condition of the parents rendering 

them unfit is unlikely to change within a reasonable time . . . 

section 41-3-609(c), MCA. Unfortunately, neither parent has shown 

the ability to finish what they start nor the will to change. The 

District Court carefully considered every piece of evidence with 

which it was presented and correctly determined that it had no 

choice but to terminate the parental rights of Tina and Eric or 

else risk harm to the child. Therefore, after a thorough review of 

the record by this Court, we conclude that the District Court did 

not abuse its discretion. 

Affirmed . 

Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 

4 
1988 Internal Operating Rules, this decision shall not be cited as 

precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document 

with the Clerk of this Court and by a report of its result to the 

West Publishing Company. 

Chief Justice - 4C