IN 1974 A MOTHER APPEALED A LOWER COURT DECISION TERMINATING HER PARENTAL RIGHTS TOWARD HER 8-YEAR-OLD SON. SHE HAD A HISTORY OF EMOTIONAL AND MENTAL DISORDERS WHICH REQUIRED HOSPITALIZATION ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. DURING THESE HOSPITALIZATIONS THE CHILD WAS NEGLECTED. A PETITION TO TERMINATE PARENTAL RIGHTS WAS BROUGHT BEFORE A COLORADO COUNTY DISTRICT COURT, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY TERMINATED HER RIGHTS. IN THE APPEAL TO THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT, THE MOTHER MAINTAINED THAT THE STATE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED SUPPORTIVE SERVICES BEFORE TERMINATING HER PARENTAL RIGHTS AND THAT THE COLORADO CHILDREN'S CODE REQUIRED PRESERVATION OF THE HOME ENVIRONMENT WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THE COURT RULED THAT THE STATE HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. HOWEVER, IT DID FIND THAT THE LOWER COURT HAD ACTED IMPROPERLY IN TERMINATING THE RELATIONSHIP, BECAUSE STATE LAW PROVIDES THAT THE TERMINATION IS CONDITIONAL UPON: (1) THE PROBABILITY THAT THE NEGLECT OR DEPENDENCY OF THE CHILD WILL CONTINUE, AND (2) THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD WILL NOT BE SERVED BY THE CONTINUATION OF THE PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP. THE COLORADO SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE DOCTRINE THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD SUPERCEDES THE RIGHTS OF THE PARENT. COURTS IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON HAVE HELD THAT THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IS THE MAJOR CONSIDERATION; HOWEVER, THE TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS IS A LAST-RESORT REMEDY. MICHIGAN AND NORTH DAKOTA COURTS SUPPORT THE COLORADO RULE THAT TERMINATION MAY BE EXERCISED IF THE NEGLECT OR DEPENDENCY IS LIKELY TO CONTINUE IN THE FUTURE. ALL FAVOR THE PRESERVATION OF FAMILY TIES IF THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD, BUT NONE MANDATE SUPPORTIVE SERVICES. FOLLOWING THE ADOPTION OF THE MODEL TERMINATION ACT BY THE CHILDREN'S BUREAU OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE IN 1961, SEVERAL STATES HAVE PASSED LEGISLATION IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING NORTH DAKOTA, WISCONSIN, NEW MEXICO, OREGON, AND ARIZONA. THESE LAWS ARE BRIEFLY SURVEYED. THE ARTICLE IS FOOTNOTED. (GLR)