IN RE MILLER & HOTRUM MINORS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of DACAREA MILLER and MICHAEL
HOTRUM, JR., Minors.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
January 28, 2000
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 217239
Kalamazoo Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-000060 NA
BRENDA CAFARELLI,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL HOTRUM, SR.,
Respondent.
Before: Markey, P.J., and Murphy and R.B. Burns*, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals by right from the family court order terminating her parental rights
to the minor children under MCL 712A.19b(3)(g); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(3)(g), following a finding
that she failed to comply strictly with the requirements of an Adrianson1 agreement. We affirm.
The trial court, having found that the allegations in the petition for termination were established
by clear and convincing evidence, and having accepted respondent-appellant’s plea of no contest to the
petition in exchange for the chance to perform under an Adrianson agreement, did not abuse its
discretion in entering the order of termination upon finding that respondent-appellant failed to comply
strictly with the requirements of the agreement. In re Adrianson, 105 Mich App 300, 316, 319, 322;
306 NW2d 487 (1981). The court had previously and carefully admonished respondent-appellant that
* Former Court of Appeals judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
even the slightest failure to comply with all of the conditions of the Adrianson agreement would likely
result in the termination of her parental rights, and respondent-appellant expressed her understanding of
this on the record.
Finally, respondent-appellant failed to show that termination of her parental rights was “clearly
not” in the children’s best interests. MCL 712A.19b(5); MSA 27.3178(598.19b)(5); In re HallSmith, 222 Mich App 470, 472-473; 564 NW2d 156 (1997). Thus, the trial court did not err in
terminating respondent-appellant’s parental rights to the children.
We affirm.
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Robert B. Burns
1
In re Adrianson, 105 Mich App 300, 316, 319, 322; 306 NW2d 487 (1981). Respondent
appellant pleaded no contest to the allegations in the termination petition in exchange for entering into a
conditions-of-compliance agreement approved of in Adrianson. The trial court accepted the plea,
concluded that the statutory grounds for termination had been met by clear and convincing evidence,
and held in abeyance its ruling on termination pending a continuation hearing to ascertain whether she
had strictly complied with the agreement.
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
