IN RE MAHDI HAYES JR MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of MAHDI HAYES, JR., Minor.
FAMILY INDEPENDENCE AGENCY,
UNPUBLISHED
August 19, 2004
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 254078
Kent Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 96-032100-NA
MAHDI E. HAYES, SR.,
Respondent-Appellant,
and
MENEFI NORTON,
Respondent.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Cooper and Kelly, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Respondent-appellant appeals as of right the termination of his parental rights to the
minor child. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR
7.214(E).
Respondent-appellant argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. To
prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, respondent-appellant must show that his
attorney's performance was deficient, that is, that it fell below an objective standard of
reasonableness and the representation so prejudiced him that it denied him a fair trial. In re CR,
250 Mich App 185, 197-198; 646 NW2d 506 (2002). Because respondent-appellant failed to
seek an evidentiary hearing below or move for a new trial based on ineffective assistance of
counsel, this Court’s review is limited to mistakes apparent on the record. People v McCrady,
213 Mich App 474, 478-479; 540 NW2d 718 (1995).
Respondent-appellant first argues that his attorney failed to make independent efforts to
contact respondent during the pendency of the case. However, there was no evidence presented
at the trial level as to what efforts, great or small, that were made by said attorney, save for the
attorney’s comments that such efforts had not resulted in any response from respondentappellant. Respondent-appellant similarly bases his argument on alleged facts that are not part of
-1-
the record when he argues that his attorney should have known it was likely that respondentappellant resided in the state of Illinois, and that the minor child and his custodial relatives were
aware of respondent-appellant’s location.
Respondent-appellant next argues that his attorney’s performance was deficient when he
failed to conduct any cross-examination or present any evidence on behalf of respondentappellant, including evidence relating to the best interests of the minor child. However,
respondent-appellant fails to specify what evidence should have been presented or elicited upon
cross-examination, thereby precluding this Court from determining any deficiencies in the
representation. On this record, we cannot say that respondent-appellant was denied the effective
assistance of counsel.
Affirmed.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Kirsten Frank Kelly
-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.
