IN RE JAYNIE ABUAWAD MINOR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
In the Matter of JAYNIE ABUAWAD, Minor.
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,
UNPUBLISHED
June 3, 2008
Petitioner-Appellee,
v
No. 282275
Macomb Circuit Court
Family Division
LC No. 2006-000479-NA
LUCAS ABUAWAD,
Respondent-Appellant.
Before: Davis, P.J., and Murray and Beckering, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Respondent Lucas Abuawad appeals as of right the order of the trial court terminating his
parental rights to his minor child pursuant to MCL 712A.19b(3)(c)(i), (g), and (j). We affirm.
To terminate parental rights, a trial court must find that at least one of the statutory
grounds for termination has been established by clear and convincing evidence. In re Trejo, 462
Mich 341, 355; 612 NW2d 407 (2000). If the trial court determines that a statutory ground for
termination has been established, the trial court is required to terminate the respondent’s parental
rights unless the trial court finds that termination is clearly not in the child’s best interests. MCL
712A.19b(5). In this case, respondent does not contend error by the trial court in its finding that
a statutory ground for termination existed, or in the trial court’s finding that termination was not
contrary to the best interests of the child, and we find none.
Rather, respondent contends that he was denied effective assistance of counsel before the
trial court. We disagree. First, we note that respondent has failed to preserve this issue by
requesting an evidentiary hearing or a new trial. See People v Sabin (On Second Remand), 242
Mich App 656, 658-659; 620 NW2d 19 (2000). This Court will review an unpreserved assertion
of ineffective assistance of counsel at trial for error apparent on the record. Id. Respondent must
establish that his attorney’s performance fell below the standard of objective reasonableness, or
that the representation so prejudiced him that he was denied a fair trial. See In re CR, 250 Mich
App 185, 198; 646 NW2d 506 (2002). To demonstrate prejudice, respondent must show the
existence of a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s error, the result of the proceeding
would have been different. Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668, 694; 104 S Ct 2052; 80 L Ed
2d 674 (1984); In re CR, supra at 198. In doing so, respondent must overcome a strong
presumption that counsel’s performance was sound trial strategy. Strickland, supra at 694.
-1-
A review of the record establishes that respondent and his counsel were familiar with the
case and each other. At respondent’s request, new counsel was appointed to replace his previous
counsel, and the new attorney thereafter appeared on respondent’s behalf at April 18, 2007 and
June 11, 2007 hearings before the trial court. Respondent attended both hearings and
presumably had an opportunity to speak with his attorney at those hearings. After respondent
was arrested on August 22, 2007, he apparently did not inform his attorney, who learned upon
attending an August 30, 2007 hearing, that his client was incarcerated. Though respondent’s
request for adjournment of the October 5, 2007 hearing was denied by the trial court, counsel
vigorously cross-examined witnesses and made objections and argument, demonstrating a
strategy executed on respondent’s behalf. There is no indication that counsel’s performance was
deficient or fell below a standard of objective reasonableness.
A review of the record also demonstrates no showing of a reasonable probability that, but
for counsel’s alleged error, the result of the proceeding would have been different. Rather, the
record demonstrates that, regardless of strategy or argument employed below, the trial court was
unlikely to rule in any way other than by terminating respondent’s parental rights.
Respondent was incarcerated and facing trial on four felonies and a misdemeanor.
Respondent had a lengthy criminal record and had just violated probation. Respondent’s
criminal activities were of a nature that would endanger any child in his care. Respondent had
failed to comply with most aspects of the parent agency agreement. Respondent did not have
independent housing, had little income, and had made no efforts to improve his housing or
income situation. Respondent had four other children of whom he did not have custody and who
he did not support financially. Respondent had stopped visiting regularly with the minor child
and appeared not to have bonded with the child, or she with him. Respondent had previously
lied to the trial court about his housing arrangement and had previously pressured the mother of
the child to place the child for adoption for the purpose of obtaining money from the prospective
adoptive parents. In light of the extensive and unfavorable record, it cannot be said that there
was a reasonable probability that, but for any alleged error by counsel, the result of the
proceeding would have been different.
Affirmed.
/s/ Alton T. Davis
/s/ Christopher M. Murray
/s/ Jane M. Beckering
-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.