Rel: March 17, 2023

Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. 

Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, 

Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-0650), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections 

may be made before the opinion is published in Southern Reporter.

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS

OCTOBER TERM, 2022-2023

_________________________

CL-2022-0531

_________________________

T.F.H. 

v. 

A.L.S.

Appeal from Coosa Juvenile Court

(JU-21-22.01)

HANSON, Judge.

T.F.H. appeals from a judgment of the Coosa Juvenile Court ("the 

juvenile court") that terminated his parental rights to M.J.B. ("the 

child"). On appeal, T.F.H. argues that the judgment terminating his 
CL-2022-0531

2

parental rights is void because, he argues, the juvenile court lacked 

personal jurisdiction over him. 

The record on appeal reveals the following pertinent facts and 

procedural history. On August 19, 2021, A.L.S. ("the mother") filed a 

verified petition in the juvenile court seeking to terminate the parental 

rights of T.F.H. to the child. That same day, the mother served T.F.H. 

with process by certified mail. The juvenile court entered an order on 

October 27, 2021, setting the case for a trial to be held on December 7, 

2021. On December 6, 2021, the juvenile court entered an order stating: 

"[T.F.H.] was not served by personal service. This case is continued in 

general for father to be served and for attorney to file motion for court 

date." The mother then filed a motion stating that the father was 

personally served on December 11, 2021, and requesting that the matter 

be set for a final hearing; the mother attached a return copy of the process 

served by the private process server to her motion. The juvenile court 

held a trial on March 3, 2022. 

At the commencement of the trial, the mother's counsel asserted 

that T.F.H. had been served by certified mail on August 19, 2021, and 
CL-2022-0531

3

that a private process server personally served T.F.H. on December 11, 

2021. In response, T.F.H.'s counsel stated: 

"I would like the Record to reflect that [T.F.H.] is not 

here this morning. I have attempted to contact him and have 

had no response at the address and phone number and 

various other social media efforts we have made to contact 

him. 

"I do need to point out that for purposes of today, due to 

what I think is the procedural posture and the fact that my 

client is not here, I need to enter a limited appearance for 

purposes of objecting to personal jurisdiction over my client. I 

have not heretofore entered any notice or anything in this 

Court, so my client is not going to be deemed to have waived 

notice by entering a general appearance of any kind."

In his argument to the juvenile court, T.F.H.'s counsel contended 

that the service by certified mail on August 19, 2021, was not in 

compliance with Rule 13(A), Ala. R. Juv. P., or with Rule 4(i)(2), Ala. R. 

Civ. P., and that the return copy of the process served by the private 

process server on December 11, 2021, was deficient. Thereafter, the 

juvenile court denied T.F.H.'s counsel's oral motion to dismiss 

challenging the sufficiency of service of process and proceeded to try the 

termination-of-parental-right action. 

On March 15, 2022, the juvenile court entered a judgment, 

terminating the parental rights of T.F.H. to the child. Subsequently, 

T.F.H. filed a postjudgment motion pursuant to Rule 59, Ala. R. Civ. P., 
CL-2022-0531

4

asking the trial court to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, arguing 

that he was never properly served with service. On March 28, 2022, the 

juvenile court denied T.F.H.'s postjudgment motion. T.F.H. then timely 

filed a notice of appeal; this court has appellate jurisdiction because the 

record containing the transcript of the audio recording of the hearing was 

prepared at the direction of the juvenile court, which certified it as 

adequate for appellate review under Rule 28(A)(1)(c)(i), Ala. R. Juv. P. 

We dismiss the appeal with instructions to the juvenile court to vacate 

the judgment terminating T.F.H.'s parental rights. 

Analysis

On appeal, T.F.H. first argues that his parental rights cannot be 

terminated because service of process was not perfected as required by § 

12-15-318, Ala. Code 1975.1 Although the mother did not file a brief with 

this court, her arguments before the juvenile court were that service by 

certified mail had been proper and that the personal service by the 

private process server had been proper. 

"Our supreme court has recognized that 

1T.F.H. raises two additional arguments concerning his status as 

the putative father, however, because his first argument is 

determinative, we pretermit consideration of T.F.H.'s remaining 

arguments.
CL-2022-0531

5

"'[o]ne of the requisites of personal 

jurisdiction over a defendant is "perfected service 

of process giving notice to the defendant of the suit 

being brought." "When the service of process on the 

defendant is contested as being improper or 

invalid, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to 

prove that service of process was performed 

correctly and legally." A judgment rendered 

against a defendant in the absence of personal 

jurisdiction over that defendant is void.'"

R.M. v. Elmore Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 75 So. 3d 1195, 1199 (Ala. Civ. 

App. 2011) (internal citations omitted in R.M.) (quoting Horizons 2000, 

Inc. v. Smith, 620 So. 2d 606, 607 (Ala. 1993)). 

Furthermore, 

"[j]ust as strict compliance is required regarding the 

civil rules of service of process, see Johnson v. Hall, 10 So. 3d 

1031, 1037 (Ala. Civ. App. 2008), so must we also require 

strict compliance with the statute regarding service of process 

applicable to termination-of-parental-rights proceedings. 

Those proceedings strike at the very heart of the family unit. 

See Ex parte Beasley, 564 So. 2d 950, 952 (Ala. 1990). In a 

termination-of-parental-rights case, the state is seeking to 

irreversibly extinguish a fundamental liberty interest more 

precious than any property right, the right to associate with 

one's child. Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59, 102 

S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed 2d 599 (1982). Unlike a judgment 

divesting a parent of custody, a judgment terminating 

parental rights is immediate, permanent, and irrevocable. See 

C.B. v. State Dep't of Human Res., 782 So. 2d 781, 785 (Ala. 

Civ. App. 1998) ('termination of parental rights is an extreme 

action that cannot be undone; it is permanent'). Out of respect 
CL-2022-0531

6

for those fundamental rights, due process must be observed. 

Santosky, supra."

L.K. v. Lee Cnty. Dep't of Hum. Res., 64 So. 3d 1112, 1115 (Ala. Civ. App. 

2010). 

Rule 1(A), Ala. R. Juv. P., provides, in pertinent part:

"(A) These Rules shall be known as the Alabama Rules 

of Juvenile Procedure and shall govern the procedure for all 

matters in the juvenile court. If no procedure is specifically 

provided in these Rules or by statute, the Alabama Rules of 

Civil Procedure shall be applicable to those matters that are 

considered civil in nature ...."

(Emphasis added.) Rule 13(A), Ala. R. Juv. P., provides that a 

termination-of-parental-rights petition along with a summons shall be 

personally served by a process server pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1), Ala. R. Civ. 

P. Rule 13(A) further provides that "Upon motion and for good cause

shown, the court may direct that an adult be served by certified mail 

pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure. A copy of the 

petition shall be attached to each summons."

Section 12-15-318, Ala. Code 1975, of the Alabama Juvenile Justice 

Act, § 12-15-101 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, addresses service of process in 

termination-of-parental-rights and provides, in pertinent part:

"(a) Except as otherwise provided by the Alabama Rules 

of Juvenile Procedure and this section, service of process of 
CL-2022-0531

7

termination of parental rights actions shall be made in 

accordance with the Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure."

The methods of service set forth in Rule 4(i) of the Alabama Rules 

of Civil Procedure include, in pertinent part:

"(1) Delivery by a Process Server. 

"....

"(C) How Served and Returned. The person 

serving process shall deliver a copy of the process 

and accompanying documents to the defendant or 

other person who may be served under the 

provisions of Rule 4(c)[, Ala. R. Civ. P.] When the 

copy of the process has been delivered, the person 

serving process shall endorse that fact on the 

return copy [of the process], stating the date of 

service and the first and last name of the person 

served. ....

"...If service is made by a Designated Person 

under Rule 4(i)(1)(B), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] the return 

shall clearly indicate the name, the physical 

address of the home or business, and the telephone 

number of the person serving process and must 

include a statement that the server meets the 

requirements of Rule 4(i)(1)(B). The return of the 

person serving process in the manner described 

herein shall be prima facie evidence that process 

has been served. 

"(2) Service by Certified Mail.

"(A) When proper. When the plaintiff files a 

written request with the clerk for service by 

certified mail, service of process shall be made by 
CL-2022-0531

8

that method. Alternatively, the attorney or party 

filing the process and complaint may initiate 

service by certified mail as provided in this rule."

We disagree with the mother's argument that service by certified 

mail was proper in this case under Rule 4(i)(2), Ala. R. Civ. P. Although 

Rule 4(i)(2) allows service by certified mail when the attorney or party 

filing the process and complaint initiates such service by certified mail, 

the Alabama Rules of Juvenile Procedure and § 12-15-318 impose 

restrictions on the methods of service in termination-of-parental-rights 

proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 13(A)(1), Ala. R. Juv. P., "after a 

termination-of-parental-rights petition has been filed, summonses shall 

be issued to and personally served by a process server." Rule 13(A)(1) 

further states that "[u]pon motion and for good cause shown, the court 

may direct that an adult be served by certified mail pursuant to Rule 

4(i)(2), Alabama Rules of Civil Procedure." (Emphasis added.) 

Considering that a judgment terminating parental rights 

irreversibly extinguishes a fundamental liberty interest more precious 

than any property right, i.e., the right to associate with one's child, see

Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 758-59 (1982) ("[A] natural parent's 

desire for and right to the "companionship, care, custody, and 
CL-2022-0531

9

management of his or her children"' is an interest far more precious than 

any property right." (quoting Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 

(1982))), in termination-of-parental-rights cases, the Alabama Rules of 

Juvenile Procedure require personal service or, upon motion and for good 

cause shown, service by certified mail at the direction of the court. If the 

parent is avoiding service or cannot be located, service may be made by 

publication, see § 12-15-318(b)-(d), Ala. Code 1975. 

The mother failed to file a motion seeking permission to serve 

T.F.H. by certified mail, and the record does not indicate that any good 

cause was shown to allow service by certified mail. Although the mother 

asserts that T.F.H. was properly served by certified mail on August 19, 

2021, the juvenile court entered an order on December 6, 2021, 

acknowledging that T.F.H. had not been served by personal service and 

continued the case until T.F.H. was served, indicating that the juvenile 

court had determined that the mother's August 19, 2021, service by 

certified mail had not been a valid method of service in this case.

The mother next contends that service was perfected when T.F.H. 

was personally served on December 11, 2021. Pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(C), 

Ala. R. Civ. P., "[t]he person serving process shall deliver a copy of the 
CL-2022-0531

10

process and accompanying documents to the defendant or other person 

who may be served." The record indicates that the private process server 

failed to state that a copy of the petition and any accompanying

documents were served to T.F.H. See Truss v. Chappell, 4 So. 3d 1110 

(Ala. 2008) (holding that conclusory statement in an affidavit that 

defendant driver had been duly served with a copy of the complaint, 

without more, did not establish that driver was properly served). Rule 

4(i)(1)(C), Ala. R. Civ. P., also provides that "[i]f the service is made by a 

Designated Person under Rule 4(i)(1)(B), [Ala. R. Civ. P.,] the return shall 

clearly indicate the name, the physical address of the home or business, 

and the telephone number of the person serving process and must include 

a statement that the server meets the requirements of Rule 4(i)(1)(B)." 

The return failed to indicate the physical address of the home or business

and the telephone number of the person serving process, and it failed to 

include a statement that the server was a person not less than 19 years 

of age, was not a party, and was not related within the third degree by 

blood or marriage to the mother. See Aaron v. Aaron, 571 So. 2d 1150, 

1151 (Ala. Civ. App. 1990) (holding that under Alabama law, strict 

compliance with the rules governing service of process is required).
CL-2022-0531

11

Because the return was deficient, personal service of process on 

December 11, 2021, was insufficient.

Because the record indicates that the mother did not properly serve 

T.F.H. with the termination-of-parental-rights petition, the juvenile 

court lacked jurisdiction over T.F.H., rendering the juvenile court's 

judgment void. See D.M.T.J.W.D. v. Lee County Dept of Hum. Res., 109 

So. 3d 1133, 1144 (Ala. Civ. App. 2012) (holding that judgment was void 

because the department of human resources did not perfect service on the 

mother); see also Cain v. Cain, 892 So. 2d 952 (Ala. Civ. App. 2004) 

(holding that actual knowledge of an action does not confer personal 

jurisdiction without compliance with rule governing service of process).

A void judgment will not support an appeal. See K.T. v. B.C., 232 So. 3d 

897, 900 (Ala. Civ. App. 2017). Accordingly, T.F.H.'s appeal from the 

judgment terminating his parental rights to the child is dismissed, albeit 

with instructions to the juvenile court to vacate its judgment. 

APPEAL DISMISSED WITH INSTRUCTIONS

Thompson, P.J., and Moore, Edwards, and Fridy, JJ., concur.