Court Opinion

ID: 9380177
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-17 16:02:14.845964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:23.112549
License: Public Domain

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

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

                                     2
CL-2022-0531

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.,

                                    3
CL-2022-0531

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.
                                    4
CL-2022-0531

                 " '[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

                                    5
CL-2022-0531

     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

                                     6
CL-2022-0531

     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

                                    7
CL-2022-0531

           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

                                    8
CL-2022-0531

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

                                     9
CL-2022-0531

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).

                                     10
CL-2022-0531

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.

                                   11