Court Opinion

ID: 9626383
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:10:13.479966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:00:50.739806
License: Public Domain

GREENE, Judge,
dissenting.
As I disagree with the majority regarding the validity of service of process by publication on respondent, I dissent. While I do agree with the majority as to part II of its opinion, I do not reach this issue in my analysis.
The pertinent issues in this case are whether: (I) petitioner’s 8 July 1998 affidavit is sufficient to support service by publication on respondent; and if not, (II) the trial court has the authority to enter a neglect adjudication when a summons has not been served upon one of the parents of a juvenile alleged to be neglected.
I
Service by publication is a permitted method of service of process if the whereabouts of the party sought to be served are unknown and that party “cannot with due diligence be served by personal delivery, registered or certified mail, or . . . pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7502(f)(2).” N.C.G.S. § 1A-1, Rule 4(jl) (2001). Furthermore, upon completion of the newspaper publication, “there shall be filed with the [trial] court an affidavit showing . . . the circumstances warranting the use of service by publication, and information, if any, *131regarding the location of the party served.”2 Id. Strictly construed, see Sink v. Easter, 284 N.C. 555, 560, 202 S.E.2d 138, 142 (1974) (service by publication statute must be strictly construed), the statute requires the affidavit to “set forth the steps taken, although unsuccessful, to locate [the respondent],” 1 G. Gray Wilson, North Carolina Civil Procedure § 4-22, at 69 (2d ed. 1995); see County of Wayne ex rel. Williams v. Whitley, 72 N.C. App. 155, 161, 323 S.E.2d 458, 463 (1984) (affidavit must include “facts showing that the defendant with due diligence could not be personally served”).
In this case, the 8 July 1998 post-publication affidavit filed by petitioner asserts “service by publication was necessary” because respondent’s “address, whereabouts, dwelling house or usual place of abode . . . [was] unknown, and [could not] with due diligence be ascertained” and because he “[was] a transient person with no permanent residence.” These assertions are nothing more than ultimate facts; they do not reveal the steps taken by petitioner to locate and personally serve respondent; and they are insufficient as a matter of law to support service by publication on respondent.3
II
Petitioner argues in the alternative that the orders entered by the trial court are nonetheless valid because service on one parent is sufficient to vest the trial court with the authority to proceed with the neglect adjudication and disposition of a juvenile, and in this case, personal service was had on the mother. For the reasons given in In re Poole, 151 N.C. App. 472, - S.E.2d -, COA01-871 (July 16, 2002), I disagree. Service of process on the mother in this neglect proceeding, without service on respondent, Shanta’s father, is insufficient to vest authority in the trial court to enter an adjudication of neglect or any dispositional order based on that adjudication. Accordingly, the 21 January 1999 adjudication and disposition order and any subsequent dispositional orders should be vacated as they relate to Shanta.

. The authorization of service by publication by the trial court pursuant to section 7B-407 does not relieve the party seeking service by publication from the requirements of Rule 4(jl).

. If the required affidavit does set out the circumstances warranting service by publication, a party may nonetheless challenge the validity of service of process and, after having done so, is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in which the other party must present evidence of due diligence in support of the service by publication. See Coble v. Brown, 1 N.C. App. 1, 7, 159 S.E.2d 259, 264 (1968).