Service, in the legal sense, can be a tricky concept. There are a multitude of dates and requirements that come with providing service. However, it is an essential aspect under the Alabama Code for all petitions to terminate parental rights. In M.W. v. Montgomery County Department of Human Resources, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals answered the question; if a mother was deprived of her due process because the juvenile court terminated her parental rights without first properly serving her with the summons. The Court ultimately vacated the Juvenile Court’s decision which terminated the mother’s parental rights.
DHR filed a petition to terminate the parental rights of the mother. The Juvenile Court allowed DHR service by publication after the attempt to serve the mother with the petition was unsuccessful. DHR proceeded to publish notice in the Montgomery Independent newspaper, once a week for four consecutive weeks. However, the final publication was only 11 days before the scheduled trial date, and it stated that the mother needed to file an answer within 14 days of the final publication. When the Juvenile Court noticed this error, they continued the trial to allow the mother 30 days to respond. DHR did not republish the notice with the new trial date. This resulted in the mother not appearing or filing any responses to the petition.
At the trial, the mother did not appear but was represented by appointed counsel. The mother did not produce evidence to refute the claim that she abandoned her child, and the Juvenile Court ultimately terminated her parental rights.
After the termination of parental rights, the mother filed a post judgment motion to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment, because she believed that the Juvenile Court lacked personal jurisdiction since she was not served properly.
The mother argued that the publication notice in the paper did not meet all the requirements laid out in Rule 4.3(d)(3)(B). The statute requires in pertinent part:
“The publication shall…(B) notify the person to be served that that person is required to answer within thirty (30) days after the last publication on or before a date certain specified in the notice which said date shall be thirty (30) days after the last publication.”
DHR did not adhere to the notice by publication rules set out in Rule 4.3(d)(3)(B) because it set two different deadlines for the mother to respond. The first deadline was 11 days which was the scheduled trial, and the other was the 14-day deadline stated in the publication. While the mother did not respond within either timeframe, the 14-day deadline would have been fruitless because it was after the trial was originally set. Even though the juvenile court tried to rectify the situation by continuing the trial, the rule states that the last date of publication must give a specific date within 30 days of that publication for a deadline for responses. This did not happen in this case and therefore the mother was not served properly. Since the mother was not served properly, the court lacked jurisdiction over the termination of parental rights matter. The court vacated the decision made by the Juvenile Court which voided the termination of parental rights decision.
Service is such an important part of the legal process. It helps justice succeed. Service informs and gives notice to the people who are invested in the situation. This case teaches that it is imperative to understand and administer service correctly. Otherwise, just like in this case, it could be detrimental to the outcome.
___________________________________________________
Grace Lorimor is a 3L at Jones School of Law and graduates in May. She came to The Adoption Law Firm as an intern in January of 2025. Grace graduated from Indiana University Southeast in 2023 with a B.A. in Political Science and History. After graduating with her J.D., Grace’s hope is to practice family law and help families and children by being their advocate.
Adoption Day After 1,756 Days in Foster Care!
