Background
Cuyahoga County children-services officials removed D.R. from the mother’s care in January 2023 and filed a neglect complaint. The agency attempted to serve D.R.’s father, M.R., at a Newburgh Heights address. Certified mail was returned unclaimed, and ordinary-mail service was then sent to the same address and was not returned. The juvenile court later adjudicated D.R. neglected and issued custody orders, ultimately placing the child with a caregiver.
In 2025, after appearing in child-support proceedings, father moved to vacate the earlier custody rulings as to him. He submitted an affidavit stating that he had lived exclusively at a Garfield Heights home since 2008, had never lived at the Newburgh Heights address, and had not received the summons or custody-related pleadings. At the hearing, the agency could not explain the source of the Newburgh Heights address and offered no testimony or evidence that father lived there or received mail there. The juvenile court summarily denied the motion.
The Court’s Holding
The Eighth District reversed and remanded. Although the agency’s unreturned ordinary-mail service initially created a rebuttable presumption of proper service, father rebutted that presumption with unrebutted sworn evidence that he never lived at or received mail at the service address. The burden then returned to the agency to prove proper service, which it failed to do.
Because the juvenile court never acquired personal jurisdiction over father, its prior adjudicatory and dispositional judgments affecting his parental rights were void. The appellate court directed the juvenile court to vacate those judgments as to father and provide him, after proper notice, the proceedings he was denied. The ruling does not invalidate proceedings against other properly served parties or require an immediate change in D.R.’s placement.
Key Takeaways
- Unreturned ordinary mail creates only a rebuttable presumption that service was effective.
- A sworn statement that a party did not live at the service address can shift the burden back to the party seeking to rely on service.
- A judgment entered without personal jurisdiction is void and may be challenged through a common-law motion to vacate, without satisfying Civ.R. 60(B).
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that procedural compliance alone does not establish effective service once the recipient presents competent, unrebutted evidence of nonservice. In juvenile custody proceedings, an agency must be prepared to establish a factual basis for using a parent’s service address.
The ruling also carefully limits the remedy: defective service on one parent voids orders only insofar as they affect that parent’s rights, while allowing the juvenile court to enter lawful temporary protective orders pending properly noticed proceedings.