Background
Mother petitioned in August 2025 to terminate Father’s parental rights to L.C.-O. and M.C.-O. for abandonment, alleging he had not contacted the children for several years. Before filing the termination case, Mother had used a skip trace and attempted service at Father’s mother’s address in a related family-law matter. Father’s mother said he did not live there and that she saw him only rarely.
The juvenile court authorized service by publication. Mother published notice for four successive weeks, and Father did not appear at the termination hearing. The court found abandonment and that termination served the children’s best interests. Father later moved to set aside the order as void, arguing Mother should have discovered that he had been booked into jail in September 2025 and had not properly served him.
The Court’s Holding
The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Father’s motion to set aside the termination order. It held that Mother could rely on her recent, unsuccessful efforts to locate Father in the related family-law case when seeking permission to serve him by publication in the termination case. Nothing in Arizona’s publication-service rule required her to start the search anew.
Mother’s lack of contact with Father for years, skip-trace results, and unsuccessful attempt at his mother’s address established reasonably diligent efforts to locate him. Although Father was booked into jail on September 19, the criminal docket showed he was released and was not incarcerated without bond until October 3—two days after Mother moved for publication. A new skip trace before her October 1 motion therefore would not have revealed his later incarceration. Publication complied with the rule and was the best practicable notice under the circumstances, so Father’s due-process rights were not violated.
Key Takeaways
- Recent, unsuccessful efforts to locate a parent in a related case may support service by publication in a termination proceeding.
- Service by publication requires reasonably diligent efforts to locate the parent and compliance with the publication procedures.
- A termination order is not void where publication was proper and the parent does not show the petitioner knew or should have known a better means of service.
Why It Matters
The decision confirms that diligence in locating a parent is assessed pragmatically and in context. A petitioner need not duplicate a recent search merely because the termination proceeding is a separate action.
It also underscores that a later change in a parent’s custodial status does not invalidate publication service when the petitioner neither knew nor reasonably could have discovered that information when seeking authorization.