Background
After Terry Cannon II acknowledged paternity in 2003, the Hamilton County Child Support Enforcement Agency initiated administrative support proceedings in 2008. It sent hearing notice by certified mail to a Cincinnati address; the mailing was returned unclaimed. The agency then sent notice by ordinary mail to the same address and entered an administrative support order, later modified to require monthly payments.
In 2024 contempt proceedings over unpaid arrears, Cannon argued that he had never lived at the Cincinnati address and was never properly served with notice of the original hearing. A magistrate denied his request to vacate the order, reasoning that Cannon had actual notice when wage withholding began in 2012 and had waited too long to object. The juvenile court adopted that decision without objections from Cannon.
The Court’s Holding
The First District reversed and remanded. It held that the juvenile court committed plain error by declining to determine whether Cannon was properly served at an address where he lived or could reasonably have been expected to receive mail.
Proper service is jurisdictional for an administrative child-support order. If Cannon was not properly served and did not otherwise submit to the agency’s jurisdiction, the order is void; actual notice and delay cannot cure that defect. The court also held that Cannon’s request for restitution stated a viable equitable claim if the support order is ultimately found void, though it did not decide whether restitution should be awarded.
Key Takeaways
- An Ohio child-support agency must use service of process sufficient to establish jurisdiction before entering an administrative support order.
- Actual notice and laches do not validate a void order entered without proper service.
- On remand, the juvenile court must decide service, then consider equitable restitution if the order is void.
Why It Matters
The decision treats service requirements in administrative child-support proceedings as a jurisdictional safeguard, not a technicality that later notice can excuse. It also distinguishes the voidness inquiry from the equitable question whether previously withheld support should be repaid.