Facts: Stepfather and Mother filed a petition in Tennessee to terminate Father’s parental rights to Child so Stepfather could adopt Child.

Father lived in Florida. Father repeatedly objected that he had never been properly served with the petition. Stepfather and Mother initially attempted to serve Father via certified mail through the Tennessee Secretary of State, but the mail was returned unclaimed. They then hired a private process server in Florida, who left the court papers with an adult at Father’s residence. Father still maintained he was never personally served.

Despite Father’s ongoing objections and special appearances to contest service, the trial court concluded that Father was actively evading service. Thus, the trial court proceeded with the trial in Father’s absence and ultimately terminated Father’s parental rights.

Father appealed.

On Appeal: The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s judgment because Father was not properly served with process.

Tennessee law requires a court to have personal jurisdiction over a defendant, obtained through effective service of process, before making a binding judgment. For out-of-state defendants, service may be achieved by any method that would be valid in Tennessee, including personal delivery or “substituted service,” i.e., leaving the summons and petition with a person of suitable age at the defendant’s residence. However, even if a defendant is aware of the lawsuit, actual knowledge is not a substitute for proper service of process. And when a plaintiff claims the defendant is dodging service, the plaintiff carries the burden of proving the defendant is intentionally evading service to justify alternative methods.

In this case, the Court found no evidence that Father was intentionally avoiding service. One failed certified mail attempt and Father’s knowledge of the case, evidenced by his motions, were not enough to deem him “evasively” avoiding service. Because Stepfather and Mother did not meet their burden of proving evasion, leaving the paperwork with someone else at Father’s home did not constitute valid service. In short, without proper service of process, the trial court never obtained personal jurisdiction over Father. The Court of Appeals summarized its reasoning this way:

Courts may not infer or presume that a defendant has attempted to evade service based solely on failed prior attempts at service. Even a defendant’s actual knowledge of attempted service does not necessarily provide evidence of evasion. Nor does a lack of success in coordinating service or “confirming” an address [] constitute an attempt to escape or avoid service by cleverness or deceit. We note that, for four months, Father repeatedly informed Stepfather and Mother that he had not yet been served and provided his address.

Stepfather and Mother failed to meet their burden of showing that Father was attempting to evade service of process. So service on an adult in Father’s residence did not constitute effective service of process on Father. And we find it appropriate to vacate the judgment terminating Father’s parental rights.

Because the defective service of process required vacating the termination order, the Court of Appeals did not review the merits of the grounds for termination or the child’s best interests. The case was remanded to the trial court to essentially start over.

K.O.’s Comment: This case is a cautionary tale about the importance of proper service of process. “Close enough” simply doesn’t cut it. Even when a parent is aware of the lawsuit and attempts to contest it, as Father did here with his numerous filings, the trial court must still adhere to the formal service rules. Don’t assume that a returned certified letter or an unacknowledged delivery to someone else will be good enough; you need solid evidence of actual evasion before resorting to alternative service. Otherwise, you risk investing time and expense in a termination trial only to have the result thrown out on appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Source: In re Ethan D. (Tennessee Court of Appeals, Eastern Section, August 30, 2025).

If you find this helpful, please share it using the buttons below.