TN Parental Rights Judgment Can Be Upheld, Even Though Initially Void

Tennessee case summary on family law and parental rights termination.

Kevin Turner v. Stephanie D. Turner

The mother and father in this Tennessee parental rights case were married in 1996 and had two children, born in 1996 and 1998.  The father filed for divorce in 1999, and alleged that the mother was addicted to drugs and violent.

In about 2000, the mother’s attorney lost contact with his client and moved to withdraw from the case.  The next year, the father filed a motion to terminate the mother’s parental rights.  Since the mother could not be found, this was served by publication.  However, there was no motion made to serve by publication, nor was there an affidavit indicating that a search had been made.  Judgment was entered, and the mother’s parental rights were terminated.

In 2010, the mother moved to set aside this judgment on the grounds that she had not been personally served.  She argued that she could have been located, that an attempt at personal service should have been made, and that the judgment was therefore void.  The trial court agreed and granted the mother’s motion to set aside the judgment.  The father appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and in 2014, that court affirmed the judgment.  The father then asked the Tennessee Supreme Court to review the case.

The high court first noted that a court has jurisdiction only if it has personal jurisdiction over the parties.  And in the case of a judgment void for lack of personal jurisdiction, the judgment is void.

The court then reviewed the evidence surrounding the original judgment and agreed with the lower courts that there was no personal jurisdiction.  It held that before publication, the father should have used diligent efforts to locate the mother.  In this case, the phone number of the mother’s mother was readily available, and the high court agreed that the father should have called to inquire as to the mother’s whereabouts.  Normally, this would be the end of the case, since there is no time limit for attacking a void judgment.

But the court then turned to whether there were exceptional circumstances present in this case, and concluded that there were.  It came up with a very narrow test to determine whether this rule should apply.  In doing so, it looked at cases from other jurisdictions which applied a similar rule.  It held that a void judgment could not be set aside if the party seeking relief had actual notice of the judgment, and then manifested an intention to treat the judgment as valid.  In addition, setting aside the judgment would impair another person’s reliance on the judgment.

Since this was a new rule in Tennessee, the Supreme Court concluded that there was an insufficient record to determine whether the rule should apply in this case.  Therefore, it sent the case back to the lower court to determine the full facts of the case.  If the lower court finds the new test to be met, then the judgment should not be set aside, even though it was initially void.

No. W2013-01833-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Oct. 21, 2015).

See original opinion for exact language.  Legal citations omitted.