In the Interest of E.R.

How later courts described this case

• explaining, in case involving “a strict six-month deadline to challenge a termination judgment following citation by publication,” that “due process prevails over a state law time limit, even one imposed on challenges to termination of parental rights or adoptions” and that interest of child and Department in “finality cannot trump a parent’s constitutional right to be heard”
• holding that Section 161.211 did not bar a post-six-month challenge by a parent who was not validly served with citation because “[a] complete failure of service deprives a litigant of due process and a trial court of personal jurisdiction; the resulting judgment is void and may be challenged at any time”
• determining in termination suit that serving parent by publication violated parent’s due-process rights “when the State knew the mother’s identity, was in regular contact with her, and had at least one in-person meeting with her after it sued to terminate the legal rights to her children”
• explaining that reasonable search “must extend to places where information is likely to be obtained and to persons who, in the ordinary course of events, would be likely to have information of the person or entity sought” (quoting In re S.P., 672 N.W.2d 842, 846 (Iowa 2003))

Written by the judges who cited it.