# In the Interest of E.R.

> Texas Supreme Court · July 6, 2012 · 55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1130

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5111839

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Interest of E.R., J.B., E.G., and C.L., Children
- **Court:** Texas Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 6, 2012
- **Citations:** 55 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1130; 385 S.W.3d 552; 2012 Tex. LEXIS 582; 2012 WL 2617604
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Lehrmann
- **Judges:** Jefferson, Lehrmann
- **Cited by:** 421 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5111839

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 in…
- 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 m…
- 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))
- holding that a complete failure to serve a defendant with process deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction, violates due process, and results in a judgment that is void as to that defendant, and subject to challenge at any time

## Opinion text

Justice LEHRMANN,
concurring.
On rehearing, the State contends that the Court’s decision that service by publication in this case failed to comport with due process is faulty because L.R. had appeared at several hearings. Normally, if a defendant appears in open court, the appearance has “the same force and effect as if the citation had been duly issued and served as provided by law.” Tex.R. Civ. P. 120. In this instance, though, L.R. never appeared in court after the State’s petition to terminate her parental rights had been filed. See Tex. Fam.Code § 102.009(a)(7). Accordingly, I concur with the Court’s order denying the State’s motion for rehearing.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5111839. Public record. Not legal advice.