Understanding Void Service and Jurisdiction in Child Support Enforcement

Introduction to Jurisdiction

In every court proceeding—civil, criminal, or administrative—jurisdiction stands as the foundation of lawful power. Without jurisdiction, every order, judgment, or act is void ab initio. No where is this principle more essential than in child support enforcement cases, where the state exercises coercive power over liberty, property, and parental rights. When service of process is defective, fabricated, or omitted entirely, the resulting orders—no matter how longstanding—are jurisdictionally void. Enforcement of such void orders constitutes a continuing violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and, under color of state law, gives rise to liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

The Constitutional Foundation: Due Process and Notice

The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that due process of law requires notice and an opportunity to be heard before the state may deprive any person of liberty or property. In Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950), the Court held:

“An elementary and fundamental requirement of due process in any proceeding which is to be accorded finality is notice reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections.” (Id. at 314.)

This standard applies equally to family and child support matters. Service by publication or other substituted methods must strictly comply with procedural rules; speculative or conclusory affidavits of “diligent search” are insufficient to confer jurisdiction.

When courts permit enforcement against a party never properly served, they violate not only due process but the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection, as the litigant is denied access to the judicial process afforded to others.

Service of Process as the Vehicle of Jurisdiction

The U.S. Supreme Court made clear in Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714 (1878), that:

“Process from the tribunals of one State cannot run into another State and summon parties there domiciled to leave its territory and respond to proceedings against them.” (Id. at 727.)

Pennoyer established that valid personal jurisdiction depends upon proper service of process. Absent lawful service, the judgment is void—not voidable—and may be attacked at any time, directly or collaterally. The Court reaffirmed this principle in Peralta v. Heights Medical Center, Inc., 485 U.S. 80 (1988), holding that a default judgment entered without proper service “is void for want of due process,” and no showing of prejudice is required.

Thus, in a child support enforcement case, if the initial summons or complaint was never served according to rule, or was served by publication without the required affidavit of diligent search, the family court lacked personal jurisdiction from the outset. Any subsequent orders—custody, support, or contempt—are legal nullities.

State-Level Rules Governing Service: Massachusetts Example