Can a child support order in another state be declared void due to lack of notice?
A registration of a Washington state default judgment for child support was held void by the Virginia Court of Appeals in an unpublished opinion as the putative father was denied his constitutionally protected due process rights in Phifer v. Commonwealth of Virginia, DSS, DCSE, No. 1134-08-4, September 22, 2009.
The case started when the Washington state department of child support sought reimbursement for public assistance paid to the mother of a child. The putative father was served with papers, denied paternity of the child, and requested genetic testing. In his answer, the putative father provided an address in New York State as his address for notices. All notices in the support and paternity case were returned marked as attempted unknown, no such address. Washington State obtained a default judgment against him establishing parentage at a rescheduled default judgment hearing. The putative father subsequently informed the court that he had received no notices in the case after his appearance. The putative father left Washington State and moved to Fairfax, Virginia. The Virginia Department of Social Services, Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE), attempted to register Washington state judgments in Virginia. The Fairfax Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Fairfax Circuit Court found jurisdiction and granted motion to register foreign judgment. DCSE moved for a rule to show cause against putative father for failing to pay child support and for attorney’s fees and costs. The putative father appealed.
In an unpublished opinion, the Virginia Court of Appeals held that the absence of notice of a default judgment hearing to a defendant, who has not waived his right to notice, is a due process violation rendering the default judgment void. The court relied on the Supreme Court case Jones v. Flowers 547 U.S. 220 (2006) which held that when mailed notice is returned to the sender, the sender has not satisfied the due process notice standard of Mullane v. Hanover Central Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) that the notice employed must be reasonably calculated to reach the defendant.