In the Interest of D.M.B., 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 4331

In 2013 the Texas Department of Family Services filed a petition to terminate Father’s parental rights and sought substituted service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106; the trial court authorized substituted service and appointed an attorney ad litem for Father.
A return of citation indicated citation was posted at the address listed in the petition.
At a statutorily required Chapter 262 adversary hearing the attorney ad litem appeared, announced "not ready," but repeatedly objected to substantive matters (e.g., evidentiary issues); Father was not personally present.
Later the case proceeded to trial on July 25, 2014; neither Father nor his ad litem appeared at the termination trial and the court signed a termination order that day.
Father filed a restricted appeal within six months claiming the court lacked personal jurisdiction because substituted service did not strictly comply with Rule 106.
The appellate majority held Father’s ad litem made a general appearance at the Chapter 262 hearing (by objecting to substantive issues), so any defect in service was waived; the court dismissed the restricted appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The dissent would have found error on the face of the record and retained jurisdiction.

Issue	Father’s Argument	Department’s Argument	Held
Whether substituted service under Tex. R. Civ. P. 106 was defective so as to deprive the trial court of personal jurisdiction	Service did not strictly comply with Rule 106; lack of valid service deprived court of personal jurisdiction	Any service complaint was waived because Father made a general appearance through his court‑appointed ad litem at the Chapter 262 hearing	Majority: Waived — ad litem’s substantive objections amounted to a general appearance, so no error apparent on face of record; appeal dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Dissent: Disagrees — hearsay/evidentiary objections do not constitute general appearance; would retain jurisdiction to reach the service issue.
Whether error is "apparent on the face of the record" for restricted‑appeal purposes	The record (clerk’s and reporter’s) shows defective substituted service; error is apparent	Because Father waived objection by general appearance, no error appears on the face of the record	Majority: No error apparent; restricted appeal jurisdiction not established. Dissent: Yes, error apparent; review warranted.

Ins. Co. of State of Pa. v. Lejeune, 297 S.W.3d 254 (Tex. 2009) (elements and jurisdictional nature of restricted appeals)
Alexander v. Lynda’s Boutique, 134 S.W.3d 845 (Tex. 2004) (restricted appeal standards)
Norman Comm’n v. Tex. Eastman Co., 955 S.W.2d 269 (Tex. 1997) (face‑of‑record rule for restricted appeals)
Exito Electronics Co. v. Trejo, 142 S.W.3d 302 (Tex. 2004) (definition of general appearance)
Schoendienst v. Haug, 399 S.W.3d 313 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013) (procedural scope of record for restricted appeal)
Seals v. Upper Trinity Reg’l Water Dist., 145 S.W.3d 291 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2004) (distinguishing passive presence from general appearance)
Primate Constr., Inc. v. Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151 (Tex. 1994) (strict compliance required for substituted‑service default judgments)
Uvalde Country Club v. Martin Linen Supply Co., Inc., 690 S.W.2d 884 (Tex. 1985) (no presumption of valid issuance/service on writ‑of‑error attack)
Gold v. Gold, 145 S.W.3d 212 (Tex. 2004) (error on face of record must be affirmative, not inferential)
Holick v. Smith, 685 S.W.2d 18 (Tex. 1985) (strict scrutiny of involuntary parental‑rights termination)