In the Interest of E.R., 385 S.W.3d 552

Termination of parental rights requires fundamentally fair notice procedures; notice by personal service preferred, publication is inadequate when identity and contact information are known.
Department attempted personal service but failed and resorted to publication after diligent search.
Affidavit showed mother had identifiable contact channels (phone, visits, relatives) but the Department still pursued publication.
Trial court allowed publication-based service despite known contact and prior in-person interactions.
Court of Appeals upheld six‑month limit under Family Code §161.211 as dispositive; majority reverses on due process grounds.
Supreme Court remands to determine whether mother unreasonably delayed after learning of the judgment and whether relief would harm reliance interests.
Conclusion: publication service violated due process; case remanded for new trial unless delay or reliance interests justify denial of relief.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether citation by publication satisfied due process where identity was known.	L.R. argues publication violated Mullane due process.	Department argues six‑month limit bars action but cites service validity.	Publication failed due process; service invalid.
Whether §161.211 six‑month deadline bars relief when service was invalid.	LR seeks relief despite deadline.	State argues deadline applies regardless of service.	Deadline cannot bar relief when service was invalid; due process prevails.
Whether a parent learning of termination must promptly seek reinstatement to avoid prejudice.	Prompt action should be required to preserve rights.	Relied interests may support or bar relief.	Remand to assess diligence and reliance interests; relief may be denied if unreasonably delayed and harms other interests.
What is the proper remedy when service by publication is invalid in parental‑rights termination?	New trial preferred due to void judgment.	Judgment could be sustained with proper notice.	New trial unless delay and reliance issues justify denying relief.
How should due process standards under Mullane guide modern notice in parental rights cases?	Publication is fundamentally unreliable for known parties.	Publication may be acceptable under narrow circumstances.	Publication is generally inadequate; must provide actual notice when identity is known.

Mennonite Board of Missions v. Adams, 462 U.S. 791 (U.S. 1983) (notice by publication insufficient when identity reasonably ascertainable)
Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (due process requires reasonably calculated notice; publication only for unknown parties)
Tulsa Professional Collection Servs., Inc. v. Pope, 485 U.S. 478 (U.S. 1988) (due process overrides short nonclaim deadlines when notice by publication fails for known creditors)
Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444 (U.S. 1982) (posting alone denied due process; notification must be adequate for eviction proceedings)
Walker v. City of Hutchinson, 352 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1956) (publication notice insufficient when other channels could inform)