— -This is an original proceeding in certiorari consolidated with an appeal by onr order.
Because of the disposition of the case in certiorari it is unnecessary to consider the appeal.
Plaintiff, Gerald Lavern Hammond, is the father of Larry Hammond, now four years old. Plaintiff’s former wife, Larry’s mother, left plaintiff, obtained a divorce, is nоw remarried and lives in Georgia. Plaintiff, in February 1963 shortly after his wife left him, left the child, Larry, in the care of a lady in Waterloo and went to California. In March of 1963 the child’s paternal grandmother took the child from the baby sitter in Waterloo and brought him to her home in rural Iowa City. May 18, 1964, an Aid to Dependent Children social worker filed a petition to have Larry declared a dependent and neglected child. Pursuant to this petition and section 232.14, Code of Iowa, 1962, the trial court found an emergency existed and entered an order fоr the temporary custody of Larry pending hearing.
On May 25, 1964, a hearing was held and in a decree entered June 22, 1964, the trial court found Larry to be a dependent and neglected child, his mother deserted him, that his paternal grandmother was not a fit or proper person to have custody of him, and ordered him taken from the custody of the grandmother and committed to the American Home Finding Association, a private nonsectarian child-placing agency at Ottumwa, with full right and power under the law to investigate and plaсe said child for adoption.
The effect of the trial court’s order is to constitute the child-placing agency the guardian of the person of Larry, section 232.22,.Code оf Iowa, 1962, and allow such agency to consent to his adoption, section 600.3, Code of Iowa, 1962, without notice to his parents or either of them, section 600.4, Code of Iowа, 1962.
The only notice of the hearing served was that on the paternal grandmother. Such notice was directed by the court pursuant to the following sections, Code of Iowа, 1962:
“232.7 Time and place of hearing — notice. Upon the filing • of the petition, the court or judge shall fix a time for the hearing *1074 and a place within the district convenient to the parties, and cause notice to issue as hereinafter provided.”
“232.8 Notice. Said notice shall apprise all parties entitled to notice of the filing of said pеtition, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, and shall require the custodian of said child to appear with said child at said time and place. A copy оf the petition shall be attached to said notice.”
“232.9 Manner of service. The court or judge may, in all cases, specify the particular manner in which said notice shаll be served.”
“232.10 Service of notice. Said notice shall be served on the custodian of said child or on the person with whom such child is living, and on all other persons entitled to notice, at least five days before the day of hearing. No further service shall be required than on the parent when the parent is the custodian or guardian of said child or children. If the said custodian is not the parent or guardian, then additional service shall be made in the following order:
“1. On the parents if their residence in this state is known.
“2. On the guardian if his residence in this state is known.
“3. On some relative if his residence in this state is known.”
In the above as originally enacted, service on parents was not limited to those whose residencе was known in the state. Chapter 11, section 4, Laws of the Thirtieth General Assembly; section 254-al6, Supplemental Supplement, 1915. Such change was made by House File 84, section 356, Laws of the Fortieth General Assembly, Extra Session, and appeared in its present form in the Code of Iowa, 1924.
The return to the writ states that additional service was not made on the рarents for the reason the father was living in California, the mother in Georgia, neither had seen the child since April of 1963, and that neither of them had a residence in the state within thе meaning and contemplation of section 232.10, Code of Iowa, 1962.
The testimony of the social worker shows the social worker knew plaintiff was in California and knew his address, and that the child’s mother was in Georgia and knew her address.
Plaintiff learned of the decree of June 22 and on August 20, *1075 1964, filed an application wherein be prayed the decreе be stayed, the court reconsider the decree and award custody of Larry to him. He therein urged the decree was void as to him because of failure to serve him with notice. The trial court refused to hear the application on the theory the court had lost jurisdiction.
On September 16, 1964, we granted certiorari to test the validity of the Junе 22, 1964, decree.
Plaintiff contends failure to serve him with notice denied him due process of law contrary to Amendment 14, United States Constitution, and section 9, Article I, of the Iowa Cоnstitution. Defendant’s position is, because of the nature of the proceedings below, and the showing made at the hearing bearing on abandonment by plaintiff, the notice sеrved fulfilled due process requirements.
The right of a child to the care, support and affection of his parents, and the right of parents to have custody of their child and furnish him care, support and affection are inherent constitutionally protected liberties. Pierce v. Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary,
Such delicate rights and duties cannot be decided against a parent without affording him due process of law. The effect of the proceedings may be, and was in this case, to deprive him of all parenthood implies. He was entitlеd to notice. Armstrong v. Manzo,
Section 232.10, Code of Iowa, 1962, is unconstitutional to the extent it limits service of notice to parents whose residence in this state is known.
Seven-day notice of the pending hearing served on the resident custodian, here the grandmother, is not sufficient to meet the basic requirement of due process in the case of a nonresident parent whose whereabouts is known. It is not reasonably calculated to reach the parent and afford him an opportunity to be heard. Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra, page 660 of 70 S. Ct. The case of a parent whose whеreabouts are unknown and cannot with due diligence be ascertained is not before us, but see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., supra, page 659 of 70 S. Ct.
Nor do we consider the evidence of abandonment produced at the hearing such as to place plaintiff in a position of not being entitled to notice, or constitute the notice served sufficient. This is one of the issues on which he is entitled to be heard. He is entitled to‘ be heard on all issues properly in the ease, and ask for the court to consider alternate commitments provided in section 232.21, Code of Iowa, 1962, and conditions and restrictions the court may order under section 232.23, Code of Iowa, 1962.
Plaintiff here is entitled now to be placed in thе position he would have been entitled if he had been given proper notice. Armstrong v. Manzo,