M.C. v. A.H.

We reverse a final order denying relief from a final judgment of adoption.1 The trial court determined that the parties petitioning for the adoption of appellant’s child had exercised due diligence in attempting to serve him by publication. The record demonstrates, however, two facts that have no evidentiary contradiction and do not depend on a trial judge’s vantage point.(1) Counsel for the parties petitioning for adoption sent notice of the adoption proceedings to the natural father in Washington by mail which was in turn forwarded by the U.S. Postal Service to him in Tennessee. A return…