County of Santa Cruz Dept. of Child Support Services v. Clark CA6

Filed 9/1/22 County of Santa Cruz Dept. of Child Support Services v. Clark CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ H047064 DEPARTMENT OF CHILD SUPPORT (Santa Cruz County SERVICES, Super. Ct. No. PA015133)

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

GABRIEL DAX CLARK,

Defendant and Appellant.

“ ‘A general appearance operates as a consent to jurisdiction of the person, dispensing with the requirement of service of process, and curing defects in service.’ ” (Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co. v. Sparks Construction, Inc. (2004) 114 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1145.) Default judgment was entered against defendant Gabriel Dax Clark in 2014, ordering him to pay child support for three children. Defendant appeared in court on the matter multiple times in the years that followed without moving either to quash service of summons or for relief from default based on allegedly faulty service of summons. Defendant moved to vacate his child support obligations in 2018, arguing that the judgment was void because he was never served with the original complaint. The trial court denied the motion, finding defendant consented to jurisdiction by making general appearances. We see no error and will affirm the order.

I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff County of Santa Cruz Department of Child Support Services (Department) sued defendant in 2013 to establish child support for three children. The proof of service of summons indicates sheriff’s deputies attempted to personally serve defendant on six different dates at a residence in Felton. The proof of service indicates service was ultimately effectuated by substituted service at the Felton address as follows: the deputy “left [the complaint and other documents] with or in the presence of Linda Reynolds, Mother.” Default judgment was entered in January 2014 after defendant filed no responsive pleading. Defendant emailed the Department in 2014, stating that his passport had been revoked and inquiring about the case. The Department informed defendant he could request an adjustment or modification of child support if he submitted current income and expense information. The Department asked the trial court to order defendant to seek work in October 2015. Defendant appeared in court on the case in January 2016, apparently self- represented. The minute order for the hearing does not indicate that defendant moved for relief from default based on faulty service, nor that defendant otherwise objected to the trial court’s personal jurisdiction over him. The minute order states defendant was “sworn and examined,” but there is no indication the hearing was reported. Defendant was apparently employed at the time of the hearing. The court ordered defendant to disclose his current address to the Department and to timely provide the Department notice of any change in residence or employment. Defendant appeared in court for contested hearings in the case at least three more times in 2016 and 2017. Nothing in the record suggests defendant objected to personal jurisdiction at those hearings. (Transcripts of those hearings are not part of the record on appeal.) Defendant moved to vacate the child support order in January 2018—two years after his first appearance in court and four years after entry of the default judgment. 2