Accord In re C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 15 (4th Dist.). Service by publication" 'is reserved for those cases in which the residence of the parent is unknown and is not ascertainable with reasonable diligence.'"

Accordingly, "a notice issue may be waived on appeal when a parent's attorney is present for various permanent custody hearings and does not raise the improper notice issue." In re C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.); accord In re A.C., 9th Dist. Summit No. 30086, 2022-Ohio-1081, ¶ 8-9 (rejecting parent's assertion that permanent custody decision void for lack of personal jurisdiction due to alleged improper service of complaint and permanent custody motion when parent appeared at hearings and failed to object to alleged lack of proper service); In re I.G., 3rd Dist. Marion No. 9-13-43, 2014-Ohio-1136, ¶ 18, quoting In re Keith Lee P., 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-03-1266, 2004-Ohio-1976, ¶ 9 (stating that" '[t]he issue of notice is waived on appeal when the parent's attorney is present for various permanent custody hearings and never argues improper notice' "); In re D.H., 177 Ohio App.3d 246, 2008-Ohio-3686, 894 N.E.2d 364, ¶ 38 (8th Dist.) ("the issue of notice is waived on appeal when the parent's attorney is present for various permanent-custody hearings and never argues improper notice"); In re Grant, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 00AP-431, 2001 WL 102254, *5 (Feb. 8,

The waiver of a constitutional right must be made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. Matter of C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 12 (4th Dist.). Appellant's refusal to attend the hearing was certainly ill-advised and may subject her to further sanctions by the trial court.

Accordingly, "a notice issue may be waived on appeal when a parent's attorney is present for various permanent custody hearings and does not raise the improper notice issue." In re C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.).

Accordingly, "a notice issue may be waived on appeal when a parent's attorney is present for various permanent custody hearings and does not raise the improper notice issue." In re C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 19 (4th Dist.).

{¶26} We further observe that this court and others have held that an incarcerated parent does not have an absolute due process right to attend a permanent custody hearing. In re C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 17 (4th Dist.); In re L.M., 9th Dist. Summit No. 29687, 2020-Ohio-4451, 2020 WL 5551981, ¶ 6; In re M.W., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 103705, 2016-Ohio-2948, 2016 WL 2757895, ¶ 10; In re M.M., 4th Dist. Meigs No. 14CA6, 2014-Ohio-5111, 2014 WL 6468945, ¶ 43; see Mancino v. Lakewood, 36 Ohio App.3d 219, 221, 523 N.E.2d 332 (8th Dist.1987) (a prisoner does not have absolute due process right to attend trial of a civil action).

(Emphasis added.) Matter of C.B., 2020-Ohio-5151, 161 N.E.3d 770, ¶ 10-11, 16 (4th Dist.). "Ohio courts have traditionally held that while some form of notice of a trial date is required to satisfy due process, an entry of the date of trial on the court's docket constitutes reasonable, constructive notice of that fact."