6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1106, 2015-Ohio-3665, ¶ 21; In re Guardianship of Myers, 7th Dist. Mahoning Nos. 02-CA-6 and 02-CA-42, 2003-Ohio-5308, ¶ 21; In re A.P.D., 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100504, 2014-Ohio-1632, ¶ 13; In re Z.H., 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.); Myers v. Wade, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-667, 2017-Ohio-8833, ¶ 22; In re A.R., 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0078, 2019-Ohio-2166, ¶ 29; In re Guardianship of Bernie, 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-01-005, 2019-Ohio-334, ¶ 27-28.

Ohio courts—including every appellate district—have consistently recognized that the rules adopted pursuant to our supervisory power over lower courts do not supersede statutes with which they are in conflict and do not create either substantive rights or procedural law. State v. Ventura , 2016-Ohio-5151, 69 N.E.3d 189, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.) ; State v. Keeble , 2d Dist. Greene No. 03CA84, 2004-Ohio-3785, 2004 WL 1588286, ¶ 17 ; Larson v. Larson , 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-11-25, 2011-Ohio-6013, 2011 WL 5829788, ¶ 13 ; In re K.W. , 2018-Ohio-1933, 111 N.E.3d 368, ¶ 99 (4th Dist.) ; Sepich v. Bell , 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-7350, 1988 WL 17155, *3 (Feb. 8, 1988) ; In re T.C. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1106, 2015-Ohio-3665, 2015 WL 5306552, ¶ 21 ; In re Guardianship of Myers , 7th Dist. Mahoning Nos. 02-CA-6 and 02-CA-42, 2003-Ohio-5308, 2003 WL 22285855, ¶ 21 ; In re A.P.D. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100504, 2014-Ohio-1632, 2014 WL 1513999, ¶ 13 ; In re Z.H. , 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.) ; Myers v. Wade , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-667, 2017-Ohio-8833, 2017 WL 6016621, ¶ 22 ; In re A.R. , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0078, 2019-Ohio-2166, 2019 WL 2341181, ¶ 29 ; In re Guardianship of Bernie , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-01-005, 2019-Ohio-334, 2019 WL 422451, ¶ 27-28, appeal not accepted , 155 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2019-Ohio-2100, 122 N.E.3d 1294. {¶ 42} As the Third District Court of Appeals has explained,

{¶ 55} Ohio courts—including every appellate district—have consistently recognized that the rules adopted pursuant to our supervisory power over lower courts do not supersede statutes with which they are in conflict and do not create either substantive rights or procedural law. State v. Ventura , 2016-Ohio-5151, 69 N.E.3d 189, ¶ 24 (1st Dist.) ; State v. Keeble , 2d Dist. Greene No. 03CA84, 2004-Ohio-3785, 2004 WL 1588286, ¶ 17 ; Larson v. Larson , 3d Dist. Seneca No. 13-11-25, 2011-Ohio-6013, 2011 WL 5829788, ¶ 13 ; In re K.W. , 2018-Ohio-1933, 111 N.E.3d 368, ¶ 99 (4th Dist.) ; Sepich v. Bell , 5th Dist. Stark No. CA-7350, 1988 WL 17155, *3 (Feb. 8, 1988) ; In re T.C. , 6th Dist. Lucas No. L-15-1106, 2015-Ohio-3665, 2015 WL 5306552, ¶ 21 ; In re Guardianship of Myers , 7th Dist. Mahoning Nos. 02-CA-6 and 02-CA-42, 2003-Ohio-5308, 2003 WL 22285855, ¶ 21 ; In re A.P.D. , 8th Dist. Cuyahoga No. 100504, 2014-Ohio-1632, 2014 WL 1513999, ¶ 13 ; In re Z.H. , 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.) ; Myers v. Wade , 10th Dist. Franklin No. 16AP-667, 2017-Ohio-8833, 2017 WL 6016621, ¶ 22 ; In re A.R. , 11th Dist. Ashtabula No. 2018-A-0078, 2019-Ohio-2166, 2019 WL 2341181, ¶ 29 ; In re Guardianship of Bernie , 12th Dist. Butler No. CA2018-01-005, 2019-Ohio-334, 2019 WL 422451, ¶ 27-28, appeal not accepted , 155 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2019-Ohio-2100, 122 N.E.3d 1294 ; see alsoState v. Singer , 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 110, 362 N.E.2d 1216 (1977) ("The Rules of Superintendence are not designed to alter basic substantive rights of criminal defendants"). {¶ 56} As the Third District Court of Appeals has explained,

See State v. Singer, 50 Ohio St.2d 103, 109-110, 362 N.E.2d 1216 (1977); In re Z.H., 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16 (9th Dist); In re J.S., 2d Dist. Clark No. 2013-CA-48, 2013-Ohio-5756, ¶ 44 (noting the superintendence rules are only general guidelines for courts and lack the force of statutory law). {¶ 31} Again, we assume the Supreme Court of Ohio, in amending its superintendence rules, was aware of the type of concerns that have been mentioned, even though the court did not explicitly say so when it amended its forms in 2021.

But Sup.R. 45(D) provides that a party filing a case document must omit personal identifiers, which includes loan numbers. See Unifund CCR, LLC v. Barden, 5th Dist. Delaware No. 19 CAE 05 0036, 2020-Ohio-215, ¶ 19; In re Z.H., 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16 (9th Dist.). Certain proprietary or confidential information is also subject to redaction.

"Further, the Rules of Superintendence ‘do not have the same legal standing’ as the rules of practice and procedure, which must be presented to the legislature and have the effect of law." In re Z.H. , 9th Dist. Summit, 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 16, quoting State v. Smith, 47 Ohio App.2d 317, 328, 354 N.E.2d 699, (8th Dist.1976) (Krenzler, C.J., concurring). Instead, they "are purely internal housekeeping rules which are of concern to the judges of the several courts but create no rights in individual defendants."

Accordingly, if a court fails to serve a summons to a parent in compliance with the procedural rules, then it lacks personal jurisdiction over the parent. In re Z.H. , 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 14 (9th Dist.). " ‘It is rudimentary that in order to render a valid personal judgment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.’ "

Issues related to a court's jurisdiction are reviewed de novo. In re Z.H. , 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶ 12 (9th Dist.). {¶ 8} The right to raise one's child is a basic and essential right.

{¶ 14} Moreover, if a court fails to serve a summons to a parent in compliance with the procedural rules, then it lacks personal jurisdiction over the parent. In re Z.H. 2013-Ohio-3904, 995 N.E.2d 295, ¶14 (9 Dist.). "'It is rudimentary that in order to render a valid personal judgment, a court must have personal jurisdiction over the defendant.'" State ex rel. Doe v. Capper, 132 Ohio St.3d 365, 2012-Ohio-2686, 972 N.E.2d 553, ¶13, quoting Maryhew v. Yova, 11 Ohio St.3d 154, 156, 464 N.E.2d 538 (1984).