grant empowering a court of common pleas to enforce a guardianship decree of a foreign state or nation. Particularly because the common pleas court ultimately appointed Mrs. Hilkmann as guardian, Mr. Hilkmann asserts that the court’s jurisdiction, as well as other aspects of the regularity of the proceedings, must be tested by the requirements of the statutory framework authorizing the appointment of a guardian of an incapacitated person, 20 Pa.C.S. §§ 5511-5518. Employing those requirements, Mr. Hilkmann indicates that the common pleas court lacked jurisdiction, because: 1) Daniel was not made a party to the Pennsylvania proceedings; 2) Daniel was never given the notice required by statute, see 20 Pa.C.S. § 5511; cf In re Hicks’ Estate, 414 Pa. 131, 134-35, 199 A.2d 283, 285 (1964) (<HOLDING>); 3) the court made no determination of
holding that a complete failure to serve a defendant with process deprives the trial court of personal jurisdiction violates due process and results in a judgment that is void as to that defendant and subject to challenge at any time holding that failure to take available appeal to board of immigration appeals constitutes failure to exhaust administrative remedies and deprives the court of appeals of jurisdiction to review recognizing that failure by state to provide the required certification deprives appeals court of jurisdiction over appeal holding that a lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction recognizing that failure to observe the required process deprives the court of jurisdiction