Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the District Court's dismissal of the case due to insufficient service of process?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW This case arises from a mother’s search for accountability following the death of her three-yearold son, Dylan. Jenean Winston sued Mark Walsh for his drunken disregard for their son, which led to Dylan’s death. Two days after Dylan’s death, Walsh fled to the United Kingdom and began liquidating his Georgia assets. Ms. Winston sued Mr. Walsh in Georgia State Court for Dylan’s death. Mr. Walsh participated in that action, even though serving him proved difficult. Ms. Winston then voluntarily dismissed the state action and re-filed in federal court. Mr. Walsh then began moving from city to city within the United Kingdom, evading service. Eventually, after years of research and the hiring of a private investigator, Ms. Winston located Mr. Walsh by using an address that Mr. Walsh submitted to the U.S. Customs Department as his own address in England. Ms. Winston served Mr. Walsh pursuant to the Hague Convention at the Mockbeggar address. Mr. Walsh challenged the sufficiency of service. The District Court granted Mr. Walsh’s motion to dismiss and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. Ms. Winston now appeals by filing a petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to address the following questions: 1) Did the Court of Appeals err by affirming the District Court setting aside the United Kingdom’s Central Authority Certificate of Compliance without undertaking a “lack of notice” or a “prejudice” inquiry? i 2) Did the Court of Appeals err by affirming the District Court setting aside the United Kingdom’s Central Authority Certificate of Compliance even though Petitioners had complied with local rules and Appellees had actual notice? 3) Did the Court of Appeals err by affirming the District Court’s decision to give determinative authority to Appellee’s affidavit, claiming that the address was not the proper residence, despite the facts that: (1) the Appellee listed that address on U.S. Customs documents as his address for purposes of importing vehicles, (2) the Appellee’s wife used that address as her residence when registering a company, (3) the Appellee’s sister owned the residence at that address, which had multiple bedrooms and out of which she operated a Bed and Breakfast; (4) Appellee identified his “sister’s address” as an address he used for business in response to Interrogatories; and (5) Appellee identified his sister’s address as one where he and Petitioners “stayed”? ii