On December 7,1976 the juvenile court determined that appellant’s daughter, 16 years of age, was within its jurisdiction by virtue of the fact that she had committed an act which if done by an adult would have constituted a violation of the law, had run away from home, and was beyond the control of her parents.1 Based upon that determination the court issued an order placing the child in the legal custody of the Children’s Services Division and requiring appellant both to make monthly payments of $50 for her support, with the first payment due "on or before January 1, 1977,” and to transmit to the court "all sums” received from the child’s father, appellant’s former spouse.

While ORS 419.513 specifically authorizes the juvenile court to compel the parents of children found to be within its jurisdiction to contribute towards their support,2 a prerequisite to the exercise of that authority is the service of summons upon the parent to be so charged.3 It is undisputed that appellant had not been served as required by statute prior to the entry of the December 7 order.

*134Arguing that as a consequence of the absence of any service whatsoever the court had exceeded its authority when it incorporated the support provisions into its disposition order, appellant subsequently filed a "special appearance; affidavit,” dated December 13, 1976, in which she moved to have those provisions set aside. On January 3, 1977 appellant was served with a summons which both directed her to appear before the juvenile court on January 6, 1977

"* * * in connection with the * * * matter [concerning her daughter], in which it is alleged that the said child is within the jurisdiction of the Court[,] by reason of a special appearance; affidavit, filed 12-14-76,”

and provided that:

"Pursuant to a hearing at said time, the Court will make ■ a disposition of said child and the circumstances under which she resides as appears to the Court appropriate under the circumstances * * * and such provision for said child’s support by those responsible therefor as is equitable under the circumstances.”

On January 12, 1977 the court issued a second order "reaffirming” the order of December 7, 1976 in its entirety, "nunc pro time January 6, 1977.”

While the summons served on January 3, 1977 appears to have been adequate to establish the court’s jurisdiction to impose a support obligation pursuant to ORS 419.513,4 the order subsequently "reaffirmed” specifically provided not only that appellant would be responsible for making a monthly contribution of $50 beginning in January 1977, but also that the first payment was "due on or before January 1, 1977.” (Emphasis supplied.) Because the court had not yet acquired jurisdiction over appellant on January 1, 1977, to the extent that the order "reaffirmed” pur*135ported to create a legal debt due and payable on that date it was void. We construe the "reaffirmed” order to require payment commencing with the date of the hearing on January 6, 1977.

Affirmed.