One month later, Horn moved a California court for recognition of the Haitian divorce decree as a California judgment, for full custody of the children, and for an increase in child support. In 1961 and 1962 a … Immediately following and . Under a separation agreement, executed by both parties in New York, the children were to remain with appellant father during the school year but during specified vacations with appellee mother, whom appellant agreed to pay $3,000 per year in child support for the periods when the children were in her custody. 355

19 Cal.3d, at 524, 564 P.2d, at 358. Appellee Horn argues that appellant's request for a continuance amounted to a general appearance and a waiver of jurisdictional objections, and that accordingly there is no longer a live controversy as to the jurisdictional issue before us. ] In addition to California, 24 other States are signatories to this Act. 12 Even in such situations, moreover, the Restatement recognizes that there might be circumstances that would render "unreasonable" the assertion of jurisdiction over the nonresident defendant. In McGee v. International Life Ins. It is appellant who has remained in the State of the marital domicile, whereas it is appellee who has moved across the continent.

denied, Suzie S. Thorn argued the cause for appellee. For reasons set forth below, we hold that the exercise of such jurisdiction would violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. If the court "finds that the [petition] sets forth facts from which it may be determined that the obligor owes a duty of support and that a court of the responding state may obtain jurisdiction of the obligor or his property," it may send a copy of the petition to the "responding state." This "effects" test is derived from the American Law Institute's Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 37 (1971), which provides: While this provision is not binding on this Court, it does not in any event support the decision below. App.   See H. Clark, Domestic Relations 15.2, p. 500 (1968); cf.   Code Ann. 2d 132, 1978 U.S. LEXIS 87 (U.S. May 15, 1978).

At this time, just before Ilsa was to leave New York to spend Christmas vacation with her mother, she told her father that she wanted to remain in California after her vacation. Read Online (Free) relies on page scans, which are not currently available to screen readers. 433 1978). Appellant’s act of permitting his daughter to spend more time in California did not amount to his purposefully availing himself of the benefits and protections of California’s laws so as to permit California to assert personal jurisdiction.
909, 911 (1960). § 1257 (2). 627, 628 (1976).

326 In McGee v. International Life Ins. U.S. 84, 93] 410.10 (West 1973). Proc. Cf.
2d 559, 251 N. Y. S. 2d 579 (1964). The trial court summarily denied the motion to quash, and appellant sought review in the California Court of Appeal by petition for a writ of mandate. KULKO v. CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT(1978) No. .

arrears on his child-support payments. We follow the practice of both Hanson and May in deeming the papers to be a petition for a writ of certiorari. Under these circumstances, appellant's challenge to the state court's in personam jurisdiction is not moot. The California Supreme Court sustained the lower court rulings.

The parties are in agreement that the constitutional standard for determining whether the State may enter a binding judgment against appellant here is that set forth in this Court's opinion in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, supra: that a defendant "have certain minimum contacts with [the forum State] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend `traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.'"

(1977). While Sharon Kulko waived any claim for her own support or maintenance, Ezra Kulko agreed to pay his wife $3,000 per year in child support for the periods when the children were in her care, custody, and control. As noted above, appellant did no more than acquiesce in the stated preference of one of his children to live with her mother in California. No. 355

  133 Cal.Rptr.   326 U.S., at 316, quoting Milliken v. Meyer, supra, at 463. denied, 366 U.S. 270 (1961). Cf.

] See also Developments in the Law - State-Court Jurisdiction, 73 Harv. U.S. 457, 463 The issue before us is whether, in this action for child support, the California state courts may exercise in personam jurisdiction over a nonresident, nondomiciliary parent of minor children domiciled within the State. Footnote 6 While noting that appellant had not, "with respect to his other child, Darwin, caused an effect in [California]" — since it was appellee Horn who had arranged for Darwin to fly to California in January 1976 — the court concluded that it was "fair and reasonable for defendant to be subject to personal jurisdiction for the support of both children, where he has committed acts with respect to one child which confers [ sic] personal jurisdiction and has consented to the permanent residence of the other child in California." but, treating the papers as a petition for a writ of certiorari, we hereby grant the petition and reverse the judgment below.

Nor did the California court rely on the fact that appellant was actually married in California on one of his two brief visits. She briefly returned to sign a separation agreement providing the children would live in New York. As in Hanson v. Denckla, See, e. g., Watson v. Dreadin, 309 A.  

the divorce decree incorporated the terms of the agreement. On Ezra Kulko's appeal to this Court, probable jurisdiction was postponed. Upon the termination of Kulko’s military service, the couple lived together in New York for 13 years, during which time they had a son and a daughter. . [

The judgment of the California Supreme Court is, therefore.

While this provision is not binding on this Court, it does not in any event support the decision below. But we believe that the California Supreme Court's application of the minimum-contacts test in this case represents an unwarranted extension of International Shoe and would, if sustained, sanction a result that is neither fair, just, nor reasonable. 4 Plaintiff remained in New York with their children, while defendant moved to California. Brief Fact Summary.

357 See also von Mehren & Trautman, supra note 22, at 1133. See supra, at 89.

Pennoyer v. Neff, Appellant's request for a continuance was denied by the trial court, and subsequently that court determined that appellant was in Page 91 arrears on his child-support payments.