Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco

Background

A New York father and mother married in California during a brief stopover but lived in New York. After they separated, the mother moved to California and the parents signed a New York separation agreement. One daughter later chose to stay with her mother in California after a visit and the father bought her a one-way ticket; the other child was sent to California by the mother. The mother filed in California to turn a foreign divorce into a California judgment, seek full custody, and increase child support.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether California courts could require the nonresident father to defend a child-support claim based on the father’s contacts with California. The majority held that simply allowing a child to live in California, or buying a ticket, was not a deliberate act that gave the father the kind of ties to the State required by the Constitution (the “minimum contacts” test). The Court emphasized that the father had only brief, distant visits years earlier, had not sought benefits from California, and that interstate enforcement laws exist to handle support claims without forcing nonresidents to litigate far from home. The Supreme Court reversed the California decision.

Real world impact

The decision limits when a State can drag an out-of-state parent into its courts for support claims when the parent’s only connection is the child’s residence. Custodial parents will often need to use interstate support enforcement procedures or bring actions in the nonresident parent’s home state, rather than rely on the child’s presence alone to establish jurisdiction.

Dissents or concurrances

Three Justices dissented, saying the California court’s factual weighing was reasonable and that the father’s conduct supported jurisdiction; they would have upheld California’s decision.