Kulko v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California · 1977 · Family Law

564 P.2d 353 (1977)

Updated August 1, 2026

Family Lawpersonal jurisdictionsupportminimum contactseffects doctrinepurposeful availmentnonresident parentchild support

Facts

The parties divorced in Haiti after executing a New York separation agreement providing that the children would live with defendant in New York during the school year and with plaintiff in San Francisco during summers and certain vacations, with defendant paying $3,000 annually for support while the children were with plaintiff. In December 1973, after Ilsa told defendant she wanted to live with her mother in California, defendant bought her a one-way ticket and allowed her to leave with all her clothes; in 1974 and 1975 he again sent her back to California for the school year. Darwin later came to California at his own request on a ticket sent by plaintiff and without defendant's prior knowledge. Plaintiff then brought this California action seeking to establish the Haitian decree, obtain custody, and increase support, and defendant moved to quash service made by mail in New York.

Issue

May California exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident father in an action for child support where he affirmatively sent one child to California to live with the mother on a permanent school-year basis, but did not affirmatively send the other child, who later also remained in California with his consent? More broadly, does such conduct constitute sufficient purposeful availment under California's long-arm statute and due process?

Rule

Under Code of Civil Procedure section 410.10, California may exercise personal jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with state or federal due process. When a nonresident causes an effect in California by an act or omission elsewhere, jurisdiction is proper only if the exercise of jurisdiction is reasonable; reasonableness turns on whether the defendant purposefully availed himself of the privilege, benefits, and protections of California law or anticipated economic benefit from the out-of-state act. In the family-law context, a nonresident parent who allows a minor child to reside in California ordinarily purposefully avails himself of California's benefits and protections sufficiently to support jurisdiction in support actions, absent unusual circumstances or countervailing public policies.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Ortiz lives in Sacramento, California, and her former spouse, Daniel Mercer, lives in New Jersey under a divorce agreement giving Daniel school-year custody and Nina summer visitation. Before a scheduled winter break visit, their 14-year-old daughter told Daniel she wanted to stay in California indefinitely, and Daniel bought her a one-way ticket, sent all of her belongings, and repeated the school-year arrangement the following year.

If Nina sues Daniel in California for increased child support, is a California court most likely to have personal jurisdiction over Daniel?

Explanation. California may exercise personal jurisdiction to the constitutional limit, but effects-based jurisdiction must be reasonable. In the family-law context, a nonresident parent who allows a minor child to reside in California ordinarily purposefully avails himself of California's benefits and protections. Here Daniel did more than permit a temporary visit; he sent the child on a one-way ticket with all her belongings and repeated the arrangement, indicating permanent school-year residence in California. That supports jurisdiction in a support action. (Derived from Kulko v. Superior Court (1977).)