Kulko v. Superior Court of California
19 Cal.3d 514, 564 P.2d 353, 138 Cal. Rptr. 586 (1977)
Rule of Law:
A non-resident parent purposefully avails themself of the benefits and protections of a state's laws, thereby establishing sufficient minimum contacts for personal jurisdiction in a child support action, by sending their child to reside permanently in that state.
Facts:
- Sharon Kulko and Ezra Kulko entered into a separation agreement in their marital domicile of New York.
- The agreement, incorporated into a Haitian divorce decree, stated their two children, Ilsa and Darwin, would live with Ezra in New York during the school year and with Sharon in San Francisco for vacations.
- Ezra was obligated to pay $3,000 annually for child support during the children's time with Sharon in California.
- In December 1973, Ilsa expressed a desire to live permanently with her mother, Sharon.
- Ezra purchased a one-way plane ticket for Ilsa and allowed her to move to California with all her clothing.
- For the next two years, after summer visits in New York, Ezra purchased plane tickets for Ilsa to return to live with her mother in California for the school year.
- In January 1976, Darwin, without his father's prior knowledge, informed Sharon he wished to live with her.
- Sharon sent Darwin a plane ticket, and he moved from New York to California to live with her.
Procedural Posture:
- Sharon Kulko filed a lawsuit in California Superior Court (a trial court) to establish a foreign divorce decree and seek increased child support from Ezra Kulko.
- Ezra Kulko, who was served with a summons by mail in New York, made a special appearance in the California court.
- Ezra filed a motion to quash the service of summons, arguing that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him.
- The Superior Court denied Ezra's motion to quash.
- Ezra Kulko, as petitioner, sought a writ of mandate from the Supreme Court of California to compel the Superior Court to vacate its order and grant his motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a California court have personal jurisdiction over a non-resident father for a child support action when he actively consented to and facilitated one child's permanent move to California, while only passively acquiescing to the other child's subsequent move?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, J.
Yes. A non-resident parent who sends a child to live permanently in California has purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the state's laws to an extent that supports personal jurisdiction. By sending his daughter Ilsa to California for permanent residence, not just a temporary visit, Ezra Kulko invoked the benefits of California's laws, institutions, and resources for her care and protection. This affirmative act, from which he also derived an economic benefit by no longer being liable for her support during the school year, created sufficient minimum contacts. Although Ezra did not send his son Darwin to California, his subsequent consent to Darwin's permanent residence there, combined with the fact that support for both children is a single issue in the action, makes it fair and reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over him for the support of both children.
Dissenting - Richardson, J.
No. The father's contacts with California were too minimal and incidental to justify the assertion of in personam jurisdiction. Ezra Kulko did not 'purposefully' avail himself of the benefits of California law; rather, he passively acquiesced to his teenage daughter's unilateral decision to live with her mother. His conduct regarding his son was even less purposeful, as he took no action whatsoever to facilitate the move. Subjecting a non-resident parent to jurisdiction based on such passive conduct would unreasonably discourage cooperation and visitation between divorced parents, contrary to public policy. The mother has an adequate remedy available in the courts of New York, the father's state of residence.
Analysis:
This case refines the 'purposeful availment' standard for personal jurisdiction in the specific context of interstate family law. The court's decision establishes a key distinction between a parent sending a child for a temporary visit versus sending them for permanent residence. By finding that the latter constitutes a sufficient basis for jurisdiction, the ruling provides a clearer standard for courts in child support actions involving non-resident parents. The decision emphasizes that an affirmative act causing an effect within the forum state is crucial, solidifying that passive acquiescence alone is likely insufficient to establish minimum contacts.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Kulko v. Superior Court of California (1977)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"