Kulko v. Superior Court
436 U.S. 84(1978).


PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant father sought review of a decision from the Supreme Court of California, which affirmed the denial of his motion to quash service of the summons on the grounds that by consenting to his children living in California, appellant had caused an effect in that state warranting its exercise of personal jurisdiction over him.

Facts: Ezra (P) and Sharon (D) were New York residents when they got married in California during a three-day stopover there while P was en route to Korea in military service. They lived together in New York continually after P returned from the service, and their two children were born there. In 1972, D left P and moved to California, but returned to New York to sign a separation agreement and went to Haiti to get a divorce. Under the agreement, D was to have the children during summers and holidays, and P was to have them the rest of the year. When their daughter wanted to reverse the ar-rangement, P acceded and bought her a one-way ticket to Califor¬nia. Later, their son wanted to live with D and she sent him a ticket secretly so he could join her in California. D then filed an action in California to modify the custody arrangement and to increase child support. P's motion to quash service on grounds of no minimum contacts was denied. The appellate court affirmed, as did the Cali-fornia Supreme Court. P filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.


ISSUE: Is a unilateral activity of another party or a third person an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction?

RULE: A unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction


Holding: No. Judgment reversed. To find personal jurisdiction in a State on the basis that merely the mother of children was residing there, would discourage parents from entering into reasonable visitation agreements The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contract with the forum state We cannot accept the proposition that H's acquiescence in Usa's desire to live with her mother conferred jurisdiction over H in California courts A father who agrees to allow his children to spend more time with their mother is not a purposeful availment ofthe benefits and protections of California law Nor is purchasing the ticket to California in order to effect that desire because that act can hardly be said to product an effect within the state such that H can be sued therein for child custody matter H does get a financial benefit from his daughter living in California but to say that H benefits from the laws of California from that financial benefit is too large of a stretch In personam jurisdiction is not warranted by the financial benefit H obtained while his daughter was with her mother during the school year Under the circumstances of this case, California's exercise of jurisdiction was clearly unreasonable



ANALYSIS: The Supreme Court reversed a decision that denied appellant father's motion to quash service of the summons in a judicial action filed by appellee mother in California to modify a child support award entered in New York. The Court determined that California state courts were constitutionally unable to exercise personal jurisdiction over appellant as a nonresident, nondomiciliary parent of minor children domiciled within California, because appellant lacked sufficient minimum contacts with California. By merely consenting to his children's living with appellee in contradiction of the parties' separation agreement, appellant did not purposefully avail himself of the benefits and protections of California law. Particularly, because the action was domestic in nature, appellant did not derive any commercial or financial benefit from his children's presence in California. Therefore, appellant's actions were not such that it was fair, just, or reasonable to require him to conduct his defense to the child support modification in California.