Ezra and Sharon Kulko got divorced in NY. Both children remained with father in NY during the school years and with mother in CA during the summers.
Daughter told father she wanted to move to CA to live with her mother. Father bought her a one-way ticket to CA and let her go.
Later, son secretly left NY to go to CA to live with his mother.
Mother sued father in CA seeking sole custody of children and increased child support.
Father moved to dismiss because CA had no personal jurisdiction on him.
Procedural History:
State court ruled for mother.
SCOTUS reversed, ruled for father, no jurisdiction.
Issues:
Does a party's knowledge that an action performed outside a forum state will have an impact on a forum state establish "purposeful availment"?
Can a forum state claim personal jurisdiction when the cause of action arises not from the Ds commercial transactions but rather from his personal, domestic relations?
Holding/Rule:
A party's knowledge that an action performed outside a forum state will have an impact on a forum state does not establish "purposeful availment".
A forum state cannot claim personal jurisdiction when the cause of action arises from personal, domestic relations and not from commercial transactions.
Reasoning:
Parents would be more reticent to enter into amiable visitation agreements if a party subjected himself to personal jurisdiction in whatever state the other party chose to live.
The P did not gain any financial benefit from sending his daughter to CA. Any financial benefit gained was not because she moved to CA, but because she moved away from NY.
P only acquiesced to his child's preference to live in CA, an act that one would not reasonably expect would lead to being haled into court in CA.
The separation occurred in NY, contract seeking to modify was negotiated and signed in NY.
The "effects test" says that a state has power to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party who causes effects in a state by an act done elsewhere with respect to any cause of action arising from these effects.
Dissent:
None.
Notes:
This case was based more on policy considerations; the court didn't want to penalize parents making custody arrangements for their children.
