436 U.S. 84 (1978) (U.S. Supreme Court)
Kulko v. Superior Court is a cornerstone personal-jurisdiction case that sits at the intersection of civil procedure and family law.
Whether California, consistent with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent in a child-support and custody-modification action when the parent's only relevant contacts are marrying in California long ago and allowing a child to reside with the other parent in California.
Under the Due Process Clause, a state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only if the defendant has minimum contacts with the forum such that maintaining the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice (International Shoe Co. v. Washington). Those contacts must result from the defendant's purposeful availment of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws; the unilateral activity of another party or a third person cannot satisfy this requirement (Hanson v. Denckla). In the domestic relations context, noncommercial, family-accommodation conduct—such as permitting a child to reside with the other parent in the forum—does not, without more, constitute purposeful availment, and a historical, transitory contact like marrying in the forum years earlier is insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
No. California lacked personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kulko. His limited, noncommercial, family-related contacts—marrying in California long before the suit and acquiescing in his child's wish to live with her mother in California—did not constitute purposeful availment or minimum contacts. The judgment upholding jurisdiction was reversed and the case remanded with directions to quash service.
Kulko is a leading case on specific personal jurisdiction in the family-law setting. It teaches that traditional minimum-contacts principles apply with full force outside commercial disputes: jurisdiction cannot be founded on a child's relocation or a parent's acquiescence to that relocation. The decision curbs reliance on broad long-arm statutes when the defendant's connections are noncommercial and not purposefully forum-directed, and it underscores the role of interstate support-enforcement mechanisms when personal jurisdiction is absent. For law students, Kulko is essential for articulating purposeful availment, analyzing fairness factors, and distinguishing unilateral acts from defendant-initiated forum contacts.