Kulko v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84 (1978) p78.

• Erza and Sharon Kulko were married in 1959 in CA. during a stopover from a tour of duty
• Both were residents of New York
• They settled in NY after the tour of duty was over.
• Had two children in NY.
• Sharon divorced from Erza in Haiti, but first the signed a separation agreement in NY.
• After divorce Sharon returned to CA.
• Erza had custody of both children.
• Erza let his oldest child move to CA to live with Sharon.
• Three years later Sharon surreptitiously sent a one way ticket to the other child and the child moved to NY.

Less than a month later (after the second child moved to NY), Sharon sued Erza in a California superior court to establish the Hatian decree as a CA judgement, to obtain full custody, and to increase Erza's child support obligations. Erza appeared specially to question the jurisdiction of the CA courts which ruled against him.

Do the CA courts have jurisdiction over Kulko?

In order for there to be jurisdiction one must have availed himself of benefits and protections of CA law.

Supreme Court ruled CA could not constitutionally exercise jurisdiction over him.

Said would make a mockery of the 14^th Amendment if the jurisdiction were to be based on the marriage ceremony in CA 13 years prior. Jurisdiction could not be based on the oldest child's move. A father who agrees to let a child move in order to spend more time with the family, can hardly be said to have purposely availed himself of the benefits and protections of CA law.