Opinion ID: 1789071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: support and visitation

Text: I agree with our Court that a valid judgment for child support or visitation expenses may be rendered only by a court having jurisdiction over the person of the defendant. At 83. Therefore, in order for a Texas court to render a binding judgment on the child support and/or visitation expense issues, minimum contacts must exist. This Court determined that minimum contacts were present because the father made numerous trips to Texas to visit his children and sought employment in Amarillo. At 86. The Court is impressed that the father spent four hours with doctors in the Amarillo Diagnostic Clinic and made an inquiry about job openings. The Court also places significance on the fact that the father spent two hours making the rounds with another doctor at the clinic. At 86. [3] In my opinion, these are insufficient contacts to confer personal jurisdiction to Texas courts over the father. In Mitchim v. Mitchim, 518 S.W.2d 362, 366 (Tex.1975), we held that even though a state may exercise jurisdiction over a cause, the assumption of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant must not offend that defendant's due process rights. See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 158, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945). In Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958), the United States Supreme Court stated that there must be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws. Minimum contacts with the forum state are required so that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. International Shoe, 326 U.S. at 316, 66 S.Ct. at 158. An essential criterion in all cases is whether the quality and nature of the defendant's activity is such that it is reasonable and fair to require him to conduct his defense in that state. Kulko v. Superior Court of California, 436 U.S. 84, 92, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 1697, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978). In Guardian Royal Exch. Assurance, Ltd. v. English China Clays, P.L.C., 815 S.W.2d 223, 230 (Tex.1991), this Court clarified the personal jurisdiction formula to ensure compliance with federal constitutional requirements of due process. We stated that [g]eneral jurisdiction may be asserted when the cause of action does not arise from or relate to the nonresident defendant's purposeful conduct within the forum state but there are continuous and systematic contacts between the nonresident defendant and the forum state. Id. at 228 (citing Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 414-16, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 1872-73, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984)). (emphasis added). Furthermore, when general jurisdiction is alleged, the minimum contacts analysis is more demanding and requires a showing of substantial activity in the forum state. Id. (emphasis added). Therefore, in order for Texas to properly exercise personal jurisdiction over the father, he must have purposefully established minimum contacts with Texas. Id. Additionally, the assertion of personal jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice. Id. at 231. It is undisputed that the father's main purpose for coming to Texas was to visit his children. The fact that he made a job inquiry, in my view, does not alter the primary purpose of the visitsto see his children. The act of visiting children pursuant to a child visitation agreement should not subject a parent to the jurisdiction of the state in which the custodial parent decides to reside. To find personal jurisdiction in a State merely because the custodial parent was residing there, would discourage parents from entering into reasonable visitation agreements. This result would discourage voluntary child custody agreements and subject a non-custodial parent to suit in any jurisdiction where the custodial parent chose to reside. Miller v. Kite, 313 N.C. 474, 329 S.E.2d 663, 666 (1985) (citing Kulko, 436 U.S. at 93, 98 S.Ct. at 1697). Furthermore, a parent would be faced with the dilemma of visiting the child and subjecting himself to the jurisdiction of the forum state or refraining from such contacts with the child due to the fear of being forced to litigate there. Miller, 329 S.E.2d at 667. The unilateral activity of those who claim some relationship with a nonresident defendant cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State. Hanson 357 U.S. at 253, 78 S.Ct. at 1239-40. [4] In my opinion, Texas cannot properly assert personal jurisdiction over the father, because he did not establish continuous or systematic contacts with Texas in order to meet the minimum contact requirement set forth in Guardian Royal. Furthermore, the exercise of personal jurisdiction fails to meet the second requirement of Guardian Royal because such exercise does not comport with fair play or substantial justice.