Opinion ID: 1649440
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Personal Jurisdiction over Support Issues

Text: Dr. Bakhaty additionally argued that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over him to render any order of support because he lacks the requisite minimum contacts with Louisiana and because he was never personally served with any pleadings. The trial court correctly determined that the UCCJA provisions relating to jurisdictional limitations in interstate custody disputes cannot be extended to child support matters. See La.Rev.Stat. § 13:1701(2). Thus, the trial court would only have the legal authority to render a personal judgment for child support if it had jurisdiction over Dr. Bakhaty. Imperial v. Hardy, 302 So.2d 5 (La.1974). The trial court conducted a jurisdictional analysis under the due process rules of International Shoe Company v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945), to conclude that Dr. Bakhaty established sufficient minimum contacts with Louisiana through his filing a Petition for Civil Warrant. Based on Dr. Bakhaty's actions, the trial court found that Dr. Bakhaty has purposefully availed himself the privilege of conducting activities within Louisiana, and he has invoked the benefits and protections of Louisiana's laws. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Based on these actions, Dr. Bakhaty should have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Louisiana. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). A review of the Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure leads to the same conclusion. Personal jurisdiction may attach through compliance with Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 6 or through one of several statutory bases, including the UIFSA in Children's Code article 1302.1, [21] and the Long-Arm Statute, La.Rev.Stat. § 13:3201. [22] Personal jurisdiction over a party is established when that party commences a civil action to enforce a legal right by the filing of a pleading presenting the demand to a court of competent jurisdiction. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 421; see La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 6. [23] Dr. Bakhaty commenced a civil action titled Petition for Civil Warrant before the East Baton Rouge Parish Family Court. A Petition for a Civil Warrant in custody matters is generally governed by La.Rev. Stat. 9:343 which allows a custodial parent to obtain the court's assistance in the return of a child. [24] A properly filed Petition for Civil Warrant may limit a party's submission to the Court's jurisdiction for the sole purpose of obtaining the civil warrant. However, as both the lower courts found, Dr Bakhaty did not already have a basis for custody by order of any court, and thus, did not meet the statutory requisites for such a warrant to invoke that statute's limitations on jurisdiction. See La.Rev. Stat. 9:343(A); La.Rev.Stat. 13:3201(B); La. Ch.C. art. 1302.1(8). Under Louisiana's rule regarding fact based pleadings, Dr. Bakhaty's request for the return of the child essentially became a petition for custody. When Dr. Bakhaty sought recognition of his custody rights regarding Ahmed, he subjected himself to the personal jurisdiction of our courts with respect to matters pertaining to Ahmed. La.Code Civ. Proc. art. 6(A)(3). Dr. Bakhaty's use of our courts differs from a nonresident who lacks the minimum contacts necessary to establish nonresident jurisdiction on a totally unrelated matter. Custody and support are always interrelated issues to a divorce, making any distinction of minimal consequence. See Norvell v. Norvell, 94-0001 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1/19/95), 649 So.2d 95, 97 (finding ex-wife's petition to enforce a Tennessee judgment for arrearages subjected her to personal jurisdiction in Louisiana with respect to all matters ancillary to the alimony decree, including modification proceedings, when she sought enforcement in Louisiana's courts.) The trial court concluded that service must be made in accordance with the Long-Arm Statute, La.Rev.Stat. 13:3204. While we agree that service under the Long-Arm Statute would suffice, we conclude that service was unnecessary, as Dr. Bakhaty had submitted to the jurisdiction of the court as discussed above by filing his Petition for Civil Warrant. In any event, the record contains an affidavit of Long-Arm Service, via certified mail, return receipt requested for both petitions filed by Ms. Amin. The original green card, which shows that the certified mail was signed for, is also in the record. Thus, Dr. Bakhaty was validly served with Ms. Amin's Petition for Divorce under the Louisiana Long-Arm Statute.
Dr. Bakhaty claims the trial court erred in refusing to order Ms. Amin to answer certain questions about how she obtained Ahmed's Egyptian passport and her application for asylum in the United States. Because of the criminal matters lodged against her in Egypt and possible ramifications with the Immigration and Naturalization Services in the United States, she pled the Fifth Amendment in response to those questions. Dr. Bakhaty argues the trial court should have insisted on answers to those questions, and its failure to do so prejudiced his case. Although the exact communications resulting in Ahmed's Egyptian passport were not elicited from her, documents submitted by Dr. Bakhaty were accepted into evidence. These indicated that in November 1998, Ms. Amin's brother-in-law, Hany Zohdy, an attorney who lives in Baton Rouge, obtained affidavits from two of his Egyptian friends, stating Ahmed needed medical treatment from his father and needed to visit him in the United States. Thus, the circumstances under which Ahmed's Egyptian passport were obtained were generally known to the trial court without additional testimony from Ms. Amin or Mr. Zhody. [25] Similarly, Ms. Amin's testimony indicated that, although her original intent was merely to visit the United States, the circumstances occurring after her arrival caused her to change her mind and she now intended to stay in Louisiana, if possible. Mark Lazarre, an expert on immigration requirements, informed the court that the declarations needed for a visitor's visa and an asylum application were internally inconsistent; either Ms. Amin intended to stay in the United States or she did not. The trial court was made aware of this inconsistency and had sufficient information to consider it in evaluating Ms. Amin's credibility on this and other issues. Therefore, Dr. Bakhaty was not prejudiced by the trial court's refusal to order Ms. Amin to answer questions about her asylum application. We find this argument to be without merit.