Background
In September 2023, nine-year-old I.D. filed a petition under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA) seeking a declaration that A.L. is his father and child support. His mother, N.D., declared that she and A.L. married in 2007 and moved to California in 2008. After unsuccessful surrogacy attempts, A.L. encouraged N.D. to adopt in Belarus. In May 2014, N.D. met the child at an orphanage; A.L. expressed excitement and asked her to proceed. In December 2014, A.L. visited Belarus, spent time with the child, introduced him to his parents as his son, and signed a power of attorney authorizing N.D. to take all adoption actions. The adoption was finalized in February 2015 with A.L. recorded as the father.
The child could not enter the United States until residing with a parent for two years, so N.D. stayed in Belarus until December 2018. In December 2016, A.L. filed for divorce in Santa Clara County and refused to recognize the child. In August 2020, the court entered a dissolution judgment incorporating a settlement stating A.L. is not the child's parent. The child argued the settlement was not binding on him under Family Code section 7632 and claimed parentage under in loco parentis and estoppel theories.
A.L. moved to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, declaring he had lived in Washington since August 2019 and disputing N.D.'s account. The child opposed, citing A.L.'s California residency during the adoption and Family Code section 5700.201(a)(5). The trial court found no jurisdiction, holding the cause of action arose when the 2020 stipulated judgment was entered, by which time A.L. was no longer domiciled in California. On November 7, 2025, it entered an order adopting the statement of decision and dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction, and ruled the child's attorney fee request was no longer an issue. The child appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed, holding California has personal jurisdiction over A.L. because the UPA cause of action arises out of actions he took while domiciled in California. Under Owens v. Superior Court, domicile at the time the cause of action arose, combined with forum-state activities giving rise to the claim, is sufficient under due process to permit jurisdiction. The child's claim is based on things A.L. did and said surrounding the adoption that would support a finding he held the child out as his own, all occurring from 2014 through 2016 or 2018, when A.L. was undisputedly domiciled in California.
The trial court erred by finding the UPA action arose when the 2020 stipulated judgment was entered. The appellate court reasoned the action depends on what A.L. did in 2014 and 2015, not what he agreed to in 2020; the child could have filed the day he arrived in California in December 2018, twenty months before the judgment. The stipulated judgment is the basis of A.L.'s res judicata defense, not the basis of the UPA action itself.
The court rejected A.L.'s argument that jurisdiction would be unreasonable. Once minimum contacts are established, the defendant must present a compelling case that jurisdiction is unreasonable, and A.L. failed to do so; his inconvenience concerns were insufficient given remote appearance options. The court also declined the child's request to reassign the case on remand, finding no evidence the trial judge prejudged credibility or could not be impartial. The court reversed the order finding no personal jurisdiction, vacated the attorney fee order, and directed the trial court to rule on the fee request.
Key Takeaways
- California courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over a former resident when the cause of action arises from activities in California while domiciled there, even if the defendant later moved away.
- In a parentage action based on in loco parentis or estoppel, the cause of action arises from the defendant's actions regarding the child, not from a later stipulated dissolution judgment.
- A stipulated judgment addressing parentage may support a res judicata defense but does not define when a UPA cause of action arose for jurisdictional purposes.
- Once minimum contacts are shown, the defendant bears the burden to present a compelling case that jurisdiction is unreasonable; general inconvenience claims are insufficient.
- Reversal of a trial judge's ruling does not by itself disqualify the judge or show bias.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the timing analysis for personal jurisdiction in parentage actions: when a claim is based on a defendant's conduct toward a child, jurisdiction is assessed based on where the defendant was domiciled when that conduct occurred, not when later proceedings formalized the dispute. It reinforces that domicile at the time the cause of action arose, combined with forum-state activities giving rise to the claim, provides a constitutional basis for jurisdiction under Owens. The decision also distinguishes the basis for a cause of action from affirmative defenses like res judicata, holding that a stipulated judgment addressing parentage does not redefine when a UPA claim arises for jurisdictional purposes.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket