“The requirements of personal jurisdiction in actions under the Family Code are the same as those for civil actions, generally. Under Code Civ. Proc. § 410.10, California courts can exercise jurisdiction “on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the United States.” Under the controlling Supreme Court cases on the subject, a state court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction is consistent with due process insofar as it does not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” [International Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95, 161 A.L.R. 1057 (1945)] The following have been held sufficient to permit a state court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party: physical presence in the state; domicile; consent; voluntary appearance; & “minimum contacts” with the forum state. The husband’s general appearance in a marital dissolution action established that the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the husband for the entire case, including for orders entered before the husband’s general appearance. [In re Marriage of Obrecht., 245 Cal. App. 4th 1, 199 Cal. Rptr. 3d 438 (6th Dist. 2016)]”
[California Civil Practice Family Law Litigation [certain citations omitted]]
