Albar and Najjar

“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident consistent with constitutional due process guarantees only if the nonresident has purposefully established sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 US 310, 316, 66 S Ct 154, 90 L Ed 95 (1945).

Father appealed a judgment that granted child custody and awarded child support to mother. Father assigned error to the trial court’s determination that he waived his opportunity to object to the court’s personal jurisdiction, the court’s calculation of mother’s income, and to the court’s conditional requirement of his parenting time. On appeal, Father argued he did not waive his objection to the court’s personal jurisdiction because in his first responsive pleading he specifically objected to jurisdiction. Additionally, Father argued that mother’s periodic gift income from her family should have been included when the court calculated child support. Lastly, under Oregon law, the court could not make his parenting time conditional on the children’s agreement to see him. In response, the Court held that although Father did not waive personal jurisdiction, the trial court still had personal jurisdiction over him because there were sufficient minimum contacts between Oregon and Father. Additionally, the Court held that Mother’s cash gifts from family should have been considered because she received large amounts of cash on a semi-regular basis. “A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident consistent with constitutional due process guarantees only if the nonresident has purposefully established sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ with the forum state ‘such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, Office of Unemployment Compensation and Placement, 326 US 310, 316, 66 S Ct 154, 90 L Ed 95 (1945). The Oregon Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court that had jurisdiction over Father in regards to establishing child support, should have considered mother’s gift income when calculating child support, could not legally implement required conditional parenting time. Portion of the general judgment awarding child support to mother and setting parenting time reversed and remanded; otherwise affirmed.