Mahidol v. Jensen
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
McCONNELL, P. J.
We hold in this case that in a proceeding under the Family Code the superior court lacked in personam jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction to enforce provisions of the parties’ marital settlement agreement (MSA) requiring an adult disabled child living in Thailand to visit his father in California. We further hold the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enforce provisions of the MSA requiring the mother to encourage and implement visitation and give the father written updates on their son’s activities. The effect of those provisions is to control the…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Abelleira v. District Court of AppealCalifornia Supreme Court · 1941
- Childers v. ChildersWashington Supreme Court · 1978
- Committee of Seven Thousand v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1988
- Harrington v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1924
- Rochin v. Pat Johnson Manufacturing Co.California Court of Appeal · 1998
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- DIAL 800 v. FesbinderCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- San Diego County Health & Human Services Agency v. Stacy B.California Court of Appeal · 2012
- Disenhouse v. PeeveyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2014
- Conservatorship of Navarrete CA4/2California Court of Appeal · 2020
- Marriage of Adams CA6California Court of Appeal · 2021
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.