Foreign Support Orders - Hawaii Jusisdiction

[dancurry]

I am from the Republic of Belarus. I am currently living in the State of California in the Country of Merced. I am here working on as a Postdoctorial fellow at the University of Merced California. I will be here approximately one year then leave to go home. I have one minor child who lives back home with his mother. His mother frequently travels and is now in Hawaii for some reason. To the best of my knowledge, my child is rarely with her because of school.

A support order was issued back home and I paid all my support and I am current up to Sept. 06 when the mother terminated the order and ended support.

I was just served the following documents from the State of Hawaii:

Registration of Foreign support, Notice of Registration, Declaration of Petitioner.

I only have until Friday to answer as the documents served did not allow time for service.

My questions for you are.

Do I file an objection, answer or what type of document?

I have no means for travel to Hawaii, is a telephonic hearing an option?

Does registration of a foreign support order authorize modifications of foreign support orders?

Isn't a foreign support order needed before the court can register it and doesnt' the fact that no order exist bar this?

Neither party nor the minor child is a citizen of the U.S. or a perminate resident. Doen't this factor into the courts jurisdiction?

Thank you for your time Socrateaser. I will probably have more questions but must cease typing due to a massive headache

[socrateaser]

This is WAY complicated. Scan the documents and email them to me at [email protected]. Then post a note here telling me that you have done so. Do it quick, because I need time to think about this for a day.

[dancurry]

The documents have been scanned and E-mailed to you.

Let me know if you need any further information.

DC

[socrateaser]

>The documents have been scanned and E-mailed to you.
>
>Let me know if you need any further information.
>
>DC

OK, I got it. I assume that you can format a pleading according to HI rules (just copy what your opponent has done), so the text follows below.

Notes:

1.  Do not change a word of what is below without discussing it with me first (except for the dates, which should all match and be within 20 days of the date of notice of registration you received, and the names, addresses and contact phone #s of parties). Any other change could inadvertantly subject you to personal jurisdiction in HI.

2. Although you don't need to serve these documents by other than 1st Class Regular mail, you should send them certified, so that you have evidence that you did in fact serve them within the required time limits. Also, you should send the originals to the court by overnight mail, because the clerks will give it more attention and it will get filed immediately, instead of sitting in some stack of less important papers.

3. Send the originals to the court, and a copy to the other attorney, and to the State CSEA.

4. The person signing the certificate of service cannot be you -- it must be a third party adult.

5. This will get you off the hook in HI, but it will probably cause your opponent to contact an attorney in CA, and then you will need a substantive argument to defeat the registration. For now, however, this should work (unless the judge decides to ignore the law entirely -- in which case, you can probably ignore the judge, and then move to quash any subsequent order in a CA court).

TEXT OF PLEADING STARTS HERE
-----------------------------------------

YOURNAME
ADRESSS
CITY, STATE ZIP
CONTACT PHONE#
Respondent, Pro Se

STATE OF HAWAII

FAMILY COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

PETITIONERSNAME,
                             Petitioner

and

YOURNAME, and
CSEA, State of Hawaii
                             Respondents


UIFS (FR) No. ?-?-????

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN SUPPORT ORDER; DELCARATION OF RESPONDENT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Respondent, YOURNAME, pro se, hereby appears specially and for the exclusive purpose of moving to dismiss the instant action on grounds that this court lacks due process authority under the U.S. Constitution, to assert in-personam jurisdiction over Respondent.

DECLARATION OF RESPONDENT

In support of Respondent's motion, I, YOURNAME, hereby declare as follows:

1. I am Respondent in the above-entitled action, and if called upon, I could and would testify from my own personal knowledge to the matters set forth herein.

2. I was not personally served with the notice of registration which began this action within the territorial boundaries of the State of Hawaii.

3. I am not entering a general appearance in this case, nor am I pleading any of the merits of this action.

4. I have never resided with the child party in interest in this action.

5. I have never traveled or resided within the State of Hawaii.

6. I have never done business with any person or entity located within the State of Hawaii, nor have I directed that any person reside or do business, within the jurisdiction.

7. I have no children who were conceived by any act of sexual intercourse engaged in within the State of Hawaii.

8. I have never asserted or acknowledged parentage with any agency of the State of Hawaii.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: 10/31/2006

By: _______________
      YOURNAME
      Respondent
     

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Petitioner lacks the sufficient "minimum contacts" with the forum so as to cause this court's assertion of personal jurisdiction to comport with the well-established requirements of Constitutional due process.[/b]

In the recent case of Hart v. Hart, 132 P.3d 862, 110 Hawai'i 294 (Haw. App. 03/03/2006), the court held, in circumstances substantially similar to those appearing in this instant case, that a person cannot be bound to the jurisdiction of Hawaii under the provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, unless:

(1) the person "has continuous and systematic contacts with the forum; the exercise of jurisdiction in such a case does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice," or;

(2) per the following three-part test:

"(1) The nonresident defendant must purposefully direct his activities or consummate some transaction with the forum or resident thereof; or perform some act by which he purposefully avails himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the forum, thereby invoking the benefits and protections of its laws;

(2) the claim must be one which arises out of or relates to the defendant's forum-related activities; and

(3) the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with fair play and substantial justice, i.e. it must be reasonable."
 
Here, Respondent's declaration shows that he has never had any contact with the State of Hawaii, continuous, systematic or otherwise.

Similarly, Respondent's declaration show that Respondent has directed no activities or transactions within the forum or with Petitioner, and that Petitioner's claim does not arise out of any of Respondent's forum-related activities (because there are none).

In short, there is absolutely no "reasonable" basis upon which it is fair to expect that Respondent should presently be required to defend this or any other legal action in a Hawaiian court.

Moreover, Petitioner's declaration shows no facts that would controvert Respondent's assertions re forum related activities.

Therefore, under the well-established rules of due process originally announced in the landmark ruling of "International Shoe," Respondent has insufficient "minimum contacts," with the forum, which would permit this court's assertion of personal jurisdiction to comport with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

For all of the foregoing reasons, Respondent requests that this court dismiss this instant action for want of personal jurisdiction over Respondent.

Dated: 10/31/2006

Respectfully Submitted,

By: _________________
      YOURNAME
      Respondent, Pro Se

-----------------------------------------------------
(page break)

Certificate of Service

I, NAMEOFPERSONSERVINGDOCUMENTS, declare that I am at least 18 years of age, not a party to the above-entitled action, that I reside or am employed in the county wherein this service was made, and that on 10/31/2006, I placed the below-described documents in a properly addressed and posted envelope, and sent them via USPS Certified Mail, to the person(s) indicated below:

Documents:

RESPONDENT'S MOTION TO DISMISS REGISTRATION OF FOREIGN SUPPORT ORDER; DELCARATION OF RESPONDENT; POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

Person(s) served:

PETITIONERSATTORNEYSNAME
Law Office of  PETITIONERSATTORNEYSNAME
STREET
CITY, STATE ZIP
Attorney for : PETITIONERSNAME

Hawaii State Child Support Enforcement Agency
GETTHEADDRESSOFFTHE INTERNET

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Dated: 10/31/2006

By: _____________
       NAMEOFPERSONSERVINGDOCUMETS

[dancurry]

socrateaser,

Thank you soo much for helping with this matter. Both me and my Russian Comrade thank you.

DC

[socrateaser]

>socrateaser,
>
>Thank you soo much for helping with this matter. Both me and
>my Russian Comrade thank you.
>
>DC

Let's see how it turns out. Sorry about the first draft. I didn't read it carefully enough before posting. Shouldn't be a big deal. The precedent is only six months old and is on point. Judge would have to be a real hardass to ignore it.