Ark. Code Ann. § 9-17-201 (2020)
Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident
-
In a proceeding to establish or enforce a support order or to determine parentage of a child, a tribunal of this state may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident individual or the individual's guardian or conservator if:
- the individual is personally served with summons within this state;
- the individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent in a record, by entering a general appearance, or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction;
- the individual resided with the child in this state;
- the individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child;
- the child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual;
- the individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse;
- the individual asserted parentage of a child in the Putative Father Registry maintained in this state by the Department of Health; or
- there is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.
- The bases of personal jurisdiction set forth in subsection (a) or in any other law of this state may not be used to acquire personal jurisdiction for a tribunal of this state to modify a child-support order of another state unless the requirements of § 9-17-611 are met, or, in the case of a foreign support order, unless the requirements of § 9-17-615 are met.
History. Acts 1993, No. 468, § 1; 2015, No. 888, § 1.
Amendments. The 2015 amendment substituted “Bases” for “Basis” in the section heading; inserted the (a) designation; in the introductory language of (a), substituted “or enforce” for “enforce, or modify” and inserted “of a child”; inserted “in a record” in (a)(2); inserted “of a child” in (a)(7); and added (b).
Case Notes
Other Basis.
Putative father's contacts with Arkansas were sufficient to meet due process requirements under subdivision (8) of this section, § 16-4-101, and U.S. Const. Amend. 14, based on his agreement to submit to a paternity test in Arkansas and given the fact that he drove to Arkansas for the test that was administered in Arkansas. Moreover, the father could have reasonably anticipated being haled into court in Arkansas because a person submitting to a paternity test could foresee the possibility that a paternity suit and support action could have been brought there, and finally, the exercise of jurisdiction over the father did not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice when the burden of litigating the action was in no way unreasonable and the state had an interest in protecting its minor children and ensuring the payment of child support. Payne v. France, 373 Ark. 175, 282 S.W.3d 760 (2008), overruled in part, Lawson v. Simmons Sporting Goods, Inc., 2019 Ark. 84, 569 S.W.3d 865 (2019).