Lakers star Luka Dončić filed a motion on March 20, 2026, to dismiss ex-fiancée Anamaria Goltes' child support petition in Los Angeles Superior Court, arguing California lacks jurisdiction because neither parent nor their two daughters — Gabriela, 2, and Olivia, 4 months — are California residents. Dončić claims Goltes filed in California to exploit the state's income-based support guidelines on his $165 million contract, a tactic courts call "forum shopping."
Key Facts
| Detail | Information |
|---|---|
| What happened | Dončić filed a motion to dismiss Goltes' California child support petition |
| When | March 20, 2026 |
| Where filed | Los Angeles Superior Court |
| Core argument | Neither parent nor children are California residents; proceedings already filed in Slovenia |
| Key statute | Cal. Fam. Code § 3400 (UCCJEA — Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act) |
| Financial stake | Dončić's $165M Lakers contract; California's income-percentage support model |
California Cannot Hear Every Case Just Because a Parent Works Here
California courts must have proper jurisdiction before ordering child support, and a parent's employment contract alone does not automatically establish it. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, adopted in California through Cal. Fam. Code §§ 3400–3465, a court can only make an initial custody or support determination if California is the child's "home state" — defined as the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the filing (Cal. Fam. Code § 3402(g)).
According to TMZ's reporting, Dončić claims Goltes and both children have lived in Slovenia since May 2025 — roughly 10 months before her California filing. If that timeline is accurate, California would not qualify as either child's home state under the six-month residency test. Gabriela, now 2, and Olivia, born approximately 4 months ago, would both have their home-state connection in Slovenia, not California.
Dončić's motion also raises the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which allows a California court to decline jurisdiction even if it technically has it, when another forum is substantially more appropriate. Courts weigh factors including where the children reside, where evidence is located, and which jurisdiction can most efficiently resolve the dispute. A family where the children, the primary caretaker, and the established home are all in Slovenia presents a strong case for that doctrine.
How California Calculates Child Support — and Why It Matters Here
California uses a strict income-based formula under Cal. Fam. Code § 4055 that factors in both parents' net disposable income, the percentage of time each parent has physical custody, and mandatory deductions. For high-income earners, California courts have broad discretion to set support well above the guideline amount under Cal. Fam. Code § 4057(b)(3), which allows deviation when a parent's income is so high that the formula amount exceeds a child's reasonable needs.
On a $165 million contract, even a modest percentage produces enormous monthly figures. California's guideline calculator does not cap income the way some states do — Texas, for example, caps the obligor's net resources at $9,200 per month for support calculation purposes. California has no such ceiling, which is precisely why Dončić's legal team alleges Goltes chose this forum strategically.
Slovenia, by contrast, calculates child support based on the child's actual needs and both parents' financial capacity under Slovenian family law. The difference in potential support amounts between the two jurisdictions could be substantial — potentially tens of thousands of dollars per month.
The Forum Shopping Allegation Carries Real Weight
Forum shopping — filing in a jurisdiction chosen for its favorable laws rather than its genuine connection to the parties — is taken seriously by California courts. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421, California must decline jurisdiction if it determines that another state or country is a more appropriate forum. The court considers whether domestic violence has occurred, the length of time the child has resided outside California, the distance between the court and the jurisdiction that would assume authority, and the financial circumstances of the parties.
Dončić's filing reportedly argues that he already initiated custody and support proceedings in Slovenia before Goltes filed in California. Under the UCCJEA's priority rules (Cal. Fam. Code § 3426), when proceedings are pending in another jurisdiction that has home-state priority, the California court must communicate with the foreign court and generally must defer to the first-filed action.
This principle exists to prevent exactly what Dončić alleges: a parent bypassing the natural jurisdiction to secure a financial advantage. California courts have dismissed cases under these provisions in prior international disputes, particularly when children have no meaningful residential connection to the state.
Practical Takeaways for California Residents
-
Jurisdiction is not optional. Before filing for child support in California, you must establish that the state qualifies as the child's home state under Cal. Fam. Code § 3402(g) — meaning the child lived here for at least 6 consecutive months before filing.
-
Employment in California does not equal residency for jurisdiction purposes. Playing for the Lakers or working for a California employer does not automatically make California the proper forum for a child support case when the children live elsewhere.
-
Filing first matters strategically. Under the UCCJEA, the jurisdiction where proceedings are first filed generally has priority. If you anticipate a custody or support dispute, consult an attorney about timing and proper venue before the other parent files elsewhere.
-
International cases add complexity. When one parent lives abroad, California courts must apply the UCCJEA's international provisions (Cal. Fam. Code § 3405), which treat foreign countries similarly to other U.S. states for jurisdiction analysis — but enforcement across borders introduces additional hurdles.
-
High-income support cases attract extra scrutiny on jurisdiction. Courts recognize that the financial stakes in high-earner cases create strong incentives for forum shopping, and judges scrutinize whether the filing parent has a legitimate jurisdictional basis or is simply seeking a larger support order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you file for child support in California if the child does not live here?
Generally, no. California requires "home state" jurisdiction under Cal. Fam. Code § 3402(g), meaning the child must have lived in California with a parent for at least 6 consecutive months before filing. A parent's employment in California alone does not satisfy this residency requirement for the children.
What is forum shopping in a child support case?
Forum shopping occurs when a parent files in a jurisdiction chosen for its favorable support laws rather than the jurisdiction with the strongest connection to the family. California courts can dismiss cases under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 if another jurisdiction is more appropriate, considering where the children actually live and where proceedings were first filed.
Does California cap child support for high-income earners?
No. Unlike Texas, which caps obligor net resources at $9,200 per month for guideline calculations, California has no income cap under Cal. Fam. Code § 4055. Courts can set support at or above the guideline amount for any income level, though Cal. Fam. Code § 4057(b)(3) allows deviation when the formula exceeds reasonable needs.
What happens when child support cases are filed in two different countries?
Under the UCCJEA (Cal. Fam. Code § 3426), when custody or support proceedings are already pending in another jurisdiction with home-state priority, the California court must communicate with the foreign court and generally defer to the first-filed case. The jurisdiction where the child has lived for at least 6 months typically takes precedence.
How much child support could Dončić owe under California's formula?
California's guideline formula under Cal. Fam. Code § 4055 uses net disposable income with no cap. On a $165 million contract over approximately 5 years, the monthly gross income alone would exceed $2.7 million. Actual support would depend on custody time-share percentages, deductions, and the court's assessment of the children's reasonable needs.
Connect with a California family law attorney to discuss jurisdiction questions or child support calculations specific to your situation.
This article discusses recent news and provides general legal commentary. It does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Consult a qualified family law attorney for advice specific to your situation.