NBA star Luka Dončić has retained celebrity divorce attorney Laura Wasser and moved to dismiss ex-partner Anamaria Goltes's Los Angeles custody and support lawsuit, arguing their children habitually reside in Slovenia, not California. The dispute, reported by Russpain in June 2026, is a textbook habitual-residence fight pitting Slovenian and California jurisdiction against each other.
Key Facts
| Detail | Summary |
|---|---|
| What happened | Luka Dončić hired attorney Laura Wasser and moved to dismiss Anamaria Goltes's California custody/support lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds |
| When | Reported June 2026 by Russpain, citing ESPN reporting |
| Where | Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court; competing claim tied to Slovenia |
| Who's affected | Dončić, Goltes, and their children; precedent for cross-border NBA/athlete families |
| Key rule | California's UCCJEA (Cal. Fam. Code § 3421) and the Hague Convention on child abduction |
| Impact | A California court must first decide whether it has jurisdiction before ruling on custody or support |
Why this matters legally
The entire case turns on jurisdiction, not on who is the better parent. Before a California court can decide custody, it must determine whether California is the children's "home state" under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified at Cal. Fam. Code § 3421. The home state is generally where a child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months before the custody petition was filed. If the children have lived in Slovenia rather than California for that period, a California judge may lack the power to issue any custody order at all.
This is why Dončić's legal team is moving to dismiss rather than contesting the merits. In international custody disputes, the threshold question of habitual residence frequently decides the outcome before either parent argues about parenting time. Courts treat jurisdiction as a gatekeeping issue: an order issued without jurisdiction is void and unenforceable. When two legal systems both claim authority, the children's habitual residence becomes the single most consequential fact in the case.
How California law handles this
California courts apply the UCCJEA to determine custody jurisdiction in cases involving more than one state or country. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3405, California treats a foreign country like Slovenia as if it were another U.S. state for jurisdictional purposes. That means a Slovenian court's connection to the children carries the same weight a sister-state court would receive, and California must defer if Slovenia qualifies as the home state.
The six-month home-state rule in Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 is the central test. If the children resided in Slovenia for the six months preceding the petition, Slovenia — not California — is presumptively the home state. California can still claim "temporary emergency jurisdiction" under Cal. Fam. Code § 3424 if a child present in the state faces abandonment or threatened mistreatment, but that authority is narrow and short-lived, intended only to protect a child until the home-state court acts.
International cases add a second layer: the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which both the United States and Slovenia have ratified. The Hague framework requires that a child wrongfully removed from or retained away from their country of habitual residence be returned to that country so its courts can decide custody. The Convention does not resolve who gets custody — it resolves which country decides. A wrongful-retention claim under the Hague Convention can override an ordinary UCCJEA analysis and force the dispute back to the children's home country.
Support claims follow a separate track. California processes interstate and international child-support enforcement through the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), codified beginning at Cal. Fam. Code § 5700.101. UIFSA governs which jurisdiction may establish or modify a support order and how an order from one country is enforced in another, meaning the support and custody questions in a cross-border case can theoretically land in different forums.
Practical takeaways
For California parents navigating an international custody or support dispute, several concrete lessons emerge from this kind of cross-border fight:
-
Establish where your child has lived for the last six months before filing. The home-state determination under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 frequently decides the case before custody is ever argued, so document residence, school enrollment, and travel dates carefully.
-
Understand that a foreign country is treated like another state. Cal. Fam. Code § 3405 means a Slovenian or any foreign court's connection to your child receives the same deference a U.S. state court would, so do not assume filing in California guarantees a California ruling.
-
Recognize the Hague Convention can override everything. If a child is retained outside their habitual-residence country, a return petition can force the entire custody dispute back to that country regardless of where a parent files first.
-
Separate custody from support strategically. Custody jurisdiction follows the UCCJEA while support follows UIFSA (Cal. Fam. Code § 5700.101), so the two issues may proceed in different courts on different timelines.
-
Act quickly and preserve records. Temporary emergency jurisdiction under Cal. Fam. Code § 3424 is limited and expires once the home-state court engages, so delay can cost a parent the forum they prefer.
International custody battles like the one reported between Dončić and Goltes underscore how much can hinge on a single threshold question — where the children habitually live — long before a judge ever weighs the best interests of the child.
If you are facing a custody or support dispute that crosses state or national borders, an experienced California family law attorney can assess which court has jurisdiction and how the UCCJEA, UIFSA, and the Hague Convention apply to your situation. Connecting with a qualified attorney early often determines which legal system ultimately decides your case.
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.