Lakers star Luka Dončić is fighting to dismiss his ex-fiancée Anamaria Goltes' child support petition filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, arguing California has no jurisdiction because both children, Gabriela (2) and Olivia (4 months), live in Slovenia with their mother. The case highlights a critical question California family courts handle regularly: which country or state has the legal authority to decide custody and support when parents live on different continents?
| Key Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| What happened | Dončić filed to dismiss Goltes' California child support and attorney fee petition, calling it "procedurally defective and legally improper" |
| When | Motion filed March 2026; season-ending hamstring injury April 2, 2026 |
| Where filed | Los Angeles County Superior Court, California |
| Who is affected | Two daughters: Gabriela (age 2) and Olivia (4 months), both residing in Slovenia |
| Key legal framework | California UCCJEA (Cal. Fam. Code § 3400 et seq.) and child support guidelines (Cal. Fam. Code § 4055) |
| Financial context | Dončić earns $45.9 million in the 2025-26 NBA season under a 3-year, $165 million Lakers extension |
Why Jurisdiction Is the Real Legal Battle Here
The central legal issue in this case is not how much Dončić should pay in child support. It is whether a California court has any authority to decide that question at all. Dončić's legal team has argued that Goltes filed in California specifically to take advantage of the state's generous child support guidelines, which calculate support based on a percentage of parental income with no statutory cap, rather than filing in Slovenia where both she and the children actually reside.
This is a textbook jurisdiction challenge. Under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, adopted in California as Cal. Fam. Code § 3400 through § 3465, a court can only exercise jurisdiction over a custody matter if the state is the child's "home state." The home state is defined as the state where the child lived with a parent for at least 6 consecutive months immediately before the filing. For children under 6 months old, the home state is wherever the child has lived since birth.
Neither Gabriela nor Olivia appears to meet that threshold for California. According to ESPN, both children reside in Slovenia with their mother, and Dončić has stated he has not seen his daughters since an incident at a Slovenian maternity hospital in December 2025. If the children have been living in Slovenia continuously, California likely does not qualify as their home state under the UCCJEA.
Foreign countries are treated as equivalent to U.S. states for UCCJEA purposes under Cal. Fam. Code § 3405(a). That means a Slovenian custody proceeding, if it meets UCCJEA-equivalent jurisdictional standards, could be recognized and enforced in California. Dončić has reportedly already filed a custody and support petition in Slovenia, which may further undermine the California court's basis for exercising jurisdiction.
How California Law Handles International Child Support for High Earners
Even if a California court were to accept jurisdiction, the child support calculation for someone earning $45.9 million annually presents its own complications. California uses a statewide uniform guideline formula under Cal. Fam. Code § 4055 that factors in each parent's net disposable income, the percentage of time each parent has physical custody, and the number of children.
California has no statutory maximum on child support. The guideline formula applies regardless of income level, and the resulting amount is presumed correct under Cal. Fam. Code § 4057(a). For a parent earning nearly $4 million per month, the guideline formula could produce a support figure far exceeding what most families spend on raising children.
However, Cal. Fam. Code § 4057(b)(3) does allow courts to deviate downward from the guideline when a parent's income is "extraordinarily high" and the guideline amount would exceed the needs of the children. California courts generally consider annual income above $2 million as potentially qualifying for this exception. At $45.9 million per year, Dončić would almost certainly qualify for a deviation analysis.
The court would then evaluate the children's actual needs: housing, food, clothing, education, healthcare, travel, extracurricular activities, and the standard of living the children would have enjoyed had the family remained together. Even with a downward deviation, support orders in cases involving professional athletes with nine-figure contracts routinely reach $20,000 to $50,000 or more per month.
Dončić's legal team has stated that he has been providing full financial support for both children "without limitation," which could factor into a court's analysis if the case proceeds.
How the UCCJEA Determines Which Court Decides
California courts apply a specific hierarchy when deciding jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The analysis under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421 follows four priority levels, and a court must work through them in order:
- Home state jurisdiction is the first and strongest basis, requiring the child to have lived in the state for 6 consecutive months before filing
- Significant connection jurisdiction applies only when no state qualifies as the home state, and the child and at least one parent have a significant connection to California with substantial evidence available in the state
- More appropriate forum jurisdiction applies when no court has home state or significant connection jurisdiction
- Default jurisdiction is available only when no other state qualifies under any of the above bases
For Goltes to establish California jurisdiction, she would likely need to argue either that California qualifies as a home state (difficult given the children reside in Slovenia) or that the children have a "significant connection" to California because their father lives and works there. Courts have generally held that a parent's residence alone, without the child's regular presence in the state, does not establish significant connection jurisdiction.
Practical Takeaways for California Residents
-
Where your child lives determines which court has jurisdiction over custody and support, not where the higher-earning parent works. Under the UCCJEA, the child's home state controls, and California courts will dismiss cases where they lack jurisdiction regardless of the income involved.
-
California's child support guideline has no income cap, but Cal. Fam. Code § 4057(b)(3) allows judges to deviate downward when income is extraordinarily high and the guideline amount exceeds children's reasonable needs. Courts generally consider income above $2 million annually as potentially triggering this analysis.
-
Filing a custody or support petition in a foreign country before the other parent files in California can strengthen a jurisdictional challenge, because the UCCJEA treats foreign proceedings as equivalent to sister-state proceedings under Cal. Fam. Code § 3405(a).
-
If you are involved in an international custody matter, document your child's physical residence carefully. Six consecutive months of residency in one jurisdiction establishes home state status, and that determination controls where all custody and support issues will be decided.
-
Voluntary financial support does not waive jurisdictional objections. A parent can provide full support for their children while simultaneously challenging the court's authority to issue an order.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can you file for child support in California if the children live in another country?
Generally, no. California requires "home state" jurisdiction under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421, meaning the child must have lived in California for at least 6 consecutive months before filing. Filing in California when children reside abroad faces a high likelihood of dismissal unless the petitioner can establish an alternative jurisdictional basis such as significant connection to the state.
How much child support would someone earning $45 million pay in California?
California's guideline formula under Cal. Fam. Code § 4055 has no income cap, but courts can deviate downward under Cal. Fam. Code § 4057(b)(3) when income exceeds approximately $2 million annually and the guideline amount surpasses children's reasonable needs. Even with a deviation, support orders for ultra-high earners typically range from $20,000 to $50,000 or more per month based on the children's actual standard of living.
Does the UCCJEA apply to international custody cases, not just interstate?
Yes. Under Cal. Fam. Code § 3405(a), foreign countries are treated as states for UCCJEA purposes, provided the foreign custody law does not violate fundamental principles of human rights. Slovenia, as an EU member nation with established family court systems, would almost certainly qualify for this treatment, meaning a Slovenian custody order could be recognized and enforced in California.
What happens if both parents file custody petitions in different countries at the same time?
California courts must defer to the jurisdiction that qualifies as the child's home state under Cal. Fam. Code § 3421. If Slovenia is the home state because the children have lived there for more than 6 months, California must decline jurisdiction even if a California petition was filed first. Courts communicate across jurisdictions to avoid conflicting orders, and the UCCJEA's priority system resolves which court proceeds.
Can a parent challenge California jurisdiction while still paying child support voluntarily?
Yes. Voluntary financial support does not constitute consent to California jurisdiction. A parent can continue providing support for their children while challenging the court's authority to issue a formal order. In fact, courts may view ongoing voluntary support favorably as evidence of parental responsibility, which is separate from the legal question of whether the court has jurisdiction under the UCCJEA.
To understand how California handles custody jurisdiction in detail, visit our California divorce and custody guide or speak with a family law attorney in your county through our directory.
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.