The trial court did not err when it denied defendant father’s motion to dismiss the Chapter 50B complaints filed against him. His motion was based on his contention that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over him. The trial court correctly concluded father had sufficient contacts with the state of North Carolina to support the exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. 

To support the exercise of jurisdiction over a defendant who does not reside in North Carolina, the court must find that the defendant has purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting activities in the state. The defendant must be aware that he is “establishing a connection with the State of North Carolina. This awareness -whether actual or imputed – is what permits a court in North Carolina to exercise judicial authority over a nonresident defendant.” 

Defendant’s alleged domestic violence towards his children who reside in North Carolina, the alleged violence as it pertains to the custody modification action pending in North Carolina and defendant’s participation in that modification proceeding, and defendant’s legal representations in both the custody action and the Chapter 50B 13 proceeding, establish sufficient minimum contacts necessary for the trial court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant father. 

Demi-Lee Ziegler is the mother of both plaintiffs minor children. Demi Lee was appointed the GAL for the minor plaintiffs. Mother GAL filed complaints requesting a DVPO pursuant to Chapter 50B on behalf of each minor child against the defendant, the father of the minor children. Mother and the minor children reside in North Carolina because the mother brought the children to this state following her separation from the defendant. The defendant has been to North Carolina to visit the children and to participate in litigation regarding domestic violence and regarding the modification of custody, but he continued to reside in Tennessee, where the parties lived together before the separation of the parents. Defendant father filed motions to dismiss the complaints for a lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing he does not have sufficient contact with the state of North Carolina to support personal jurisdiction over him. The trial court denied his motion and he appealed. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court. The appellate court noted that the presence of defendant’s children in North Carolina, his visitation with them in North Carolina, and his participation in the custody modification proceedings in this state would not be sufficient alone to support the exercise of jurisdiction over him. However, there also were pending DSS actions in this state and in Tennessee regarding the allegations of violence. 



The court of appeals held that “by committing actions that may be deemed domestic violence towards his minor children whose custody modification was under consideration by the trial court in this State, and by hiring a North Carolina attorney to represent him in the domestic violence action, Defendant purposefully availed himself of the benefits and protections of the laws of this State.” He could “reasonably foresee that his alleged domestic violence towards his children, in the context of the custody modification action and under North Carolina’s domestic violence statute, would be a necessary consideration for the trial court’s best interest of the child analysis.” The appellate court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that defendant “could have reasonably anticipated that his actions would connect him to the state.”