769.201 Bases for jurisdiction over nonresident.

(1m) 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 any of the following applies:

(a) The individual is personally served with a summons or other notice within this state.

(b) The individual submits to the jurisdiction of this state by consent, by entering a general appearance or by filing a responsive document having the effect of waiving any contest to personal jurisdiction.

(c) The individual resided with the child in this state.

(d) The individual resided in this state and provided prenatal expenses or support for the child.

(e) The child resides in this state as a result of the acts or directives of the individual.

(f) The individual engaged in sexual intercourse in this state and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.

(g) The individual asserted parentage of a child in a declaration of paternal interest filed with the department of children and families under s. 48.025 or in a statement acknowledging paternity filed with the state registrar under s. 69.15 (3) (b) 1. or 3.

(h) There is any other basis consistent with the constitutions of this state and the United States for the exercise of personal jurisdiction.

(2m) The bases of personal jurisdiction set forth in sub. (1m) 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 s. 769.611 are met or, in the case of a foreign support order, unless the requirements of s. 769.615 are met.

History: 1993 a. 326; 1995 a. 27 s. 9126 (19); 2007 a. 20; 2009 a. 321; 2015 a. 82 s. 12.

When conception allegedly occurred in Florida and the non-resident alleged father visited Wisconsin only once following the birth, for an unspecified purpose, the child's residence in the state was an insufficient contact to subject the alleged father to the court's jurisdiction. State ex rel. N.R.Z. v. G.L.C. 152 Wis. 2d 97, 447 N.W.2d 533 (1989).

The predecessor of sub. (1m) (f), s. 767.01 (2) (b), 1989 stats., did not violate the due process clause. Paternity of C.A.K. 159 Wis. 2d 224, 464 N.W.2d 59 (Ct. App. 1990).