1.Bob lives in Pennsylvania, where he and his wife were divorced. Bob's ex, Doris, lives in California with their two children, Dick and Jane. (Yes, the children have a dog named Spot). Since the divorce, Bob sometimes visits the children in California and sometimes the children travel to Pennsylvania to visit. Doris goes to court in California to seek an increase in child support. Bob fails to appear. The California court applies the state's long-arm statute and increases Bob's support obligation from $100.00/week to $200.00/week. Bob argues the order increasing his support obligation is not enforceable against him. Is the order enforceable? For purposes of this question, there are no interstate compacts about child support. The sole determination is what is required under the United States Constitution to support a long-arm statute

A.Yes, Bob is responsible for his kids, and as long as knew about the California proceedings, he is bound by it.

B.Yes, since the kids are in California, and Bob has visited them there, minimum contacts exist to give the California court personal jurisdiction over Bob.

C.No, the California court lacks personal jurisdiction because Bob doesn't live there. Child support must be addressed in a court in Pennsylvania.

No, venue is improper.