Why Goltes Withdrew Her Child Support Claim Against Doncic

Anamarija Goltes withdrew her child support claim against Luka Doncic before a Los Angeles court on Monday, August 4. Three days later an explanation surfaced that does not match what she wrote in the filing herself.

The court filing gives a short, calm reason. Goltes stated she was dropping the case because she wants a settlement.

“I am withdrawing my child support claim with the express intention of resolving this matter peacefully and through mutual agreement, which is in the best interest of our children.”

The Slovenian outlet Delo, citing its own sources, tells a different story. According to those sources, her lawyers concluded the claim had no chance before a California court and that the court would have dismissed it anyway. The withdrawal, in that version, was a move to avoid a ruling that would certainly have gone against her.

Why Was the California Court’s Jurisdiction in Question?

Because the children do not live in California. Doncic’s legal team had already asked for the proceedings to be stayed and challenged the court’s jurisdiction on exactly that ground. In their filing, they stated that Goltes has lived in Slovenia with both daughters since May 2026.

His lawyers also added a detail that had not been public before. They said Doncic had asked her to move to California with the children, but she refused.

Doncic is represented by Laura Wasser, an American lawyer known for handling celebrity divorces. Her involvement was the first sign that the dispute would not be settled quietly.

The Timeline Explains the Dispute Better Than the Statements

The chronology here is worth more than what either side is saying. The engagement ended in early 2026, after ten years together. Goltes moved to Slovenia with the children in May. Only after that was the child support claim filed in Los Angeles.

In other words, by the time the claim was filed, the children had already been outside California for months. The jurisdiction question did not come up along the way, it hung over the case from day one. That is why the claim that the lawyers only later realized it would not hold up is not really news, it is a belated admission of a calculation that was already visible on the calendar.

What Changes for the Two Children

The former couple has two daughters, one two years old and one seven months old. The proceedings decided their fate indirectly, through the amount at stake and through which country even gets to rule on it.

An out of court settlement changes several things at once:

• the amount and terms stay out of the public court record, so they remain unknown to the public
• a process that could have dragged on for months shrinks to negotiations between two legal teams
• custody and financial obligations get resolved as one package instead of separately

If no settlement is reached, the dispute moves to wherever the children live. Slovenia is the logical venue in that case, and with it comes a different legal framework for calculating child support, since American and Slovenian standards do not match, either in method or in amount.

Two Versions of the Same Decision

What remains is that two stories exist about the same move. One is official, from the filing, and speaks of a peaceful resolution. The other is unofficial, out of Ljubljana, and speaks of a calculation that the case could not be won.

The two versions are not mutually exclusive. A lawyer who knows a case is bound to fail advises withdrawal, and the client announces that same withdrawal as a gesture of good will. The difference is that the first version carries a signature on a court document, while the second rests on sources that are not named.

For now, the only certainty is what the filings themselves say. The claim was withdrawn on August 4, the Los Angeles proceeding has stopped, and no amount of child support has been set.