granting custody to child’s grandmother); Bliss v. Bliss, 733 A.2d 954, 958-59 (D.C.1999) (explaining that, pursuant to District of Col 49, 550 (1983) (ruling that Michigan version of UCCJA provided jurisdiction to hear custody dispute involving German temporary custody order because the Act applied “even if the foreign jurisdiction has not adopted the act, so long as the foreign court’s exercise of jurisdiction conforms with the criteria enumerated in the act”); Abu-Dalbouh v. Abu-Dalbouh, 547 N.W.2d 700, 704 (Minn.Ct.App.1996) (rejecting argument that Minnesota’s version of UCCJA did not apply to international custody disputes on grounds that Act specifically stated that it “ ‘extendfed] to international proceedings’ ”); Ivaldi v. Ivaldi, 147 N.J. 190, 685 A.2d 1319, 1323-26 (1996) (<HOLDING>); Tataragasi v. Tataragasi, 124 N.C.App. 255,
holding that the general policies of the uccja adopted by louisiana extend to the international area and recognition and enforcement of custody decrees are extended to other countries if there has been reasonable notice and the opportunity to be heard holding that the uccja applied to a california child custody order granting temporary custody of two children to their father holding that the iowa tort claims act allows claims for torts committed in foreign countries holding that the term state in new jersey version of uccja includes foreign countries thereby rendering jurisdictional portions of act applicable to international custody disputes holding purposeful and deliberate omission on enactment of new jersey sales and use tax of exemption found in new york counterpart act which served as the model for new jersey act