Id. at 704. Our holding in Abvr-Dalbouh has persuasive value here because the UCCJEA that we apply here includes a provision similar to the UCCJA’s provision regarding the subject-matter jurisdiction of Minnesota courts that extends to international child-custody matters. Compare Minn.Stat. § 518A.23 (1998) (repealed 1999) (providing that “the general policies of [the UC-CJA] extend to international proceedings”) with Minn.Stat. § 518D.105 (providing that Minnesota courts must treat a foreign country as if it were a state of the United States for the purpose of applying the general and jurisdictional provisions of the UCCJEA, and (2008) (observing that the UCCJEA treats a foreign country as a state of the United States); In re Calderon-Garza, 81 S.W.3d 899, 902-04 (Tex.App.2002) (<HOLDING>). Although these cases do not involve children
holding that a child born to an intact marriage cannot be the subject of a paternity proceeding brought by a biological father and determining it was fundamental error for the trial court to grant relief pursuant to a nonexistent cause of action holding that texas district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction over paternity proceeding regarding minor born in texas and taken to mexico by mother a mexican citizen one day before putative father commenced paternity action holding that georgia district court had subjectmatter jurisdiction over childcustody proceeding regarding minor with dual italian and united states citizenship when one parent was citizen of and resided in italy holding that alleged biological father who sought to establish paternity waived constitutional error though it was undisputed that father had received no notice or hearing on prior paternity adjudication that created bar holding that although a putative father had standing to bring a paternity action the action could not proceed and the blood tests could not be ordered unless the trial court determined that the paternity action would serve the best interest of the child