child-custody determination made in a foreign country must be recognized and enforced under the UC-CJEA unless the child-custody law of the foreign country violates fundamental human-rights principles). Because uniform laws such as the UC-CJEA are intended to encourage the development of a common jurisprudence among the courts adopting them, we give great weight to the interpretation and application of a uniform law by other state judiciaries. Minn.Stat. § 645.22 (2010); Johnson v. Murray, 648 N.W.2d 664, 670 (Minn.2002). Other state courts have treated foreign countries the same as another state for the purpose of exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over child-custody and paternity proceedings under the UCCJEA. See, e.g., Bellew v. Larese, 288 Ga. 495, 706 S.E.2d 78, 78, 81 (2011) (<HOLDING>); Carter v. Carter, 276 Neb. 840, 758 N.W.2d 1,
holding a district court lost subjectmatter jurisdiction over the merits of the case when it issued an order of dismissal without prejudice 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 a district court had jurisdiction to impose rule 11 sanctions regardless of the existence of subjectmatter jurisdiction holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction is essential to courts authority to hear case