This section authorizes notice and proof of service to be made by any method allowed by either the State which issues the notice or the State where the notice is received. This eliminates the need to specify the type of notice in the Act and therefore the provisions of Section 5 of the UCCJA which specified how notice was to be accomplished were eliminated. The change reflects an approach in this Act to use local law to determine many procedural issues. Thus, service by facsimile is permissible if allowed by local rule in either State. In addition, where special service or notice rules are available for some procedures, in either jurisdiction, they could be utilized under this Act. For example, if a case involves domestic violence and the statute of either State would authorize notice to be served by a peace officer, such service could be used under this Act.

Although section 14-13-104 requires foreign countries to be treated as States for purposes of this Act, attorneys should be cautioned about service and notice in foreign countries. Countries have their own rules on service which must usually be followed. Attorneys should consult the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 36, T.I.A.S. 6638 (1965).

Law reviews. For article, "The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act", see 11 Colo. Law. 1224 (1982). For article, "Interstate Custody Problems Revisited", see 11 Colo. Law. 2596 (1982).

Annotator's note. Since § 14-13-108 is similar to §§ 14-13-105 and 14-13-106 as they existed prior to the 2000 repeal and reenactment of this article, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Notice by publication controlled by C.R.C.P. 4(h). Since subsection (1)(d) does not specify the number of times that publication is required to effect notice under the act, C.R.C.P. 4(h) controls. In re Blair, 42 Colo. App. 270, 592 P.2d 1354 (1979) (decided under former § 14-13-106).

In the best interests of the child, the hearing in a custody action should be swiftly concluded. Nelson v. District Court, 186 Colo. 381, 527 P.2d 811 (1974).

The custody hearing may be properly made part of a habeas corpus proceeding, which is considered to be a suit in equity. Nelson v. District Court, 186 Colo. 381, 527 P.2d 811 (1974).

Determination that court lacks jurisdiction not "decree". A determination by a court that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain a petition for custody is not a decree such as is contemplated by this section. Clark v. Kendrick, 670 P.2d 32 (Colo. App. 1983).