IN RESOLVING COMPETING CLAIMS, COURTS HAVE USED AN OVERRIDING GUIDELINE OF FURTHERING THE 'BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.' THIS GUIDELINE IS COMMON TO COURTS IN ALL 50 STATES. THE 'BEST INTERESTS' STANDARD HAS ALSO BEEN USED TO EXEMPT CUSTODY DECREES FROM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. AS STATED BY THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, RIGID APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT RULE, MANDATING A STATE TO ENFORCE A FINAL JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE, WOULD SUBVERT THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS WHICH MUST BE OPEN TO CONTINUING REVIEW. THE 1968 UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION ACT SEEKS TO DISCOURAGE CHILD SNATCHING BY GIVING THE STATE OR COUNTY THAT GRANTED THE INITIAL DECREE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. A NONCUSTODIAL PARENT IN A DISTANT STATE, THEREFORE, WHOM THE CHILD IS VISITING, CANNOT OBTAIN A CHANGE OF JURISDICTION IN HIS OR HER OWN STATE SINCE IT DIFFERS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHILD. THE NEW YORK NEHRA V. UHLAR CASE SHOWED A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT OF THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION ACT BY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE IMPORTANCE THE COURT GAVE TO THE ORIGINAL STATE DECREE AND THE ULTIMATE DENIAL OF CUSTODY TO AN ABDUCTING PARENT. TWO FEDERAL PROPOSALS MAY HELP RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CHILD-SNATCHING: A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE A STATE TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A SISTER STATE'S CUSTODY DECREE AND A BILL MAKING RESTRAINT OF A CHILD FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS IN VIOLATION OF A CUSTODY OR VISITATION RIGHT A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY 6 MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT AND A $10,000 FINE. (AOP)