There is a distinction between child snatching and child restraint, but the proposed law is unclear on this. Child snatching is the wrongful taking and concealing of a child by one parent from the other, whereas in child restraint, one parent refuses to allow access to the other parent for communication or visitation with the child. Neither is a custodial issue; custody is a separate concept dealing with court hearings and judicial decisions. The laws tend to refer to the parent with custody, but in reality, 70 percent of the abductions occur before a custody decree is awarded. Each child snatching case is unique, but there are underlying similarities. In nearly every case, the abducting parent takes the child out of the State. In the majority of cases the parents are separated but no court custody award has been made prior to the abduction. The average abducted child is 3 to 7 years of age. Usually the victim parent is unable to obtain a State felony warrant, or even a misdemeanor warrant, against the abducting parent. The burden of location is left entirely to the victim parent. As a result, thousands of helpless young children are being abducted across State lines and concealed by parents who have little fear of being found or prosecuted. Child snatching is not the action of loving and mature parents concerned with the welfare of their children. Child snatching is not the action of loving and mature parents concerned with the welfare of their children. Child snatching and child restraint are clearly abusive actions. Although this association is often asked how it could intend to prosecute parents for taking their children out of love; quite frankly, this organization has never once found a case in which a child was restrained or abducted which has bettered the child's condition. It should be noted, however, that S. 105 addresses only those cases of child snatching and child restraint in which a custody order was violated. This is of great concern to us for two reasons: first, because over 70 percent of the cases in our files occur prior to issuance of a custody award, and, second, because it requires a Federal agency to determine whether a custody order is valid and binding. In addition, we feel that consistency and uniformity in the enforcement of custody decrees is essential. This should be done by including a section that calls for full faith and credit in custody among the individual States. Three case histories are given.