issues are whether under the UCCJA the New Jersey courts should enforce the California judgment and whether under the UCCJA the New Jersey courts may properly modify the custody judgment of the California court. Because the principal issue involved custody of a minor and the attendant urgency due to the need of the child to begin school, we issued an order without opinion 93 N.J. 15. Our order reversed the judgment of the Appellate Division and reinstated the judgment of the Superior Court, Chancery Division. This opinion now follows. The United States Supreme Court has not clearly delineated the impact of the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const., Art. IV, § 1, on custody adjudications. See New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610, 67 S.Ct. 903, 91 L.Ed. 1133 (1947) (<HOLDING>); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 73 S.Ct. 840,
holding that another states reservation of personal jurisdiction over a florida resident for the purpose of modifying its decree may last as long as the effectiveness of the decree and that no dueprocess violation occurs by the entry of a default modification against the florida resident if the florida resident was afforded proper notice holding new york could lawfully modify a florida custody decree because florida court had right under florida law to change the decree holding that florida courts would apply florida law to contracts insuring real property located within the state holding that contract signed in new york by promisor from florida and partially performed in florida was governed by new york law because it was executed in new york holding north carolina had authority to modify new york custody decree if the north carolina court found changed circumstances because new york decree was modifiable under new york law on showing of changed circumstances