La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.11
If timely objection to a proposed relocation is made by a person entitled to object, the person proposing relocation shall not, absent express written consent of the objecting person, relocate the child pending resolution of the dispute by final order of the court, unless the person proposing relocation obtains a temporary order pursuant to R.S. 9:355.12.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
LA-LEGlegis.la.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§355.11. Court authorization to relocate
If timely objection to a proposed relocation is made by a person entitled to object, the person proposing relocation shall not, absent express written consent of the objecting person, relocate the child pending resolution of the dispute by final order of the court, unless the person proposing relocation obtains a temporary order pursuant to R.S. 9:355.12.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9
cases, 2000–2016 · leading case: State ex rel. Department of Social Services v. Whittington
State ex rel. Department of Social Services v. Whittington (2016)
“R.S. 9:355.11. We also note that at the August 5 hearing, Mother gave as her address one located on South Lopez Street in New Orleans, and she had not yet enrolled Child in a Texas school, all suggesting that she Considered Child’s presence with her in Texas temporary, pending…”
Martin v. Martin (2012)
“R.S. 9:355.11. The court in Hillman v. Davis explains: |fiIf a custodial parent gives the appropriate relocation notice, the proposed relocation “shall not constitute a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody.”
Gray v. Gray (2011)
“Subsequently, the trial court issued oral reasons for judgment finding that the Bergeron standard was not applicable to this situation because the statutory exception of LSA-R.S. 9:355.11 provides that the relocation of a party in violation of a court order is a sufficient…”
Elliott v. Elliott (2005)
“R.S. 9:355.11 clearly states that, "[p]roviding notice of a proposed relocation of a child shall not constitute a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody.”
Hillman v. Davis (2002)
“R.S. 9:355.11 (emphasis added). However, if the custodial parent fails to give the required relocation notice, that failure " may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a modification of custody.”
Masters v. Masters (2000)
“LSA-R.S. 9:355.11 provides in pertinent part: "Providing notice of a proposed relocation of a child shall not constitute a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody.”
Coleman v. Manley (2016)
“R.S. 9:355.11. This issue was not before, the trial court at either the January 15, 2015 or the July 31, 2015 hearings.”
Thompson v. Concina (2013)
““If a custodial parent gives the appropriate relocation notice, the proposed relocation “shall not constitute a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody.”
K.M.L.C. v. D.B.C. (2005)
“[The mother] also refused visitation with [the child] during lunch when she was in town for the court-ordered evaluations with Katherine Long. These instances of [the mother’s] refusal to promote the relationship between [the child] and [the father] occurred since the 14last…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.