§355.2. Applicability
A. This Subpart shall apply to an order regarding custody of or visitation with a child issued:
(1) On or after August 15, 1997.
(2) Before August 15, 1997, if the existing custody order does not expressly govern the relocation of the child.
B. This Subpart shall apply to a proposed relocation when any of the following exist:
(1) There is intent to establish the principal residence of a child at any location outside the state.
(2) There is no court order awarding custody and there is an intent to establish the principal residence of a child at any location within the state that is at a distance of more than seventy-five miles from the domicile of the other parent.
(3) There is a court order awarding custody and there is an intent to establish the principal residence of a child at any location within the state that is at a distance of more than seventy-five miles from the principal residence of the child at the time that the most recent custody decree was rendered.
(4) If either no principal residence of a child has been designated by the court or the parties have equal physical custody, and there is an intent to establish the principal residence of a child at any location within the state that is at a distance of more than seventy-five miles from the domicile of a person entitled to object to relocation.
C. To the extent that this Subpart conflicts with an existing custody order, this Subpart shall not apply to the terms of that order that govern relocation.
D. This Subpart shall not apply when either of the following circumstances exist:
(1) The persons required to give notice of and the persons entitled to object to a proposed relocation have entered into an express written agreement for the relocation of the principal residence of the child.
(2) There is in effect an order issued pursuant to Domestic Abuse Assistance, R.S. 46:2131, et seq., Protection from Dating Violence, R.S. 46:2151, Part II of Chapter 28 of Title 46 or the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act or Injunctions and Incidental Orders, Parts IV and V of Chapter 1 of Code Title V of Code Book I of Title 9, except R.S. 9:372.1, all of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, Domestic Abuse Assistance, Chapter 8 of Title XV of the Children's Code, or any other restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or any protective order prohibiting a person from harming or going near or in the proximity of the other person.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
20
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case:
Gray v. Gray
Gray v. Gray (2011)
lactapp · cites it 6×
“1 sEven more significant, the applicability of the Act is limited in Section 9:355.2(B), as follows: To the extent that a provision of this Subpart conflicts with an existing custody order, this Subpart shall not apply to the terms of that order that governs relocation of the…”
Hulshoff v. Hulshoff (2011)
lactapp · cites it 3×
“R.S. 9:355.2 are inapplicable because there was no judgment concerning the relocation of the children nor was there an express written agreement concerning the relocation of the children.”
Bush v. Bush (2013)
lactapp · cites it 6×
“R.S. 9:355.2(B); 2) that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction preventing her, the domiciliary parent, from moving the children from Ponchatou-la to Slidell; and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct a Bergeron 2 hearing…”
Odell v. Odell (2014)
lactapp · cites it 2×
“R.S. 9:355.2 2 in her initial *1280 move to Walker.”
Nelson v. Land (2001)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2. Nevertheless, Ms. Nelson argues the trial court erred in applying the statute because "1) both parties were originally from Michigan; 2) the Defendant had previously relocated from Michigan to California; 3) The Defendant had consented to the relocation from…”
Stanley v. Stanley (1998)
la · cites it 3×
“R.S. 9:355.2, et seq., to apply to litigation in progress on August 15, 1997, regarding relocation which had to have occurred prior to this date, it could not have intended this statute to apply to a relocation which took place in 1993, as in the instant case.”
In re J.E.T. (2016)
lactapp
“The relocation statutes govern, among other situations, the relocation of a child’s principal residence to a location outside the state, LSA-R.S. 9:355.2(B)(1), and retain the “best interest of the child” standard as the fundamental principle governing relocation decisions.”
Bonar v. Bonar (2000)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2, the new subpart applies to an order regarding custody or visitation with a child issued on or after August 15, 1997.”
Coleman v. Manley (2016)
lactapp · cites it 2×
“R.S. 9:355.2, show that the proceedings before the trial court were a change in custody, rather than a relocation |1BaS contemplated by these statutes.”
Curole v. Curole (2002)
lactapp
“17 shall not apply when an order pursuant to Domestic Abuse Assistance, Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act, or any other restraining order, injunction or protective order prohibiting a spouse from harming or going near or in the proximity of the other spouse is in effect.”
State v. Titus (2019)
lactapp
“LSA-R.S. 9:355.2(B)(3). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1972 provides that a new trial shall be granted: (1) when the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence; (2) when the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.2(A)(2) — 1 case
Stanley v. Stanley (1998)
la
“R.S. 9:355.2, et seq., to apply to litigation in progress on August 15, 1997, regarding relocation which had to have occurred prior to this date, it could not have intended this statute to apply to a relocation which took place in 1993, as in the instant case.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.2(B) — 3 cases
Gray v. Gray (2011)
lactapp
“1 sEven more significant, the applicability of the Act is limited in Section 9:355.2(B), as follows: To the extent that a provision of this Subpart conflicts with an existing custody order, this Subpart shall not apply to the terms of that order that governs relocation of the…”
Hulshoff v. Hulshoff (2011)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2 are inapplicable because there was no judgment concerning the relocation of the children nor was there an express written agreement concerning the relocation of the children.”
Bush v. Bush (2013)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2(B); 2) that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction preventing her, the domiciliary parent, from moving the children from Ponchatou-la to Slidell; and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct a Bergeron 2 hearing…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.2(B)(1) — 2 cases
In re J.E.T. (2016)
lactapp
“The relocation statutes govern, among other situations, the relocation of a child’s principal residence to a location outside the state, LSA-R.S. 9:355.2(B)(1), and retain the “best interest of the child” standard as the fundamental principle governing relocation decisions.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.2(B)(3) — 6 cases
Odell v. Odell (2014)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2 2 in her initial *1280 move to Walker.”
Bush v. Bush (2013)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2(B); 2) that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction preventing her, the domiciliary parent, from moving the children from Ponchatou-la to Slidell; and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct a Bergeron 2 hearing…”
Coleman v. Manley (2016)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2, show that the proceedings before the trial court were a change in custody, rather than a relocation |1BaS contemplated by these statutes.”
State v. Titus (2019)
lactapp
“LSA-R.S. 9:355.2(B)(3). Louisiana Code of Civil Procedure article 1972 provides that a new trial shall be granted: (1) when the verdict or judgment appears clearly contrary to the law and the evidence; (2) when the party has discovered, since the trial, evidence important to the…”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.2(C) — 3 cases
Bush v. Bush (2013)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2(B); 2) that the trial court abused its discretion in issuing an injunction preventing her, the domiciliary parent, from moving the children from Ponchatou-la to Slidell; and 3) that the trial court abused its discretion when it failed to conduct a Bergeron 2 hearing…”
Hulshoff v. Hulshoff (2011)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.2 are inapplicable because there was no judgment concerning the relocation of the children nor was there an express written agreement concerning the relocation of the children.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.2(C)(2) — 1 case
Curole v. Curole (2002)
lactapp
“17 shall not apply when an order pursuant to Domestic Abuse Assistance, Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act, or any other restraining order, injunction or protective order prohibiting a spouse from harming or going near or in the proximity of the other spouse is in effect.”
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.