§355.3. Persons authorized to propose relocation of principal residence of a child
The following persons are authorized to propose relocation of the principal residence of a child by complying with the notice requirements of this Subpart:
(1) A person designated in a current court decree as the sole custodian.
(2) A person designated in a current court decree as a domiciliary parent in a joint custody arrangement.
(3) A person sharing equal physical custody under a current court decree.
(4) A person sharing equal parental authority under Chapter 5 of Title VII of Book I of the Louisiana Civil Code.
(5) A person who is the natural tutor of a child born outside of marriage.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1209, §1; Acts 2008, No. 751, §§1, 2, eff. July 3, 2008; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Major v. Major (2003)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.3. Without further evidence, we cannot say that the projected move by Ms.”
Martin v. Martin (2012)
lactapp · cites it 2×
“R.S. 9:355.3(A). The particularities of the notification requirement are listed in La.”
Peacock v. Peacock (2005)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.3, 9:355.4; Johnson v. Johnson, 99-1933 (La.”
H.S.C. v. C.E.C. (2006)
lactapp
“…. This letter appears to be the notice of relocation required by La. R.S. 9:355.3. . The trial court ruled in favor of the relocation from the bench, but the judgment was not reduced to writing until a few days later. . The”
Granger v. Granger (2011)
lactapp
“6 states (emphasis added): |RThe court may consider a failure to provide notice of a proposed relocation of a child or relocation without court authorization as provided by R.S. 9:355.3 and 355.4 as: (1) A factor in making its determination regarding the relocation of a child.”
Richardson v. Richardson (2000)
lactapp · cites it 2×
“LSA-R.S. 9:355.3, LSA-R.S. 9:355.4(A). The notice shall include the specific address, if known, of the new address, the mailing address if not the same, the home telephone number, if known, the date of the intended move or proposed relocation, a brief statement of the specific…”
Hsc v. Cec (2006)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.3. [4] The trial court ruled in favor of the relocation from the bench, but the judgment was not reduced to writing until a few days later.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.3(A) — 1 case
Martin v. Martin (2012)
lactapp
“R.S. 9:355.3(A). The particularities of the notification requirement are listed in La.”
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.