La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.4
A. A person proposing relocation of a child's principal residence shall notify any person recognized as a parent and any other person awarded custody or visitation under a court decree as required by R.S. 9:355.5.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
LA-LEGlegis.la.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§355.4. Notice of proposed relocation of child; court authorization to relocate
A. A person proposing relocation of a child's principal residence shall notify any person recognized as a parent and any other person awarded custody or visitation under a court decree as required by R.S. 9:355.5.
B. If multiple persons have equal physical custody of a child under a court decree, the person proposing relocation shall notify the other of a proposed relocation of the principal residence of the child as required by R.S. 9:355.5, and before relocation shall obtain either court authorization to relocate, after a contradictory hearing, or the express written consent of the other person.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1209, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 26
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Hillman v. Davis
Hillman v. Davis (2002)
“3(A) provides that the custodial parent " shall notify the other parent of a proposed relocation of the child's principal residence as required by R.S. 9:355.4." (Emphasis added.) Notification under La.”
Martin v. Martin (2012)
“Before relocating the child, the custodial parent must seek judicial authorization or consent of the non-custodial parent: A parent entitled to primary custody of a child shall notify the other parent of a proposed relocation of the child’s principal residence as required by…”
Curole v. Curole (2002)
“R.S. 9:355.4. The primary custodian of the child or a parent who has equal physical custody may relocate the principal residence of the child after providing the required notice unless the parent entitled to notice initiates a proceeding seeking a temporary or permanent order to…”
Wilson v. Wilson (2015)
“R.S. 9:355.4 et seq. to Ms. Gra-cianette’s move, as opposed to solely using the “best interest of the child” analysis under La.”
Peacock v. Peacock (2005)
“R.S. 9:355.4 other than to provide Heath with actual notice of her intended relocation.”
Richardson v. RICHARDSON (BLACKMAR) (2001)
“R.S. 9:355.4, of her intent to relocate with the children from Baton Rouge, Louisiana to Naperville, Illinois, due to the demands of her new husband's job promotion and transfer.”
Wong v. Hoffman (2007)
“R.S. 9:355.4(B)(5) notification of her intent to relocate the children to Ohio.”
Johnson v. Johnson (2000)
“R.S. 9:355.4, Mrs. Keller sent notice to Mr.”
Granger v. Granger (2011)
“R.S. 9:355.4 because she had already relocated the child to California.”
Randazzo v. Prosperie (2013)
“Prosperie’s failure to send the notice required by LSA-R.S. 9:355.4 may have needlessly increased the cost of litigation.”
Fuqua v. Fuqua (2011)
“R.S. 9:355.4 A. The relocating parent has the burden of proving that the proposed relocation is (1) made in good faith and (2) in the best interest of the child.”
Robinson v. Robinson (2006)
“§ 25^-08 (2006)), Louisiana (La.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 9:355.4 (2006)), Missouri (Mo.”
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.4(A) — 5 cases
Mathes v. Faucheux (2017)
Richardson v. Richardson (2000)
State v. Titus (2019)
State v. Titus (2019)
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.4(B) — 5 cases
Hillman v. Davis (2002)
“3(A) provides that the custodial parent " shall notify the other parent of a proposed relocation of the child's principal residence as required by R.S. 9:355.4." (Emphasis added.) Notification under La.”
Granger v. Granger (2011)
“R.S. 9:355.4 because she had already relocated the child to California.”
Richardson v. Richardson (2000)
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.4(B)(5) — 2 cases
Wong v. Hoffman (2007)
“R.S. 9:355.4(B)(5) notification of her intent to relocate the children to Ohio.”
Curole v. Curole (2002)
— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.4(C) — 1 case
Richardson v. Richardson (2000)
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.