Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1 (2026)

SUBPART E. RELOCATING A CHILD'S RESIDENCE

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

SUBPART E. RELOCATING A CHILD'S RESIDENCE

§355.1. Definitions

As used in this Subpart:

(1) "Principal residence of a child" means:

(a) The location designated by a court to be the primary residence of the child.

(b) In the absence of a court order, the location at which the parties have expressly agreed that the child will primarily reside.

(c) In the absence of a court order or an express agreement, the location, if any, at which the child has spent the majority of time during the prior six months.

(2) "Relocation" means a change in the principal residence of a child for a period of sixty days or more, but does not include a temporary absence from the principal residence.

Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2003, No. 1209, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 55 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Gray v. Gray, 55 So. 3d 826 (La. Ct. App. 2011).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Gray v. Gray, 55 So. 3d 826 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 12× “R.S. 9:355.1, et seq. While the best interest of the child test is always paramount, the "considered decree" of 2007 not only measured the relevant considerations of Civil Code Article 134 but also the special quality of life, parental employment, financial and feasibility…”

Bonnette v. Bonnette, 185 So. 3d 321 (La. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “R.S. 9:355.1(1). “The person proposing relocation has the.”

McLain v. McLain, 974 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 3× “R.S. 9:355.1, et seq., nor has she stated whether she intends to remain there indefinitely.”

State ex rel. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., Child Support Enf't ex rel. Bushman v. Knapp, 216 So. 3d 130 (La. Ct. App. 2017). “R.S. 9:355.1 et seq. . The parties further agreed that: Mr, Knapp would have access to Christopher's school and psychological records and would allow for daily telephone contact with Christopher for the parent not having physical custody.”

Major v. Major, 849 So. 2d 547 (La. Ct. App. 2003). “R.S. 9:355.1 et seq.) do not apply unless Ms.”

Wootton v. Wootton, 138 So. 3d 1253 (La. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Because the parties were seeking to litigate in Louisiana, albeit in different parishes, the third circuit concluded that the continuing and exclusive jurisdiction provisions of the UCCJEA did not apply.”

State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Whittington, 193 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 9:355.1(2); ‘The person proposing relocation has the' burden of proof that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the child.”

Silbernagel v. Silbernagel, 958 So. 2d 13 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “In order to modify the present custody arrangement, it was Eric Silbernagel's burden of proof to establish that a change in circumstances materially affecting the welfare of the child had occurred since the rendition of the stipulated judgment on August 30, 2004, and further…”

Masters v. Masters, 795 So. 2d 1271 (La. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The Mother did not become domiciliary parent until April 5, 2000, and she took the child to South Louisiana on April 7, 2000, without following the procedure of LSA-R.S. 9:355.1." Next, Dwayne alleged his second ground in the parties' new custody battle, as follows: "10.”

Hulshoff v. Hulshoff, 81 So. 3d 57 (La. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 3× “R.S. 9:355.1 et seq., were applicable. After making lengthy findings of fact, the trial court determined that Jennifer was in bad faith in moving to Florida.”

Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So. 2d 506 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “Discussion In his first assignment of error, Heath contends that the trial court erred in approving or allowing continuation of Leanna's out-of-state relocation with the parties' child.”

Richardson v. Richardson (blackmar), 802 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 9:355.19:355.17. Pursuant to La. R.”

Show all 55 citing cases →

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(1) — 2 cases

Bonnette v. Bonnette, 185 So. 3d 321 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 9:355.1(1). “The person proposing relocation has the.”

Kyle Durand v. Kandy Rose (La. Ct. App. 2022).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(2) — 6 cases

Bonnette v. Bonnette, 185 So. 3d 321 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “R.S. 9:355.1(1). “The person proposing relocation has the.”

Baxter v. Baxter, 171 So. 3d 1159 (La. Ct. App. 2015).

Kyron Gray Versus Ciera Rankins (La. Ct. App. 2024).

Kyle Durand v. Kandy Rose (La. Ct. App. 2022).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(4) — 3 cases

Gray v. Gray, 55 So. 3d 826 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “R.S. 9:355.1, et seq. While the best interest of the child test is always paramount, the "considered decree" of 2007 not only measured the relevant considerations of Civil Code Article 134 but also the special quality of life, parental employment, financial and feasibility…”

Bonnecarrere v. Bonnecarrere, 69 So. 3d 1225 (La. Ct. App. 2011).

Hartman v. Lambert, 7 So. 3d 758 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(4)(a) — 3 cases

McLain v. McLain, 974 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 9:355.1, et seq., nor has she stated whether she intends to remain there indefinitely.”

Bullock v. Bullock, 706 So. 2d 671 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(4)(b) — 1 case

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(4)(c) — 1 case

Bullock v. Bullock, 706 So. 2d 671 (La. Ct. App. 1998).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(A)(1) — 1 case

Bingham v. Bingham, 12 So. 3d 448 (La. Ct. App. 2009).

— La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.1(l)(c) — 1 case

Mathes v. Faucheux, 226 So. 3d 503 (La. Ct. App. 2017).

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.