Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12 (2026)
Temporary order
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
LA-LEGlegis.la.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§355.12. Temporary order
A. The court may grant a temporary order allowing relocation.
B. The court, upon the request of the moving party, may hold an expedited preliminary hearing on the proposed relocation but shall not grant authorization to relocate the child on an ex parte basis.
C. If the court issues a temporary order authorizing relocation, the court shall not give undue weight to the temporary relocation as a factor in reaching its final determination.
D. If temporary relocation of a child is permitted, the court may require the person relocating the child to provide reasonable security guaranteeing that the court-ordered physical custody or visitation with the child will not be interrupted or interfered with or that the relocating person will return the child if court authorization for the relocation is denied at trial.
E. An order not in compliance with the provisions of this Section is not enforceable and is null and void.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2003, No. 676, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1, eff. August 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 70
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So. 3d 1 (La. 2011).
Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So. 3d 1 (La. 2011). “I also disagree with the majority's treatment of the primary question before this Court, that is, whether a trial court judgment must explicitly address each one of the twelve factors set forth in La.Rev.Stat. § 9:355.12. I find the majority opinion creates ambiguous…”
Curole v. Curole, 828 So. 2d 1094 (La. 2002). “After applying the statutory criteria listed in R.S. 9:355.12, the trial court determined that the mover did not meet her burden of proving the proposed relocation would be in the best interest of the children.”
Miller v. Miller, 799 So. 2d 753 (La. Ct. App. 2001). “R.S. 9:355.12 and La.Civ.Code art. 134 Peggy asserts that the trial court committed legal error in failing to consider all of the relocation factors of La.”
McLain v. McLain, 974 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 9:355.12, which lists a dozen factors the trial court is required to consider in reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation.”
H.S.C. v. C.E.C., 944 So. 2d 738 (La. Ct. App. 2006). “R.S. 9:355.12, 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.”
Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 25 So. 3d 1028 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12; finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and, granting the relocation.”
Gray v. Gray, 55 So. 3d 826 (La. Ct. App. 2011). “After a trial on the objection to relocation and the modification of custody, the court issued oral reasons for judgment discussing its consideration of the relocation factors of LSA-R.”
Hernandez v. Jenkins, 122 So. 3d 524 (La. 2013). “R.S. 9:355.12 in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child or children, the court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Johnson v. Spurlock, 986 So. 2d 724 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:355.12 requires the court to consider certain enumerated factors.”
Smith v. Smith, 16 So. 3d 643 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12 in assessing the relocation of the child.”
Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So. 2d 506 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:355.12 before finding that continuing the relocation would be in Jensen's best interest.”
Hains v. Hains, 36 So. 3d 289 (La. Ct. App. 2010). “Although LSA-R.S. 9:355.12 mandates that all the listed factors be considered, it does not require the court to give preferential consideration to any certain factor or factors.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(1): 3 cases
Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 25 So. 3d 1028 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12; finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and, granting the relocation.”
Franz v. Franz, 737 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(10): 1 case
Leaf v. Leaf, 929 So. 2d 131 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(12): 1 case
Peacock v. Peacock, 903 So. 2d 506 (La. Ct. App. 2005). “R.S. 9:355.12 before finding that continuing the relocation would be in Jensen's best interest.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(2): 2 cases
Franz v. Franz, 737 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(3): 4 cases
Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 25 So. 3d 1028 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12; finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and, granting the relocation.”
Leaf v. Leaf, 929 So. 2d 131 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Franz v. Franz, 737 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(4): 3 cases
Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 25 So. 3d 1028 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12; finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and, granting the relocation.”
Franz v. Franz, 737 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(5): 4 cases
Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 25 So. 3d 1028 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12; finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and, granting the relocation.”
Richardson v. Richardson, 25 So. 3d 203 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Franz v. Franz, 737 So. 2d 943 (La. Ct. App. 1999).
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(6): 3 cases
Jarnagin v. Jarnagin, 25 So. 3d 1028 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.12; finding that the plaintiff met her burden of proving that the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and, granting the relocation.”
Leaf v. Leaf, 929 So. 2d 131 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(7): 1 case
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(8): 2 cases
Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So. 3d 1 (La. 2011). “I also disagree with the majority's treatment of the primary question before this Court, that is, whether a trial court judgment must explicitly address each one of the twelve factors set forth in La.Rev.Stat. § 9:355.12. I find the majority opinion creates ambiguous…”
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(A): 7 cases
McLain v. McLain, 974 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 9:355.12, which lists a dozen factors the trial court is required to consider in reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation.”
Hernandez v. Jenkins, 122 So. 3d 524 (La. 2013). “R.S. 9:355.12 in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child or children, the court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Bingham v. Bingham, 12 So. 3d 448 (La. Ct. App. 2009).
Perez v. Perez, 85 So. 3d 273 (La. Ct. App. 2012).
In the Interest of S.L.G., 895 So. 2d 773 (La. Ct. App. 2005).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(A)(1): 1 case
Hernandez v. Jenkins, 122 So. 3d 524 (La. 2013). “R.S. 9:355.12 in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child or children, the court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(A)(5): 1 case
Leaf v. Leaf, 929 So. 2d 131 (La. Ct. App. 2006).
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(A)(9): 2 cases
Gathen v. Gathen, 66 So. 3d 1 (La. 2011). “I also disagree with the majority's treatment of the primary question before this Court, that is, whether a trial court judgment must explicitly address each one of the twelve factors set forth in La.Rev.Stat. § 9:355.12. I find the majority opinion creates ambiguous…”
Hernandez v. Jenkins, 122 So. 3d 524 (La. 2013). “R.S. 9:355.12 in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child or children, the court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(B): 1 case
McLain v. McLain, 974 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 2007). “R.S. 9:355.12, which lists a dozen factors the trial court is required to consider in reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.12(C): 1 case
Amanda Brasher Langston v. Gary Langston, II, No. 54,611-CA (La. Ct. App. May 25, 2022).
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.