§355.14. Factors to determine contested relocation
A. In reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation, the court shall consider all relevant factors in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child, including the following:
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the relationship of the child with the person proposing relocation and with the non-relocating person, siblings, and other significant persons in the child's life.
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional development.
(3) The feasibility of preserving a good relationship between the non-relocating person and the child through suitable physical custody or visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the parties.
(4) The child's views about the proposed relocation, taking into consideration the age and maturity of the child.
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct by either the person seeking or the person opposing the relocation, either to promote or thwart the relationship of the child and the other party.
(6) How the relocation of the child will affect the general quality of life for the child, including but not limited to financial or emotional benefit and educational opportunity.
(7) The reasons of each person for seeking or opposing the relocation.
(8) The current employment and economic circumstances of each person and how the proposed relocation may affect the circumstances of the child.
(9) The extent to which the objecting person has fulfilled his financial obligations to the person seeking relocation, including child support, spousal support, and community property, and alimentary obligations.
(10) The feasibility of a relocation by the objecting person.
(11) Any history of substance abuse, harassment, or violence by either the person seeking or the person opposing relocation, including a consideration of the severity of the conduct and the failure or success of any attempts at rehabilitation.
(12) Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.
B. The court may not consider whether the person seeking relocation of the child may relocate without the child if relocation is denied or whether the person opposing relocation may also relocate if relocation is allowed.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1, eff. August 1, 2012.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
10 in the last 5 years), 2006–2026 · leading case:
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 12× “R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
Bonnette v. Bonnette, 185 So. 3d 321 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “R.S. 9:355.14 factors considered in reaching its January 23, 2014 decision.”
Singleton v. Singleton, 224 So. 3d 1134 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 14× “R.S. 9:355.14 and abused its discretion in finding that the move was not in the minor child’s best-interest.”
Randazzo v. Prosperie, 135 So. 3d 22 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 5× “” Additionally» “[i]f the issue of relocation is presented at the initial hearing to determine custody of and visitation with a child, the court shall consider also the factors set forth in R.S. 9:355.14 in making its initial determination.”
LaGraize v. Filson, 171 So. 3d 1047 (La. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:355.14. The court concluded that Ms.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Whittington, 193 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
“R.S. 9:355.14(A). |inAnd, while the statute provides that the trial court “shall consider” *1241 the factors, “the trial court is not required to expressly analyze each factor in its oral or written reasons for judgment in a relocation case.”
Odell v. Odell, 139 So. 3d 1275 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “R.S. 9:355.14 provides: A. In reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation, the court shall consider all relevant factors in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child, including the following: (1)The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and…”
In re J.E.T., 211 So. 3d 575 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “10 & LSA-R.S. 9:355.14. Pursuant to LSA-R.S. 9:355.”
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 9× “R.S. 9:355.14 in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child or children, the court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Hernandez v. Jenkins, 122 So. 3d 524 (La. 2013).
“R.S. 9:355.14. As discussed in footnote 3, supra, that amendment is not applicable to the instant case.”
Bailey v. Bailey, 196 So. 3d 96 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 9:355.14 in determining whether the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and in not awarding domiciliary status to either parent.”
Bush v. Bush, 137 So. 3d 49 (La. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “R.S. 9:355.14. Although there are twelve factors for the court to consider, it is not necessary for the court to expressly analyze each factor in its oral or written reasons for judgment in a relocation case.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(1): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(11): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(2): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(3): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(4): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(7): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(9): 1 case
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014).
“R.S. 9:355.14, the court is given twelve factors to consider in determining whether the requested relocation is in the best interest of the child: A.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A): 12 cases
State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Whittington, 193 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
“R.S. 9:355.14(A). |inAnd, while the statute provides that the trial court “shall consider” *1241 the factors, “the trial court is not required to expressly analyze each factor in its oral or written reasons for judgment in a relocation case.”
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of the child or children, the court’s determination is reviewed for abuse of discretion.”
Singleton v. Singleton, 224 So. 3d 1134 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 and abused its discretion in finding that the move was not in the minor child’s best-interest.”
Bailey v. Bailey, 196 So. 3d 96 (La. Ct. App. 2016).
“R.S. 9:355.14 in determining whether the proposed relocation was in the best interest of the children, and in not awarding domiciliary status to either parent.”
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A)(1): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A)(10): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A)(11): 1 case
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 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. § 9:355.14(A)(12): 1 case
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 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. § 9:355.14(A)(2): 2 cases
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A)(3): 2 cases
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A)(5): 2 cases
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 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. § 9:355.14(A)(6): 2 cases
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 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. § 9:355.14(A)(7): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(A)(8): 1 case
Blake v. Morris, 222 So. 3d 1277 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 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. § 9:355.14(A)(9): 1 case
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.14(B): 1 case
Singleton v. Singleton, 224 So. 3d 1134 (La. Ct. App. 2017).
“R.S. 9:355.14 and abused its discretion in finding that the move was not in the minor child’s best-interest.”
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.