Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes
La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.17 (2026)
Providing notice of a proposed relocation does not constitute a change of circumstance warranting a change of custody. Relocating without prior notice if there is a court order awarding custody or relocating in violation of a court order may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a modification of custody.
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
LA-LEGlegis.la.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
§355.17. Modification of custody
Providing notice of a proposed relocation does not constitute a change of circumstance warranting a change of custody. Relocating without prior notice if there is a court order awarding custody or relocating in violation of a court order may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a modification of custody.
Any change in the principal residence of a child, including one not meeting the threshold distance set out in R.S. 9:355.2, may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a modification of custody.
Acts 1997, No. 1173, §1; Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12
cases, 2000–2019 · leading case: Bonar v. Bonar, 768 So. 2d 194 (La. Ct. App. 2000).
Bonar v. Bonar, 768 So. 2d 194 (La. Ct. App. 2000). “R.S. 9:355.17, to enforce the terms of custody and visitation and to resolve any future disputes.”
Wootton v. Wootton, 138 So. 3d 1253 (La. Ct. App. 2014). “R.S. 9:355.17 was inapplicable because there was no relocation of a child as defined by La.”
Shamp v. Jezek, 836 So. 2d 185 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “Shamp appeals, contending that the Family Court erred in transferring the matter to Texas, as the Family Court retained exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under either LSA-R.S. 9:355.17 and/or LSA-R.S. 13:1700, et seq.”
Hartman v. Lambert, 7 So. 3d 758 (La. Ct. App. 2009). “R.S. 9:355.17, which provides, “[i]f the court grants authorization to relocate, the court may retain continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the case after relocation of the child as long as the non-relocating parent remains in the state.”
Martin v. Martin, 3 So. 3d 512 (La. Ct. App. 2008). “R.S. 9:355.17. Although 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.”
Curole v. Curole, 848 So. 2d 591 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 9:355.17. In written reasons for judgment, the court found that Grace's relocation proposal was made in good faith.”
Cooper v. Chamberlain, 266 So. 3d 316 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:355.17 provides: Providing notice of a proposed relocation does not constitute a change of circumstance warranting a change of custody.”
Cooper v. Chamberlain, 266 So. 3d 316 (La. Ct. App. 2018). “R.S. 9:355.17 provides: Providing notice of a proposed relocation does not constitute a change of circumstance warranting a change of custody.”
Melvin v. Miller, 181 So. 3d 826 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 9:355.17, On the other hand, “[rjelocating without prior-notice if there is a court order awarding custody ’ or relocating- in violation of a court order may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a modification of custody.”
Bonar v. Bonar, 539 S.E.2d 521 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000). “The case is remanded to the trial court with direction that it dispose of the matter in a manner consistent with this opinion.”
Lowe v. Lowe, 264 So. 3d 1254 (La. Ct. App. 2019). “Yadaira, whose residence was obviously known and acknowledged by the Lowe II court, became the domiciliary parent, and we do not consider her actions contempt of court.”
Lowe v. Lowe, 264 So. 3d 1254 (La. Ct. App. 2019). “Yadaira, whose residence was obviously known and acknowledged by the Lowe II court, became the domiciliary parent, and we do not consider her actions contempt of court.”
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.