La. R.S. » RS
Louisiana Revised Statutes & Codes

La. Rev. Stat. § 9:355.7 (2026)

Except for a person with equal physical custody of a child under a court decree, a person who is entitled to object to a proposed relocation of the principal residence of a child shall make any objection within thirty days after receipt of the notice.  The objection shall be made in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by commercial courier as defined in R.S. 13:3204(D), to the mailing address provided for the person proposing relocation in the notice of proposed relocation.

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section LA-LEGlegis.la.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§355.7.  Objection to relocation of child

Except for a person with equal physical custody of a child under a court decree, a person who is entitled to object to a proposed relocation of the principal residence of a child shall make any objection within thirty days after receipt of the notice.  The objection shall be made in writing by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by commercial courier as defined in R.S. 13:3204(D), to the mailing address provided for the person proposing relocation in the notice of proposed relocation.

A person with equal physical custody of a child under a court decree need not make an objection under this Section.  The rights of persons with equal physical custody are governed by R.S. 9:355.4(B).

Acts 2012, No. 627, §1.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2000–2024 · leading case: Curole v. Curole, 828 So. 2d 1094 (La. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Curole v. Curole, 828 So. 2d 1094 (La. 2002). “R.S. 9:355.7. Pursuant to La. R.S. 9:355.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Whittington, 193 So. 3d 1234 (La. Ct. App. 2016). “9:355.10 cmt. a. 1 rJ. Burden of Proof On appeal, Father’s first assignment of error is that the district court erroneously placed the burden of proof upon him, the non-relocating parent, in violation of the clear directive of La.”
Hillman v. Davis, 834 So. 2d 594 (La. Ct. App. 2002). “R.S. 9:355.7. If a custodial parent gives the appropriate relocation notice, the proposed relocation " shall not constitute a change of circumstances warranting a change of custody.”
Owens v. Owens, 140 So. 3d 865 (La. Ct. App. 2014). ““If an objection to the relocation is made in accordance with R.S. 9:355.7, the person wishing to relocate must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, on contradictory hearing, that relocation meets the good faith and best interest standards.”
Mathes v. Faucheux, 226 So. 3d 503 (La. Ct. App. 2017). ““If an objection to the relocation is made in accordance with R.S. 9:355.7, the person wishing to relocate must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, on contradictory hearing, that relocation meets the good faith and best [^interest standards.”
Richardson v. Richardson, 774 So. 2d 1264 (La. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 2× “Richardson failed to file an opposition to her notice of relocation within the twenty-day delay provided in LSA-R.S. 9:355.7 and 9:355.8, the exceptions she urged should have been sustained.”
Maggye Rebecca Turner Winterer v. Seth Russell Winterer (La. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 3× “4(B), the person required to give notice may relocate the principal residence of a child after providing the required notice unless a person entitled to object does so in compliance with R.S. 9:355.7. 21 If a written objection is sent in compliance with R.”
Carmelite Narcisse-Thomas v. Marc David Thomas (La. Ct. App. 2024). “R.S. 9:355.7,12 as in this matter, then “the person wishing to relocate must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, on contradictory hearing, that relocation meets the good faith and best interest standards.”
Melvin v. Miller, 181 So. 3d 826 (La. Ct. App. 2015). “R.S. 9:355.7. If the party entitled to notice fails to object, the party seeking to relocate the child’s principal residence may move forward in doing so.”
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.