La. R.S. 9:355.1, et seq. govern relocation of a child’s principal residence. Relocation is defined as 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.1

In a custody case, you should always advise your client of the obligations under the relocation statute. Clients won’t know this law unless you tell them about it. The La. R.S. 9:355.2 relocation procedures apply if any of the following exist:

• There is an intent to move out of state, regardless of the distance.
• There is no custody order, and there is an intent to relocate the child’s principal residence to any Louisiana location that is more than 75 miles from the other parent’s domicile.
• There is a custody order, and there is an intent to relocate the child’s principal residence to any Louisiana location that is more than 75 miles from the child’s principal residence at the time of the custody order.
• The parties have an equal physical custody order or the child has no principal residence, and there is an intent to establish the child’s principal residence within the state that is more than 75 miles from the other party’s domicile.

Generally, in cases where the parties have equal physical custody (close to 50:50 and distinguished from shared custody2 ), a parent may not relocate the child’s residence without either the other parent’s express written consent or the court’s authorization after a contradictory hearing.3

• 1La. R.S. 9:355.1(2).
• 2See La. R.S. 9:355.1 cmt. (b) (providing that temporary absences of greater than 60 days, such as summer vacation, do not trigger the relocation statute).
• 3La. R.S. 9:355.3(B).

If the relocation statute applies,1  a parent must notify the other parent of the proposed relocation unless the parents have entered into an express written agreement for the relocation or a domestic violence protective order is in effect.2  Note that the duty to notify the other parent applies even if there is no custody order. La. R.S. 9:355.4 requires notice to non-parents who have court ordered visitation. However, non-parents with only visitation orders may not object to the proposed relocation and may only seek a modification of the visitation schedule.3

Notice of a proposed relocation must be given not later than 60 days before the proposed relocation or 10 days after the relocating parent has knowledge of the information required for the relocation notice if the parent requesting relocation did not have sufficient information to give 60 days’ notice. Notice is by certified mail or commercial courier.4

The court may consider a relocation without prior notice as a factor in determining relocation and sufficient cause for paying reasonable expenses incurred by the person who is objecting. Be sure to advise clients of their duties to comply with the notice and approval requirements of La. R.S. 9:355.5 should they decide to relocate.

• 1See Section 4.9.1.
• 2La. R.S. 9:355.2(D), .4.
• 3La. R.S. 9:355.8.
• 4La. R.S. 9:355.5.

Unless a person has equal physical custody of the child under a court decree, a person opposed to the relocation must object within 30 days of receipt of the relocation notice.1  If an objection is made, the parent proposing relocation must initiate a summary proceeding for court approval of the relocation within 30 days of the receipt of the objection.2  If an objection is filed, court approval may only be granted after a contradictory hearing.3

The relocating parent has the burden of proving that the relocation is made in good faith and is in the child’s best interest.4  The court must consider the statutory factors in its determination of the best child’s best interest in a relocation proceeding; these are similar to, but not identical to, the Article 134 best interest factors for an award of custody.5

• 1La. R.S. 9:355.7.
• 2La. R.S. 9:355.9.
• 3Id.
• 4La. R.S. 9:355.10.
• 5La. R.S. 9:355.14.

Gray v. Gray.1  The court concluded in allowing the relocation that there was no reason to retreat from the heightened Bergeron standard when a party seeks to modify a considered custody decree even in the context of a request for relocation.

Trahan v. Kingrey.2  The court denied relocation. Because the trial court failed to conduct any analysis of the mandatory factors, a de novo review by the court of appeal resulted in a change of domiciliary parent status as well.

Smith v. Holtzclaw.3  The court accepted the parties’ agreement as to relocation.

Perez v. Perez.4  The court allowed relocation. Although the trial court did not consider the relocation factors specifically, the findings were reasonable based upon the entire record. The dissent by Judge Keaty illustrates a detailed analysis of the relocation factors.

McLain v. McLain.5  The court denied relocation as neither the good faith nor the best interests tests were met. This is a good case that discusses some legitimate reasons for good faith relocation.

Quainoo v. Morelon-Quainoo.6  The court allowed relocation. Underemployment of objecting parent as well as good faith and best interest of relocating parent required reversal of trial court.

Gathen v. Gathen.7  This case discussed the evidentiary standards and concluded that the failure of the trial court to expressly analyze each factor in La. R.S. 9:355.14 was not legal error. But how do we know whether the trial court has considered all the enumerated factors? To ensure that the trial court has considered these 12 factors, it is always best to ask the judge for written reasons for judgments in all messy, complicated cases. La. R.S. 9:355.14 requires the court to consider the 12 enumerated factors with factor #12 being a catchall: “Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.

• 12011-CJ-548 (La. 7/1/11), 65 So. 3d 1247.
• 22011-1900 (La. App. 1 Cir. 5/4/12), 98 So. 3d 347.
• 346,278 (La. App. 2 Cir. 4/13/11), 62 So. 3d 345.
• 42011-537 (La. App. 3 Cir. 2/29/12), 85 So. 3d 273.
• 52007-0752 (La. App. 4 Cir. 12/12/07), 974 So. 2d 726.
• 611-766 (La. App. 5 Cir. 4/10/12), 87 So. 3d 364.
• 72010-2312 (La. 5/10/11), 66 So. 3d 1.