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.