Page 1 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
Regular Session, 2012 ENROLLED
SENATE BILL NO. 153
BY SENATORS BROOME AND PETERSON AND REPRESENTATIVES BARROW,
KATRINA JACKSON, MORENO, NORTON, SMITH, ST. GERMAIN
AND THIERRY (On Recommendation of the Louisiana State Law
Institute)
AN ACT1
To amend and reenact Subpart E of Part III of Chapter 1 of Code Title V of Code Book I of2
Title 9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, to be comprised of R.S. 9:355.13
through 355.19, to enact R.S. 9:357, and to direct the Louisiana State Law Institute4
to add a comment under Civil Code Article 134, relative to child custody and the5
relocation of the residence of a child; to provide for definitions; to provide for6
applicability; to provide for the proposal of relocation; to provide for notice; to7
provide for an objection; to provide for a limitation on an objection; to provide for8
the failure to object; to provide for the burden of proof; to provide for court9
authorization to relocate; to provide for a temporary order; to provide for the priority10
for trial; to provide for factors to determine a contested relocation; to provide for the11
appointment of a mental health expert; to provide for a modification of custody; to12
provide for a posting of security; to provide for sanctions; to provide for the use of13
technology; and to provide for related matters.14
Be it enacted by the Legislature of Louisiana:15
Section 1. Subpart E of Part III of Chapter 1 of Code Title V of Code Book I of Title16
9 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, comprised of R.S. 9:355.1 through 355.19, is17
hereby amended and reenacted to read as follows:18
SUBPART E. RELOCATING A CHILD'S RESIDENCE19
§355.1. Definitions20
As used in this Subpart:21
(1) "Equal physical custody" means that the parents share equal parental22
authority of the child absent a court order to the contrary.23
ACT No. 627 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 2 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
(2) "Parent entitled to primary custody" means a parent designated by a court1
order as the sole or primary custodian or domiciliary parent within a joint custody2
arrangement, but does not include a parent who has equal physical custody.3
(3) (1) "Principal residence of a child" means:4
(a) The location designated by a court to be the primary residence of the5
child.6
(b) In the absence of a court order, the location at which the parties have7
expressly agreed that the child will primarily reside.8
(c) In the absence of a court order or an express agreement, the location, if9
any, at which the child has spent the majority of time during the prior six months.10
(4)(2) "Relocation" means: means a11
(a) Intent to establish legal residence with the child at any location outside12
of the state.13
(b) If there is no court order awarding custody, an intent to establish legal14
residence with the child at any location within the state that is at a distance of more15
than one hundred fifty miles from the other parent. If there is a court order awarding16
custody, then an intent to establish legal residence with the child at a distance of17
more than one hundred fifty miles from the domicile of the primary custodian at the18
time the custody decree was rendered.19
(c) A change in the principal residence of a child for a period of sixty days20
or more, but does not include a temporary absence from the principal residence.21
Comments - 2012 Revision22
(a) This revision moves the geographic threshold for application of the23
relocation statutes to R.S. 9:355.2.24
(b) Absences of more than sixty days which are temporary - including, for25
instance, a summer holiday - are not relocation as defined in this Subpart. 26
27
§355.2. Applicability28
A. This Subpart shall apply to an order regarding custody of or visitation29
with a child issued:30
(1) On or after August 15, 1997.31
(2) Before August 15, 1997, if the existing custody order does not expressly32 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 3 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
govern the relocation of the child.1
B. This Subpart shall apply to a proposed relocation when any of the2
following exist:3
(1) There is intent to establish the principal residence of a child at any4
location outside the state.5
(2) There is no court order awarding custody and there is an intent to6
establish the principal residence of a child at any location within the state that7
is at a distance of more than seventy-five miles from the domicile of the other8
parent.9
(3) There is a court order awarding custody and there is an intent to10
establish the principal residence of a child at any location within the state that11
is at a distance of more than seventy-five miles from the principal residence of12
the child at the time that the most recent custody decree was rendered.13
(4) If either no principal residence of a child has been designated by the14
court or the parties have equal physical custody, and there is an intent to15
establish the principal residence of a child at any location within the state that16
is at a distance of more than seventy-five miles from the domicile of a person17
entitled to object to relocation.18
B.C. To the extent that a provision of this Subpart conflicts with an existing19
custody order, this Subpart shall not apply to the terms of that order that governs20
govern relocation of the child.21
C.D. This Subpart shall not apply when either of the following22
circumstances exist:23
(1) The parents of a child persons required to give notice of and the24
persons entitled to object to a proposed relocation have entered into an express25
written agreement for the a temporary relocation of that child's the principal26
residence of the child regardless of the duration of the temporary relocation.27
(2) An There is in effect an order issued pursuant to Domestic Abuse28
Assistance, R.S. 46:2131, et seq., Protection from Dating Violence, R.S. 46:2151,29
Part II of Chapter 28 of Title 46 or the Post-Separation Family Violence Relief Act30 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 4 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
or Injunctions and Incidental Orders, Parts IV and V of Chapter 1 of Code Title V1
of Code Book I of Title 9, except R.S. 9:372.1, all of the Louisiana Revised Statutes2
of 1950, Domestic Abuse Assistance, Chapter 8 of Title XV of the Children's Code,3
or any other restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or any4
protective order prohibiting a spouse person from harming or going near or in the5
proximity of the other spouse is in effect person.6
Comments - 2012 Revision7
(a) This revision reduces the threshold distance for application of the8
relocation statutes from one hundred fifty miles to seventy-five miles in recognition9
of the likelihood that weekday visitation and the general ability to participate in the10
child's daily life will be substantially affected by distances of more than seventy-five11
miles. The relocation laws of a number of other states hinge upon relocations12
involving even shorter distances. See, e.g., Ala. Code 1975 §30-3-162 (60 miles);13
Florida Stat. §61.13001 (50 miles); Maine Rev. Stat. §1657 (60 miles); Or. Rev. Stat.14
§107.159 (60 miles).15
16
(b) "Equal physical custody" in Paragraph (4) of Subsection B of this Section17
refers to a custody arrangement under which persons have equal or approximately18
equal physical custody. It should be interpreted to mean one-half or an19
approximately equal amount of time, expressed in percentages such as forty-nine20
percent/fifty-one percent. "Equal physical custody" is distinguished from "shared21
custody" under R.S. 9:315.9, which Louisiana courts have interpreted to include22
custody arrangements with a split of sixty-three percent/thirty-sev en percent. See,23
e.g., Westcott v. Westcott, 927 So. 2d 377 (La. App. 1st Cir. 2005). Such a split is24
not "equal physical custody" under this statute.25
26
(c) If a person proposes relocation of a child within the state and within27
distances shorter than those prescribed under Subsection B of this Section,28
Louisiana's relocation statutes have no application, and the person seeking to relocate29
has no obligation to provide notice or seek court approval in advance of the move.30
31
(d) Paragraph (3) of Subsection B of this Section changes the focus of the32
distance threshold from the domicile of the primary custodian at the time that the33
custody decree was rendered to the principal residence of the child at the time of the34
custody decree in light of the notion that the body of relocation statutes focuses on35
a relocation of the child and not his caregivers.36
37
(e) See R.S. 9:355.7 and 355.8 regarding the persons entitled to object to a38
proposed relocation. Not all persons entitled to notice of a relocation are permitted39
to object.40
41
(f) The purpose of Paragraph (2) of Subsection D of this Section is to prevent42
the application of Louisiana's child relocation statutes, requiring the party proposing43
relocation to notify a person entitled to receive notice of the details of the proposed44
move, in situations involving family violence, domestic abuse, and the like. The45
reference to "Part V of Chapter 1 of Code Title V of Code Book I of Title 9,"46
however, includes R.S. 9:372.1, which governs an injunction prohibiting harassment.47
When an injunction has been issued only under R.S. 9:372.1, there is insufficient48
justification for exempting the proposed relocation from the requirements of the49
child relocation statutes. 50
51
§355.3. Persons authorized to propose relocation of principal residence of a52 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 5 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
child1
The following persons are authorized to propose relocation of the2
principal residence of a child by complying with the notice requirements of this3
Subpart:4
(1) A person designated in a current court decree as the sole custodian.5
(2) A person designated in a current court decree as a domiciliary6
parent in a joint custody arrangement.7
(3) A person sharing equal physical custody under a current court8
decree.9
(4) A person sharing equal parental authority under Chapter 5 of Title10
VII of Book I of the Louisiana Civil Code.11
(5) A person who is the natural tutor of a child born outside of marriage.12
Comments - 2012 Revision13
(a) Persons authorized to propose relocation of a child's principal residence14
are generally those with legal decision-making authority over the child, including the15
sole custodian or domiciliary parent in a joint custody arrangement or the natural16
tutor of a child born outside of marriage. When parents are married and sharing17
equal parental authority, both are entitled to propose relocation. Regardless of who18
holds decision-making authority for the child, however, persons who share equal19
physical custody of the child under a court decree are equally authorized to propose20
relocation.21
22
(b) For the definition of "equal physical custody," see R.S. 9:355.2,23
Comment (b). 24
25
§355.3.§355.4. Notice of proposed relocation of child to other parent ;court26
authorization to relocate27
A. A parent entitled to primary custody of a child person proposing28
relocation of a child's principal residence shall notify the other any person29
recognized as a parent of a proposed relocation of the child's principal residence30
and any other person awarded custody or visitation under a court decree as31
required by R.S. 9:355.4, R.S. 9:355.5 but before relocation shall obtain either court32
authorization to relocate, after a contradictory hearing, or the written consent of the33
other parent prior to any relocation.34
B. If both parents multiple persons have equal physical custody of a child35 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 6 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
under a court decree, a parent the person proposing relocation shall notify the1
other parent of a proposed relocation of the child's principal residence of the child2
as required by R.S. 9:355.4, but R.S. 9:355.5, and before relocation shall obtain3
either court authorization to relocate, after a contradictory hearing, or the express4
written consent of the other parent prior to any relocation person.5
Comments - 2012 Revision6
(a) See R.S. 9:355.3 for a list of persons authorized to propose relocation of7
a child's principal residence.8
9
(b) For the definition of "equal physical custody," see R.S. 9:355.2,10
Comment (b). 11
12
(c) A "person recognized as a parent" under this provision includes persons13
who have been recognized by a court as parents in a filiation or avowal action,14
persons who are presumed to be parents under Louisiana Civil Code Articles 185 or15
195, and persons who have formally acknowledged a child, as set out in Louisiana16
Civil Code Article 196, though they have not been judicially recognized as such.17
18
§355.4.§355.5. Mailing notice of proposed relocation address19
A. Notice of a proposed relocation of the principal residence of a child shall20
be given by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by21
commercial courier as defined in R.S. 13:3204(D), to the last known address of the22
parent person entitled to notice under R.S. 9:355.4 no later than either any of the23
following:24
(1) The sixtieth day before the date of the intended move or proposed25
relocation.26
(2) The tenth day after the date that the parent person proposing relocation27
knows the information required to be furnished by Subsection B of this Section, if28
the parent person did not know and could not reasonably have known the29
information in sufficient time to comply with provide the sixty-day notice, and it is30
not reasonably possible to extend the time for relocation of the child.31
B. The following information, if available, shall be included with the notice32
of intended relocation of the child:33
(1) The current mailing address of the person proposing relocation.34
(1)(2) The intended new residence, including the specific physical address,35
if known.36 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 7 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
(2)(3) The intended new mailing address, if not the same.1
(3)(4) The home and cellular telephone number numbers of the person2
proposing relocation, if known.3
(4)(5) The date of the intended move or proposed relocation.4
(5)(6) A brief statement of the specific reasons for the proposed relocation5
of a child, if applicable.6
(6)(7) A proposal for a revised schedule of physical custody or visitation7
with the child.8
(7)(8) A statement informing the other parent that an the person entitled to9
object shall make any objection to the proposed relocation shall be filed in writing10
by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, within thirty days of11
receipt of the notice and that the other parent should seek legal advice immediately.12
C. A parent person required to give notice of a proposed relocation shall13
have a continuing duty to provide the information required by this Section as that14
information becomes known.15
Comment - 2012 Revision16
The proposal for a revised custody and visitation schedule described in17
Paragraph (7) of Subsection B of this Section has no legal effect. Any existing18
custody or visitation order remains in effect unless and until a court orders a19
modification of custody or visitation. The intent, however, is to require the person20
proposing relocation to consider and describe in writing how all persons entitled to21
custody or visitation under an existing order may continue to maintain their22
relationship with the child after the proposed relocation.23
24
§355.6. Failure to give notice of relocation25
The court may consider a failure to provide notice of a proposed relocation26
of a child as:27
(1) A factor in making its determination regarding the relocation of a child.28
(2) A basis for ordering the return of the child if the relocation has taken29
place without notice or court authorization.30
(3) Sufficient cause to order the parent seeking to relocate the child person31
proposing relocation to pay reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred by the32
person objecting to the relocation.33 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 8 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
§355.7. Objection to relocation of child1
Except for a person with equal physical custody of a child under a court2
decree, a person who is entitled to object to a proposed relocation of the3
principal residence of a child shall make any objection within thirty days after4
receipt of the notice. The objection shall be made in writing by registered or5
certified mail, return receipt requested, or delivered by commercial courier as6
defined in R.S. 13:3204(D), to the mailing address provided for the person7
proposing relocation in the notice of proposed relocation.8
A person with equal physical custody of a child under a court decree9
need not make an objection under this Section. The rights of persons with equal10
physical custody are governed by R.S. 9:355.4(B).11
Comments - 2012 Revision12
(a) The objection procedure described in this Section is subject to the13
limitations described in R.S. 9:355.8. Some persons entitled to receive notice of a14
proposed relocation of a child's residence are not permitted to object to the proposed15
relocation.16
17
(b) A person who is entitled to object to a proposed relocation but chooses18
not to do so may nonetheless commence an action to change legal or physical19
custody or the visitation schedule in light of the changed circumstances of the20
relocation.21
22
(c) In the absence of timely objection, retaining an attorney to handle an23
objection to relocation is not sufficient to require the person proposing relocation to24
initiate a proceeding.25
26
(d) For the definition of "equal physical custody," see R.S. 9:355.2,27
Comment (b).28
29
§355.8. Limitation on objection by non-parents30
A non-parent may object to the relocation only if he has been awarded31
custody. A non-parent who has been awarded visitation may initiate a32
proceeding to obtain a revised visitation schedule.33
Comments - 2012 Revision34
(a) This Section recognizes the primacy of parental rights over non-parent35
rights regarding relocation of a child. See generally Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S.36
57, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed. 49 (2000) (holding that Washington's non-parent37
visitation statute violated mother's fundamental right to raise her children as she saw38
fit). Although a non-parent who has not been awarded custody may be entitled to39
notice of a proposed relocation and may not object to a relocation, the non-parent40
may, if granted visitation, commence an action to revise the visitation schedule in41
light of the changed circumstances of the relocation.42 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 9 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
(b) This provision governs objections by non-parents only. It does not limit1
the right of a parent to object to a proposed relocation.2
3
§355.9. Effect of objection or failure to object to notice of proposed relocation4
Except as otherwise provided by R.S. 9:355.4(B), the person required to5
give notice may relocate the principal residence of a child after providing the6
required notice unless a person entitled to object does so in compliance with7
R.S. 9:355.7.8
If a written objection is sent in compliance with R.S. 9:355.7, the person9
proposing relocation of the principal residence of the child shall initiate within10
thirty days after receiving the objection a summary proceeding to obtain court11
approval to relocate. Court approval to relocate shall be granted only after a12
contradictory hearing.13
Comment - 2012 Revision14
If, at any time, the person proposing relocation and those entitled to object15
enter into the express written agreement on relocation described in R.S. 9:355.2(D),16
no summary proceeding or court approval to relocate is necessary. The relocation17
statutes do not apply to restrict moves for which the parties agree. R.S. 9:355.2(D).18
19
§355.13. §355.10. Burden of proof20
The relocating parent person proposing relocation has the burden of proof21
that the proposed relocation is made in good faith and is in the best interest of the22
child. In determining the child's best interest, the court shall consider the benefits23
which the child will derive either directly or indirectly from an enhancement in the24
relocating parent's general quality of life.25
Comments - 2012 Revision26
(a) Although the person proposing relocation has the burden to prove that the27
relocation attempt is made both in good faith and in the best interest of the child,28
there is no presumption in favor of or against relocation of the child's residence.29
This Section places the burden of proof on the person proposing relocation. If an30
objection to the relocation is made in accordance with R.S. 9:355.7, the person31
wishing to relocate must prove by a preponderance of the evidence, on contradictory32
hearing, that relocation meets the good faith and best interest standards.33
34
(b) This revision eliminates reference to the court's consideration of an35
enhancement in the quality of life of the person seeking relocation in determining the36
best interest of the child. It does not, however, change the law. A detailed list of37
factors to be considered in determining whether relocation is in the best interest of38
the child is set out in R.S. 9:355.14, and among them is a consideration of "how the39 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 10 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
relocation of the child will affect the general quality of life for the child, including1
but not limited to financial or emotional benefit or education opportunity."2
3
§355.5.§355.11. Court authorization to relocate4
A parent seeking to relocate the principal residence of a child If timely5
objection to a proposed relocation is made by a person entitled to object, the6
person proposing relocation shall not, absent express written consent, remove of7
the objecting person, relocate the child pending resolution of the dispute, or by8
final order of the court, unless the parent person proposing relocation obtains a9
temporary order to do so pursuant to R.S. 9:355.10 R.S. 9:355.12.10
§355.10.§355.12. Temporary order11
A. The court may grant a temporary order allowing a parent to relocate12
relocation.13
B. The court, upon the request of the moving parent party, may hold a14
limited evidentiary an expedited preliminary hearing on the proposed relocation15
but may shall not grant court authorization to remove relocate the child on an ex16
parte basis.17
C. If the court issues a temporary order authorizing a parent to relocate with18
the child relocation, the court may shall not give undue weight to the temporary19
relocation as a factor in reaching its final determination.20
D. If temporary relocation of a child is permitted, the court may require the21
parent person relocating the child to provide reasonable security guaranteeing that22
the court ordered court-ordered physical custody or visitation with the child will23
not be interrupted or interfered with by the relocating parent or that the relocating24
parent person will return the child if court authorization for the removal relocation25
is denied at the final hearing trial.26
E. An order not in compliance with the provisions of this Section is not27
enforceable and is null and void.28
Comment - 2012 Revision29
Subsection (E) of this Section tracks the language of C.C.P. Art. 3945(E),30
which makes temporary custody orders unenforceable and null and void if not issued31
in compliance.32
33 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 11 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
§355.9.§355.13. Priority for temporary and final hearing trial1
A hearing trial on either a temporary or permanent order permitting or2
restricting the proposed relocation shall be accorded appropriate priority on the3
court's docket assigned within sixty days after the filing of the motion to obtain4
court approval to relocate.5
Comments - 2012 Revision6
(a) The trial referenced here is the final hearing on the merits of the7
relocation; it is to be distinguished from a preliminary hearing on relocation,8
described in R.S. 9:355.12.9
10
(b) After entry of an order on relocation, a Louisiana court may retain11
jurisdiction consistent with Louisiana law and the Uniform Child Custody12
Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. (R.S. 13:1814).13
14
§355.12.§355.14. Factors to determine contested relocation15
A. In reaching its decision regarding a proposed relocation, the court shall16
consider the following all relevant factors in determining whether relocation is17
in the best interest of the child, including the following:18
(1) The nature, quality, extent of involvement, and duration of the child's19
relationship of the child with the parent person proposing to relocate relocation and20
with the non-relocating parent person, siblings, and other significant persons in the21
child's life.22
(2) The age, developmental stage, needs of the child, and the likely impact23
the relocation will have on the child's physical, educational, and emotional24
development, taking into consideration any special needs of the child.25
(3) The feasibility of preserving a good relationship between the non-26
relocating parent person and the child through suitable physical custody or27
visitation arrangements, considering the logistics and financial circumstances of the28
parties.29
(4) The child's preference views about the proposed relocation, taking into30
consideration the age and maturity of the child.31
(5) Whether there is an established pattern of conduct of the parent by either32
the person seeking or the person opposing the relocation, either to promote or33 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 12 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
thwart the relationship of the child and the nonrelocating other party.1
(6) Whether How the relocation of the child will enhance affect the general2
quality of life for both the custodial parent seeking the relocation and the child,3
including but not limited to financial or emotional benefit or and educational4
opportunity.5
(7) The reasons of each parent person for seeking or opposing the relocation.6
(8) The current employment and economic circumstances of each parent7
person and whether or not how the proposed relocation is necessary to improve may8
affect the circumstances of the parent seeking relocation of the child.9
(9) The extent to which the objecting parent person has fulfilled his or her10
financial obligations to the parent person seeking relocation, including child support,11
spousal support, and community property , and alimentary obligations.12
(10) The feasibility of a relocation by the objecting parent person.13
(11) Any history of substance abuse , harassment, or violence by either14
parent the person seeking or the person opposing relocation, including a15
consideration of the severity of such the conduct and the failure or success of any16
attempts at rehabilitation.17
(12) Any other factors affecting the best interest of the child.18
B. The court may not consider whether or not the person seeking relocation19
of the child will may relocate without the child if relocation is denied or whether or20
not the person opposing relocation will may also relocate if relocation is allowed.21
Comments - 2012 Revision22
(a) This revision changes the opening language of the statute to make it clear23
that, as in cases requiring the application of the factors of Civil Code Article 134, a24
court need not make a factual finding on every factor.25
26
(b) In considering the needs of the child and the developmental impact of27
relocation, the court may take into account not only the general needs of similarly28
situated children, but also any special needs of the particular child under29
consideration.30
31
(c) The "logistics" referred to in Paragraph (3) of Subsection A of this32
Section may include a consideration of the amount of time the child will be required33
to spend traveling in order to maintain a meaningful relationship with the person34
objecting to the relocation, the distance involved, and the proximity, availability, and35
safety of travel arrangements.36
37 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 13 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
(d) A consideration of the child's "preference" is a traditional factor in cases1
involving custody. The word "views" is used here in order to broaden the inquiry and2
to decrease the potentially harmful impact of asking a child to choose in a relocation3
contest.4
5
(e) Because the focus of the best interest inquiry in relocation is on the child,6
references to improvements in the custodial parent's quality of life and the necessity7
of improving the circumstances of a parent in Paragraphs (6) and (8) of Subsection8
A of this Section have been eliminated. A child may benefit or suffer detriment9
either directly or indirectly from a change in the quality of life or economic10
circumstances of any person exercising custody or visitation with him, and such11
benefits and detriments are to be considered by the court. The assessment must12
focus on the effect of relocation on the child, however, and not the benefit that13
relocation will provide to the adults exercising custody or visitation rights.14
15
(f) The promotion of or interference with the relationship between the child16
and the other parent described in Paragraphs (3) and (5) of Subsection A of this17
Section may include a parent's willingness to make travel arrangements that allow18
the child meaningful time with both parents and that minimize the negative impact19
of long-distance parenting on the child.20
21
(g) Paragraph (7) of Subsection A of this Section may lead to a consideration22
of the mental and emotional well-being of both the person seeking relocation and the23
person opposing it. The substantial mental and emotional toll of custody24
proceedings should be considered in the relocation context, just as it is in Civil Code25
Article 134, on factors affecting the best interest of the child in custody disputes in26
general.27
28
§355.8.§355.15. Mental health expert; appointment29
The court, on motion of either party or on its own motion, may promptly30
appoint an independent mental health expert to render a determination as to whether31
the proposed relocation is in a report to assist the court in determining the best32
interest of the child.33
§355.15.§355.16. Application of factors at initial hearing34
If the issue of relocation is presented at the initial hearing to determine35
custody of and visitation with a child, the court shall apply consider also the factors36
set forth in R.S. 9:355.12 R.S. 9:355.14 in making its initial determination.37
Comment - 2012 Revision38
In an initial custody determination, the court will generally consider the39
factors concerning best interest of the child set out in Civil Code Article 134. This40
statute requires the court to consider application of the relevant factors specific to41
relocation in R.S. 9:355.14 as well as the Article 134 factors. Dicta in McLain v.42
McLain, 974 So.2d 726, 733 (La. App. 4th Cir. 2007), stating that the Article 13443
factors are "arguably not applicable" when relocation is at issue in the initial custody44
hearing, are no longer accurate under this revision.45
46
§355.17. Continuing jurisdiction47 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 14 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
If the court grants authorization to relocate, the court may retain continuing,1
exclusive jurisdiction of the case after relocation of the child as long as the non-2
relocating parent remains in the state.3
§355.11.§355.17. Proposed relocation not basis for modification Modification of4
custody5
Providing notice of a proposed relocation of a child shall does not constitute6
a change of circumstance warranting a change of custody. Moving Relocating7
without prior notice if there is a court order awarding custody or moving8
relocating in violation of a court order may constitute a change of circumstances9
warranting a modification of custody.10
Any change in the principal residence of a child, including one not11
meeting the threshold distance set out in R.S. 9:355.2, may constitute a change12
of circumstances warranting a modification of custody.13
Comments - 2012 Revision14
(a) In accordance with R.S. 9:355.8, not all persons receiving notice of a15
proposed relocation are entitled to object. Moving without prior notice or in16
violation of a court order may constitute a change of circumstances warranting a17
modification of custody, but only in a contest between a person proposing relocation18
and a person entitled to object to the proposed relocation.19
20
(b) The second paragraph of this Article clarifies that even a move of less21
than seventy-five miles may warrant a change of custody. Although such a move22
would not be sufficient to trigger the protection of the relocation statutes, courts have23
discretion to modify the current custodial arrangement after any move that makes an24
existing custody order unfeasible.25
26
§355.14.§355.18. Posting security27
If relocation of a child is permitted, the court may require the parent person28
relocating the child to provide reasonable security guaranteeing that the court29
ordered court-ordered physical custody or visitation with the child will not be30
interrupted or interfered with by the relocating party.31
§355.16.§355.19. Sanctions for unwarranted or frivolous proposal to relocate child32
or objection to relocation33
A. After notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court may34
impose a sanction on a parent person proposing a relocation of the child or objecting35
to a proposed relocation of a child if it determines that the proposal or objection was36 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 15 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
made or the objection was filed:1
(1) To harass For the purpose of harassing the other parent or to cause2
person or causing unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.3
(2) Without being warranted by a basis in existing law or based on the basis4
of a frivolous argument.5
(3) Based on allegations and other factual contentions which have no6
evidentiary support nor, if specifically so identified, could not have been reasonably7
believed to be likely to have evidentiary support after further investigation. In8
violation of Code of Civil Procedure Article 863(B).9
B. A sanction imposed under this Section shall be limited to what is10
sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others11
similarly situated. The sanction may consist of , or include, directives of a12
nonmonetary nature, an order to pay a penalty to the court, or, if imposed on motion13
and warranted for effective deterrence, an order directing payment to the movant of14
some or all of the reasonable attorney fees and other expenses incurred as a direct15
result of the violation reasonable expenses and attorney fees incurred as a direct16
result of the conduct.17
Section 2. R.S. 9:357 is hereby enacted to read as follows:18
§357. Use of technology19
The court shall consider ordering persons awarded custody or visitation20
to use technology, including video calling, telephone, text messaging, Internet21
communications, or other forms of technology, to facilitate communication with22
the child when it is in the best interest of the child.23
Section 3. The Louisiana State Law Institute is hereby directed to add the following24
comment under Civil Code Article 134:25
Art. 134. Factors in determining child's best interest26
* * *27
Comment - 2012 Revision28
The facilitation of the relationship between the child and the other party29
described in factor (10) may include a party's willingness to make travel30
arrangements and facilitate electronic communications that allow the child31 SB NO. 153 ENROLLED
Page 16 of 16
Coding: Words which are struck through are deletions from existing law;
words in boldface type and underscored are additions.
meaningful time with both parties and that minimize the negative impact of1
long-distance parenting on the child.2
3
Section 4. This Act shall not apply to any litigation pending on the effective date of4
this Act regarding the relocation of the principal residence of a child, but shall apply to any5
subsequent relocation after final disposition of that litigation.6
PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE
SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
APPROVED: