Court Opinion

ID: 9678007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:08:37.058125+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:01.138547
License: Public Domain

HILL, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority, because I believe that the mother’s testimony that the child is with the father without her permission but that she felt that she could not do anything about it because of his age is sufficient to support the trial court’s decision that the relinquishment was not voluntary. I do not agree, however, with the majority’s conclusion that there must be a formal agreement in order for there to be a voluntary relinquishment. For example, an older child might decide on his own to go live with the possessory conservator and the managing conservator might decide that the child’s decision was correct and permit the child to go. Since communication is very often a *552problem in these situations, it is possible that this could occur in the absence of any express agreement between the managing and possessory conservator. Such a relinquishment would be voluntary and the terms of the statute should apply. The absence of a formal agreement would not make such a voluntary relinquishment involuntary. Since so much interaction between managing conservators and posses-sory conservators is done on an informal basis, the requirement of a “formal agreement,” when none is required by the statute, would result, in many instances, in the defeat of the purpose of the statute.