in Re the Office of the Attorney General of Texas
456 S.W.3d 153
| Tex. | 2015Background
- The Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG), as the State’s Title IV-D agency, sued Cornelius Jackson to establish paternity and obtain child support; an associate judge issued a temporary order establishing paternity and $500/month support.
- At the same hearing the associate judge declined to withhold certain personal information and found no basis to maintain a family violence indicator for Jackson, ordering OAG to remove that indicator from its files and system.
- The trial court affirmed the associate judge’s temporary order; OAG sought mandamus relief in the court of appeals unsuccessfully and then filed mandamus in the Texas Supreme Court.
- Federal law and regulations require Title IV-D agencies to maintain a family violence indicator in their child-support case registries and to collect specified standardized data elements, including the family violence indicator.
- OAG contends it alone has statutory authority and discretion to designate and retain the family violence indicator in its internal files; the trial court and Jackson contended the court could order removal under Family Code §105.006(c)(2) as an “any other order” to prevent harm from disclosure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may order OAG to remove the federal "family violence indicator" from OAG’s files/system | OAG: trial court lacks authority; federal/state law requires OAG to maintain indicator; OAG has discretion to assign/remove | Jackson/trial court: Family Code §105.006(c)(2) (“any other order”) lets court order removal to prevent harm and protect disclosure rights | Court held trial court lacked authority to order removal; OAG has sole authority to designate/maintain indicator; trial court may only weigh designation when deciding disclosure |
| Whether judicial review is available for OAG’s administrative designation of the indicator | OAG: designation is administrative and not subject to judicial review absent statute or property/constitutional violation | Jackson: designation affects core rights and thus requires judicial review | Court held no statute or asserted vested/constitutional right was shown to permit review; parties didn’t show a right to judicial review of the designation |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Rockwall v. Hughes, 246 S.W.3d 621 (Tex. 2008) (statutory construction reviewed de novo)
- Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637 (Tex. 2004) (words of a statute construed according to plain meaning)
- Stone v. Tex. Liquor Control Bd., 417 S.W.2d 385 (Tex. 1967) (administrative action review limited to statutory right or impairment of vested/constitutional rights)