Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas December 13, 1984
JIM MAllOX
Attorney General Honorable Tim Curry Opinion No. JM-249
Supremr Court BulldIn Criminal District Attorney P. 0. Box 12548 Re: Whether a commissioners Austin. TX. 7S711.254s Tarrant County Courthouse 512/4752501 or a board of district judges may Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Telex 9101874.13(17 the services of a county Telecopier 512147502SS
persons having a particular income 714 Jackson. Sulle 700 Dflhf. TX. 75202-450(1 Dear Hr. Curry: 214l742-8944
You ask us the, following two questions: 4S24 A,be,ta Ave.. Sulb 180 1. Dc~es the Tarrant County Commissioners Court El Paso, TX. 799052793 91YS3534S4 the board of district judges of Tarrant County
have under 5142a-1, the V.T.C.S. I to the services of the Tarrant 1001 Texas, Suit9 700 County Domestic Relations Office to those citizens Hourton. TX. 77002.3111 having am Income which does 71Y223.5880 to be determined by commissioners court? 800 Brosdwsy, SuIL 312 Lubbock. TX. 79401-3479 2. III alternative, may a graduated
8081747.5239 applicat:lon fee be implemented which would be based on the income of those persons 4309 N. Tenth. Suib B utilize the Domestic Relations McAllen. TX. 78501.199S Office, as is the practice the Tarrant County 512lSS2.4547 Eospital District?
200 Msin Plaza. SUlb 400
We answer both of your questions San Antonlo, TX. 782052797 51212254191 Article 5142a,-1. V.T.C.S.. provides the establishment
commissioners court of a Domestic Relations Office administered by the juvenile beard of a county or multicounty area or otherwise An Equal Opponunltyl Alflrmatlva Actlon Employer provided by the ~:ommissloners court. art. 5142~~1, Ill, further provides for the continued operation of
2(a). already existing domestic relations offices. Sections 3 and 4 of act set forth t!vs duties imposed upon, and additional provided by. such domestic offices. Section 5 permits certain courts to order that court ordered payment for child support be made to the doalclstic relations Section 6 governs the fees and costs which clay be charged. Section 6 of article 5142a-1, V.T.C.S., provides the following:
Ronorable Tim Curry - Page 2 (a) If a domestic relations office is
Sec. 6. existence prior to or is established pursuant this article, comissioners court may authorize one or more of the following:
(1) A fee not to exceed $5 on the filing in the county of each suit for the dissolution of a marriage and each suit affecting the parent-child relationship. Su:h fee shall be paid as other costs in the suit and collected by the clerk of the court.
(2) The assescmlent of attorney fees and court costs incurred by the domestic relations office in enforcing an order, for child support or visitation against the party !iound. to be in violation of the order. to be charged
(3) An application from relations
(4) A monthly charge of up to $1 per month to be paid each managing and possessory conseNator for wlwm services are provided by the domestic relationri office.
(b) Fees authD.rlred under this article shall be sent to the county treasurer other officer performing the duties of the county treasurer
deposit In a spec:i.al fund entitled the ‘domestic office fund.’ This fund shall be administered by th:e domestic relations office
shall be used to provide services by the domestic as provided In this article. County general funds may also be used to provide these services.
We must~interpret a stiitute in a way which expresses
only the will of l:be makers of the law, not forced nor strained, but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction and will clearly sustain.
Railroad Commission Texas v. Miller, S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex.
1968) (quoting Texas High*; y Ccmueission v. El Paso Bldg. h Const.
Trades Council, 234 S.W.Zd ;Fi7 (Tex. 1950)). Indeed in this instance, the statute itself is not ambiguous. See Col-Tex. Refining Co. v. Railroad Commission of Texas, 240 S.W.Zn47, 750 (Tex. 1951). No is conferred upor;a commissioners court to limit I *3 of persons receiving from a domestic
persons whose income does to be determined by the comlssloners court.
Nor do we accept the argument that a commissioners court possesses the inherent powar to in such fashion persons who may avsil themselves of the services offered by a domestic A countv has onlv those nowers which are conferred expressly or by nelessary implication by the constitution statutes of this state. Canales v. Laughlin, 214 S.W.Zd 451, 453 (Tex. 1948). Such autho& has neither expressly nor by necessary Implication been conferred upon commissioners-courts. Accordingly, we answer your question in the negative.
In your second question. you ask whether the commissioners may adopt a graduated application fee schedule based upon the income of those persons seeking the services. You refer us to such a scheme permitted county hospital c.istricts by section of article 4494n, For the same r’zasons discussed answer to your first question, we answer your second question
simply does not authorize the implementation of such a graduated fee schedule, and the conferring of such authority cannot be necessarily implied from those powers which are explicitly conferred.
SUMMARY 1. A commiss:loners court is not authorized by article 5142a-1, V.T.C.S.. the class of persons who rece::vc services offered by a Domestic Relations Office ‘to persons whose income does not exceed a doll P:C figure determined
commissioners court.
2. A cormnfss:Loners court is not authorized by 5142a-1. V.T.C.S., to adopt a graduated schedule based on income to utilize of a Domestic Relations Office,
JIM MATTOX - Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney Gcmtleral
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorne:r General
RYCK GILPIN
Chairman. Opinion Committee
Prepared by Jim Moellinger
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilph, Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Tony Guillory
Jim Moellinger
Jennifer Riggs
Nancy Sutton
Bruce Youngblood
p. 11'16