Case Information
*1 The Attorney General of Texas .~une 6, 1984 JIM MATTOX
Attorney General Supreme Court Building Honorable Bob Bush Opinion No. JM-159 P. 0. Box 12546 Chairman Austin. TX. 76711. 2546 Committee on the Judiciary Re: Whether House Bill No. 1169, 512/475-2501 Texas House of Representatives 68th Legislature requires a minor Telex 9101674-1367 P. 0. Box 2910 child to have a social security Telecopier 512/475-0266 Austin, Texas 78769 number prior to the issuance of a decree in a child support suit 714 Jackson, Suite 700 Dallas, TX. 75202-4506 Dear Representative Bush: 2141742.6944 House Bill No. 1169, Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 424. ,15, at 2346 4024 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 amended section 11.15 of the Family Code by adding subsection (b). El Paso. TX. 79905.2793 Section 11.15 of the Family Code reads as follows: 9151533.3464 (b) A decree in a suit affecting the h 71 Texas, Suite 700 parent-child relationship, in which any person is ..,uston. TX. 77002-3111 ordered to pay child support, must contain the 713/223-5666 social security number of each party to the suit,
including the child. (Emphasis added).
606 Broadway, Suite 312 Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 You inform us that certain judges are interpreting section 11.15(b) to 606/747-5236 require that final divorce decrees cannot be entered without the
parents obtaining social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child affected thereby, including infants. 4399 N. Tenth, Suite B You ask us the following question: McAllen, TX. 76501.1665 5121662-4547
Is the legislative intent of section 11.15(b) of House Bill No. 1169 to require the acquisition of 200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 'a social security number for all children prior to San Antonio, TX. 76205-2797 entering a decree in such suits [affecting the 512/225-4191 parent-child relationship]?
An Equal Opportunityl
We answer your question in the negative; we conclude that section Affirmative Action Employer 11.15(b) requires the inclusion of such information & if it is
already available.
We are required to interpret a statute in a way which expresses only the will of the makers of the law, not forced nor strained, but simply such as the *2 Honorable Bob Bush - Page 2 (m-159)
words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction and will clearly sustain.
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. 1968). Clearly, section 11.15(b) requires the decree in every suit which affects the parent-child relationship and in which any person is ordered to pay child support to contain the social security number, if it is available, of every party to the suit, as well as of every child thereby affected. The issue is whether section 11.15(b) of the Family Code, in addition, requires a person to obtain such a number if he does not already have one. More specifically, the issue is whether to construe section 11.15(b) of the Family Code to include the phrase "and each party or child not already possessing a social security number must obtain one." Without clear evidence of legislative intent supporting such an inclusion, we decline to do so.
If the language of a statute is plain, a court will not eliminate or supply a word or clause on the supposition that it was included or omitted by inadvertance. Ratcliff v. State, 289 S.W. 1072 (Tex. Grim. APP. 1926); Winder v. King, 297 S.W. 689 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1927), rev'd on other grounds, 1 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1928). Courts will add words or phrases to a statute only when it is necessary to give effect to the clear legislative intent. Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corporation, 620 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1981); Sweeny Hospital District v. Carr, 378 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. 1964).
Our examination of the relevant legislative history does not reveal any intent on the part of the legislature to require that parties to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, as well as the children affected thereby, obtain a social security number if that person does not already possess one. The legislature merely intended to require the inclusion of such number if it has already been obtained. Accordingly, we conclude that section 11.15(b) of the Family Code requires, in any decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relation- ship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, the inclusion of the social security number of each party to the suit, as well as that of every child affected thereby, if that number has already been obtained; it does not require parents to obtain social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child who does not have such a card.
SUMMARY Section 11.15(b) of the Family Code requires, in any decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, the inclusion of the social security number of each party to the suit, as well *3 Honorable Bob Bush - Page 3 (JM-159)
as that of every child affected thereby, if that number has already been obtained; it does not require parents to obtain social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child who does not have such a card.
JIM MATTOX Attorney General of Texas TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Jim Moellinger
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVBD:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton