JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Building 

P. 0. Box 12546 

Austin. TX. 76711. 2546 

512/475-2501 

Telex 9101674-1367 

Telecopier 512/475-0266 

714 Jackson, Suite 700 

Dallas, TX. 75202-4506 

2141742.6944 

4024 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 

El Paso. TX. 79905.2793 

9151533.3464 

h 

71 Texas, Suite 700 

..,uston. TX. 77002-3111 

713/223-5666 

606 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401-3479 

606/747-5236 

4399 N. Tenth, Suite B 

McAllen, TX. 76501.1665 

5121662-4547 

200 Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San Antonio, TX. 76205-2797 

512/225-4191 

An Equal Opportunityl 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attorney General of Texas 

.~une 6, 1984 

Honorable Bob Bush 

Chairman 

Committee on the Judiciary 

Texas House of Representatives 

P. 0. Box 2910 

Austin, Texas 78769 

Opinion No. JM-159 

Re: Whether House Bill No. 1169, 

68th Legislature requires a minor 

child to have a social security 

number prior to the issuance of 

a decree in a child support suit 

Dear Representative Bush: 

House Bill No. 1169, Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 424. ,15, at 2346 

amended section 11.15 of the Family Code by adding subsection (b). 

Section 11.15 of the Family Code reads as follows: 

(b) A decree in a suit affecting the 

parent-child relationship, in which any person is 

ordered to pay child support, must contain the 

social security number of each party to the suit, 

including the child. (Emphasis added). 

You inform us that certain judges are interpreting section 11.15(b) to 

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. 

You ask us the following question: 

Is the legislative intent of section 11.15(b) of 

House Bill No. 1169 to require the acquisition of 

'a social security number for all children prior to 

entering a decree in such suits [affecting the 

parent-child relationship]? 

We answer your question in the negative; we conclude that section 

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 

p. 702 
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 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 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 

p. 703 
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 

p. 704