The Honorable Chet Brooks 

Chairman 

Senate Committee on Human 

Resources 

State Capitol 

Austin, Texas 78711 

Dear Senator Brooks: 

You have asked our opinion as _ 

Opinion No. H-838 

Re: Effect of Senate 

Bill clause repealing 

section of Public Welfare 

Act earlier amended by 

the same Legislature. 

to the effect of two acts 

passed by the 64th Legislature. Both statutes involve article 

695c, section 8(a), V.T.C.S., which regulated child care 

institutions. 

House Bill 569 [A&s 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 502 at 13431 

amended article 695c, section 8(a) to add the following 

provisions: 

1. Definitions. 

. . . 

(k) Person. Person indicates en individual, an agency, an association, or a 

corporation. 

4a. Health Certificate. 

(a) No person operating a child. care 

facility may allow an individual to prepare 

or dispense food served in the facility if 

the individual does not possess as a minimum 

requirement a health certificate signed by a 

licensed physician within the previous 12- 

month period. 

p. 3534 
The Honorable Chet Brooks - page 2 (H-838) 

(b) The State Department of Public Welfare 

shall check the certificates during its 

inspection visits. 

(c) The Department of Public Welfare may, 

after consultation with the Department of 

Public Health, require additional minimum 

public health safety requirements of the 

persons covered by this Act. 

. . . 

12. Misdemeanor. 

Any person who (i) impersonates an 

official, employee, representative, agent, 

or solicitor of any licensed institution 

or agency within the scope of this Act, 

(ii) falsely represents himself as representing a licensee under this Act, (iii) 

solicits funds in the name of, or for, any 

licensee under this Act without authorization, 

(iv) without a license conducts a childcaring institution, a commercial child-caring 

institution, a child-placing agency, or 

places children for adoption, or (v) violates 

the provisions of Subsection 4a of this section, 

is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction is punishable by a fine of not more 

than One Thousand Dollars ($l,OOO), or 

confinement in county jail for not more 

than one (1) year, or both. Each day of 

violation shall be considered a separate 

offense. 

This Act became effective September 1, 1975. 

Subsequent to the enactment of House Bill 569, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 965 [Acts 1975, 64th Leg., ch. 

708 at 2240, found at V.T.C.S. art. 695a-31, effective on 

January 1, 1976. This bill is known as the Child Care 

Licensing Act and involves the regulation of child care 

facilities. Section 26 of this Act provides: 

p. 3535 
The Honorable Chet Brooks - page 3 (H-838) 

Sec. 26. Section 8(a), the Public 

Welfare Act of 1941, as amended 

(Article 695c, Vernon's Texas Civil 

Statutes), is repealed. 

Your question is whether this language effected a repeal 

of the health certificate requirements of House Bill 569. All 

laws enacted during the same session of the Legislature on the 

same subject are in & materia and a court, in seeking legislative intent, all,readtogether as if they were 

embraced in one act. 

sup. 1947). State v- Y? 

200 S.W.Zd 813 (Tex. 

The intent, once foun , will be given effect 

even when it seems to conflict with the literal words. 

Smith v. Smith, 519 S.W.2d 152 (Tex. Civ. App. -- Dallas 

m GFitref'a). 

In Eastern Texas Electric Co. v; Woods, 230 S.W. 498 

(Tex. Civ. App. xaumont 192rwritm'd). The 

court discussed two bills passed.in the same session of the 

Legislature and said: 

Having been passed at the same session of 

the Legislature, and within a few days of 

each other, it is to be presumed that they 

are imbued with the same spirit and actuated 

by the same policy, and should be construed 

each in the light of the other. Railway v. 

State, . . . 68 S.W. 777. It is but 

reasonable to conclude that the Legislature, 

when it passed the last act . . . had in mind 

its very recent previous legislation . . . and 

did not intend to reneal or modifv anv nart of 

same. Where there i'e no express repea$; none -- 

is deemed to be intended unless there IS such 

an inconsistency as precludes this presumption. 

230 S.W. 503. (Emphasis added). 

In Ex Parte Copeland, 91 S.W.Zd 700 (Tex. Crim. App. 1936), 

the Courtomminal Appeals adopted and applied a rule 

stating: 

p. 3536 
The Honorable Chet Brooks - page 4 (H-838) 

A clause in a statute purporting to repeal 

other statutes is subject to the same rule 

of interpretation as other enactments, and 

the intent must prevail over literal interpretation. An absolute repeal may be controlled 

as a qualified or partial repeal, where other 

parts of the statute show such to have been 

the real intent. 

See also Parshall v. State, 138 S.W. 759 (Tex. 

i?Xl) 

- 

,But where it is clear that a later act of 

Crim. App. 

the Legislature is meant to repeal an earlier act, even one passed 

during the same session, it is given effect. In Communit 

Public Service Co. v. James, 166 S.W.2d 395 (Tex. -TzG+ 

APP. -- Austin 1942,writ ref'd), two acts of the 47th 

Legislature, which met in 1941, were considered. The first 

was an amendment to the Mortgage Registration Tax Law, which 

had been passed in 1939. The second was a repealing act 

which expressly and specifically repealed the 1939 act "and 

all subsequent amendments theretoW even though the caption 

referred only to the 1939 act. The court nevertheless held 

that the 1941 amendment was also repealed. The court said: 

The caption was sufficient to give notice 

that the original tax law and all amendments which constituted substitutes therefor 

were imed in the subject matter of the 

repealing act . . . . The omission in the 

caption of the 1941 amendment is readily 

explained by the fact that when the bill was 

introduced the 1941 amendment had not been 

passed . . . . But whatever the cause of the 

omission, we are clear in the view that . . . 

the 1941 amendment was effectually repealed. 

166 s.w.2a 396. (Emphasis added). 

Here. the rewealer clause of the Child Care Licensina 

Act is express, specific, clear, and direct. See City ofBeaumont Independent School Diet. v. Broadus, 182 S.W.Zd 

406 (Tex. Civ. App. --Amarillo4h; writ ref'd). It repeals 

p. 3537 
The Honorable Chet Brooks - page 5 (H-838) 

section 8(a) of the Public Welfare Act of 1941, as amended. 

Furthermore, the capt$.g ;&the Child Care Licenxng Act 

includes the words: ; repealing Section 8(a) 

of the Public Welfare Act of iSill as amended (Article 695c, 

Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes) . . . .' 

However. onlv one vart of House Bill 569 is within the 

exact holding of Community Public Service Co v. James, 

because only one part of Housel~oconsti~t~substitute or replacement for previous provisions of article 

695c. The rest of the bill constitutes original legislation. 

House Bill 569 contained three substantive sections. 

The first section of the bill added paragraph (k) defining' 

person to subsection 1 of section(a) of the statute. The 

second section of the bill added subsection 4a to section 

8(a) of the statute so as tmuire health certificates in 

certain circumstances. But the third section of the bill 

amended and re laced former subsection 12 of section 8(a) of 

thetute, -+ t a penalty provision. It is this provision, 

subsection 12 of section 8(a) of article 695c as amended, 

which the Community Public Service case compelsus to 

regard as repealed. In our-n, however, the remainder 

of House Bill 569 has not been repealed. 

In Sutherland Statutory Construction 9 22.39 (Sands, 

4th ed. 1972), it is said: 

On the theory that provisions of the 

original act reenacted in an amendatory 

act are a continuation of the original 

act, it is held that repeal of the original 

act repeals those provisions of the original 

act which were reenacted in the amendatory 

act. And provisions added by the amendatory 

act which are not complete within themselves, 

that is, those that must be read together 

with the reenacted provisions of the original 

act in order to be understood or enforced are 

also held repealed. The same result follows if 

the original act is not reenacted as amended 

because the amendatory act cannot be understood 

or enforced without reference to the original 

p. 3538 
The Honorable Chet Brooks - page 6 (H-838) 

A provision in a bill or act may be considered independent, complete and self-contained even though it refers to 

some.other act. State v. Southwestern Gas & Electric Co., 

193 S.W.2d 675 (Taur 19461. 

-- 

When all legislation [see also Acts 1975, 64th Leg., 

ch. 292 at 7461 passed by the6mLegielature concerning 

section 3(a) of article 695c is read~together as one act, it 

is clear that the object of all of the provisions is to 

provide better protection for children, particularly those 

coming into contact with child-caring or child-placing 

agencies. It is also clear that the two substantive sections 

of House Bill 569 which would remain after repeal of the 

penal amendatory section became effective could constitute a 

whole and comwlete statute and be siven effect without 

reference to the expressly repealed section. cf. Board of 

~"~~~~30:T~~rr~~p~~~~~~~s~;l Dist. 5 PensiFBq 649 

ose sections are not incompatable 

with the Child Care Licensing Act because the definitionsof 

“persons” in the two bills are complementary and the statutory 

requirement regarding health cards in House Bill 569 is 

readily integrated with the Child Care Licensing Act requirements 

that the Department of Public Welfare specify standards for 

adequate and healthy food services by licensees. 

In our opinion, therefore, only the portion of House 

Bill 569 which amended and replaced subsection 12 of article 

695c, section S(a), the penalty section, was repealed by the 

Child Care Licensing Act and the remaining provisions of 

House Bill 569 survive. 

SUMMARY 

The repeal of article 695c, section S(a), 

V.T.C.S. by the Child Care Licensing Act, 

article 695a-3, V.T.C.S. did not repeal 

p. 3539 
The Honorable Chet Brooks - page 7 (H-838) 

added subsection 4a of article 695c, 

section 8(a), which was an independent, 

complete law enacted by the same session 

of the Legislature that enacted the 

Child Care Licensing Act. 

Attorney General of Texas 

Opinion Committee 

p. 3540