, 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General 

Supreme Court Suildlng 

P. 0. Box 12548 

Austin, TX. 70711. 2548 

512l475.2501 

Telex 9101874.1367 

Telecopier 512/4750268 

714 Jackson. Suite 700 

Dallas, TX. 75202.4506 

214l742-8944 

4824 Alberta Ave.. Suhe 180 

El Paso, TX. 79905.2793 

s15/533+%4 

1001 Texas. Suite 700 

Houston, TX. 77W2.3111 

713/22%5SS6 

806 Broadway, Suite 312 

Lubbock, TX. 79401.3479 

SW747.5238 

4309 N. Tenth. Suite S 

McAllen, TX. 78501.1885 

512BS2.4547 

2w Main Plaza, Suite 400 

San Antonio. TX. 78205.2797 

512/2254191 

An Equal Opportunity/ 

Affirmative Action Employer 

The Attornq General of Texas 

December 19. 1985 

Honorable Mike Driscoll 

Harris County Attorney 

1001 Preston, Suite 634 

Houston, Texas 77#D02 

Opinion No. .JM-396 

Re: Fees a district clerk 

charge in a suit affecting 

pareat-child relationship 

-7 

the 

Dear Mr. Driscoll: 

At the requerrt of the district clerk of Harris County, you ask 

the following qumtions regarding fees to be collected in suits 

affecting the pareac-child relationship: 

1. Is section 14.13 of the Family Code, as 

enacted by House Bill No. 1593 or as enacted by 

Senate Bill No. 1175, valid and effective, or are 

both valf'i and effective? 

2. Wh,nt fee may the district clerk charge for 

contempt actions for enforcement of child support 

orders anti suits to modify child support? 

3. M&g the district clerk charge a managing 

consemattx (represented by the attorney general) 

a $5 fee for orders withholding from earnings for 

child suplport? 

Your first qmstion arises because the Sixty-ninth Legislature 

enacted two amendments to the Family Code and provided that each of 

them would be cod:l!lied as Family Code 514.13. Both provisions deal 

with fees in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. The first 

of those provisions was part of House Bill No. 1593: 

Sec. 14.13. ADDITIONAL FILING FEE NOT 

REQUIRED. No additional filing fee may be 

collecte,i or required in a suit affecting the 

parent-c:xlld relationship when a party to the suit 

files a motion to modify a decree under Section 

14.08 of this code, or when a motion for the 

enforcemnt of an order is filed under Section 

14.09 or 14.091 of this code. This section does 

not prohi'bit the clerk from collecting a deposit 

in the amount set by the clerk as in other cases 

p. 1814 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - Page 2 (JM-396) 

for payment of enpected costs and other expenses 

arising in the proceeding. 

Acts 1985. 69th Leg., ch. 239, at 2039-40. Senate Bill No. 1175 

contained the other provision to be labeled Family Code section 14.13: 

Section 14.1:'. EXEMFTION FROM COURT FEES: 

ATTOENEY GENERAL. A clerk, auditor, sheriff, or 

other government officer or employee may not 

charge a fee or ather amount for services rendered 

in connection w:Xh an action or proceeding in 

which the attorney general of this state is 

representing a pctrty for the purpose of obtaining 

child support. 

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 232, at 1961. 

Amendments enacted in t:he same session of the legislature are to 

be harmonized, if possible. V.T.C.S. art. 5429b-2, 53.05(b). Also, 

clerical mistakes by the l@slature should be disregarded. Attorney 

General Opinions M-1207 (l!U2); C-106 (1963); V-1234 (1951). The two 

amendments at issue deal with different topics and do not conflict. 

The overlap in labeling is uothing more than a clerical error. Thus, 

both amendments are valid. 

The version of section 14.13 that is set out in House Bill No. 

1593 provides the answer 1:o your second question. mat provision 

makes clear that the distr::ct clerk may not charge a fee for a motion 

to modify a decree or a mction for enforcement of an order in a suit 

affecting the parent-child relationship. Apparently the district 

clerk's question arose becciu.se of uncertainty about the interpretation 

of the phrase "no additionXt filing fee" in that provision. We think 

that the word "additional" <.a a reference to the initiaa filing fee in 

the suit affecting the p.%:cent-child relationship. In effect, the 

provision means that the cost of filing motions to modify or motions 

to enforce orders is cover&. by the initial filing fee. 

Your third question is whether a clerk can charge a managing 

conservator who is represented by the attorney general a $5 fee for 

orders that are mailed to employers requiring them to withhold child 

support payments from an tmlployee's earnings. Generally, a district 

clerk may charge such a fee!: 

The employer nay deduct from the ordered amount 

an administrative fee of not more than $5 per 

month to be cred:.ted towards the obliger's payment 

of support. The clerk of the court may charge the 

requestor a-- rcztsonable fee for each order 

delivered to an %mployer by mail, not to exceed 

2. (Emphasis acEled). 

p. 1815 
Honorable Mike Driscoll - I'age 3 (JM-396) 

Family Code 514.43(i); Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 232, at 1972. As we 

discussed previously, however, a clerk way not charge a fee for 

services rendered in connection with a proceeding in which the 

attorney general is repres(nitiug a party for the purpose of obtaining 

child support. Family Code 514.13; Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 232, at 

1961. That exemption is applicable in the situation you describe. 

Therefore, you way uot chalge the $5 fee when the managing conservator 

is represented by the attorney general. 

SUMMARY 

Section 14.13 of the Family Code, as enacted by 

House Bill No. 1593, Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 

239, at 2039-40, and section 14.13 of the Family 

Code, as enacted by Senate Bill No. 1175, Acts 

1985, 69th Leg., ch. 232, at 1961, are both valid. 

The district cl,erk may not charge a fee for 

motions to modiflr a decree or motions for enforcement of orders iu suits affecting the parent-child 

relationship. When a managing conservator Is 

represented by thee attorney general, the district 

clerk may not ch,arge the managing conservator a 

fee for orders mailed to employers requiring them 

to withhold c2.ild support payments from an 

employee's earniu8s. 

Very truly yo , J-W m 

JIM MATTOX 

Attorney General of Texas 

JACKHIGHTOWRR 

First Assistant Attorney Gmeral 

MARY KELLER 

Executive Assistant Attoruty General 

ROBRRT GRAY 

Special Assistant Attorney General 

RICK GILPIN 

Chairman, Opinion Comaitte~a 

Prepared by Sarah Woelk 

Assistant Attorney General 

p. 1816