JOaN I,. Fl1x.L

A-m- o-AI. August 24, George N. Rodriguez, Jr. El Paso County Attorney Room 201City-County Building El Paso, Texas 79901

Dear Mr. Rodriguez: Opinion No. H- 89 Re: Whether fees collected

under Articles 42. I2 and 42.13, V.T.C.C.P., may be used tofinance operation of Juvenile Probation Department Your letter of May 22, 1973, requests an opinion ofthis office as towhether fees collected from adult probationers under $ba(a) ofArticle 42.12 and Article 42.13, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, can properly be used in financing the costs of operation ofajuvenile probation department. Section 6a(a) ofArticle 42.12 (The Adult Probation and Parole Law) provides as follows :

“Sec. 6a. (a) A court granting probation may fix afee not exceeding $10per month tobe paid to the court by the probationer during the probationary period. The court may make payment ofthe fee a condition of granting or continuing the probation. ” Article 2338-1, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, concerns “delinquent children. ” Section 13ofArticle 2338-l authorizes thejuvenile court, after hearing to:

“(I) place the chi.ld on probation or under supervision in his own home or in thecustody ofa relative or other fit person, upon such terms as the court shall determine;
. . . .

p. 407The Honorable George N. Rodriguez, page 2 (H-89)

“(3) make such further disposition as the court may deem tobe for the best interest ofthe child, except as herein otherwise provided. ” We have found noprovision inArticle 2338-l or related **statutes** for collecting a supervisory fee similar to the one provided for inArticle 42.12 above. Section 12ofArticle 42.12 now makes §6a thereof applicable toArticle 42.13, The Misdemeanor Probation Law. Before 1967, it did not. See Acts 1967, 60th Leg., p. 1745, ch. 659 S29. Compare Attorney General Opinion M-985 (1971). You have referred us toAttorney General Opinion No. M-784 (1971) which discusses the proper use ofthe fee col,lected under Articles 42.12 and 42.13 as follows (emphasis added):

“We are ofthe opinion that the phrase ‘for use in administering the probation laws, ’as found in Subsection (b) ofSection ba, supra, must be liberally construed, and considered in connection with the purpose ofthe Adult Probation and Parole Law -- the maintenance of effective probationary program (cf. the underscored portion ofSection 10, supra).

“Accordingly, you are advised that it is the opinion of this office thatfees permitted to be collected pursuant toArticle 42.12(Q), Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, may be distributed for the following purposes, inter alia: salaries ofprobation -- officers, secretaries and other office personnel; probation office expenses: auto travel aHowances for probation offices: and bona fide educationa, training expenses for probation officers (including registration fees, travel, and subsistence expenses while attending seminars or taking academic training at colleges or universities or other appropriate institutions which sponsor courses of study or training

p. 408.’

.

The Honorable George N. Rodriguez, Jr., page 3 (H-89)

relevant tothe education and training of probation officers). The foregoing purposes are authorized by, and within the scope of, the Adult Probation and Parole Law. ” The question here is whether the funds collected can be used to finance juvenile probation programs. Section 6a(b) ofArticle 42.12 provides that “the **court** shall distribute the fees.
. . for **use** in administering the probation laws. ‘I Section 10of Article 42.12 contains some ,language which indicates the possibility ofa co-relation between adult andjuvenile probation programs. Itreads in part:

“The judge or judges, with the approval of the

juvenile board of the county, may authorize the chief probation or chief juvenile officer toestablish a sep**arate** division ofadult probation and appoint adult probation officers and such other personnel as required. Itis the further intent ofthis Act that the same person serving as aprobation officer for juveniles shall not be required to serve as aprobation officer for adults and vice-versa. ” Itis certainly the general duty ofthe various district courts toact in the best interests ofjuveniles and toprotect their rights and interests in every way possible. See Echols v. State, 481S.W. 2d 160 (Tex. Civ.App., Houston, 1972); Dudley v. State, 219S.W. 2d 574 (Tex. Civ.App., Amarillo, 1949). After considering al,1of the above we have concluded that the primary purpose ofthe fund inquestion is the financing and administration of the Adult Probation Law as specified in Opinion No. M-784 quoted above. However, if such purpose is fulfilled and surplus funds arc onhand we cannot say that the statute or the legislative intent prohibits **use** of such funde for financing and administering juvenile probation.

p. 409The Honorable George N. Rodriguez, Jr., page 4 (H-89)

We therefore hold that the district judge orjudges charged with the responsibility ofadministering the Adult Probation Laws under Articles 42.12 and 42.13 may .intheir discretion direct the use of surplus funds for administration ofjuvenile probation. SUMMARY Fees col.lected under Artic:les 42.12 and 42.13, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, should be used primarily for adult probation **but** surplus funds can be used for juvenile probation in the discretion of **the** district judge orjudges charged with the responsibility ofadministering adult probation laws. Yours very truly, A 

# v Attorney General of Texas _AqBROVED:

DAVID MI KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 410