/ 

, -- 

. - 

The Attorney General of Texas 

September 18, 1978 

JOHN L. HILL 

Attorney General 

Honorable Joe K. McGill 

County Attorney, Gaines County 

P. 0. Box 728 

Seminole, Texas 79360 

Opinion No. Ii- 1244 

Re: Whether Gaines County 

may spend funds to operate and 

maintain a day care facility. 

Dear Mr. McGill: 

You ask whether Gaines County may spend county funds for the 

provision of day care services to all children in the county. You state that 

the county contracts with a nonprofit child care corporation under article 

695a-4, V.T.C.S., which provides for the administration of federally established day care programs. See, e.g., 42 U.S.C. SS 602(a)(19)(G); 622(a)(l)(C). 

The center also cares for other children who do not come within the 

provisions of article 695a-4, V.T.C.S., and the county has paid some of the 

costs of their care. 

In Attorney General Opinion H-1189 (1978) we stated that a county did 

not have general authority to provide day care for all children in the county, 

although various statutes authorized the provision of care to specific groups 

of children. See also Attorney General Opinions M-264 (1968); O-5386 (1943). 

You suggest, however, that article 695a, V.T.C.S., or article 4418f, V.T.C.S., 

authorizes Gaines County to pay for day care for all children in the county 

who need it. 

c 

Article 695a provides for the enforcement of laws for the protection of 

defective, illegitimate, dependent, neglected and delinquent children. Sec. 2. 

It authorizes the commissioners court to appoint a Child Welfare Board to 

perform duties required of it by the commissioners court and State 

Department of Public Welfare in furtherance of the purposes of the statute. 

Sec. 4. A Texas court has stated that the County Child Welfare Board was 

created to deal with matters concerning defective, illegitimate, dependent, 

neglected and delinquent children, and could not take custody of children who 

did not meet those conditions. Bray v: S;hTzkz;; z.;zz;, (;Fs.$: 

App. - AmarIllo 1963, no writ) (per curlam ; 

3’70 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1963, no writ). 

P- 4949 
. 

Jo. -_ ., 

r 

I 

Honorable Joe K. McGill - Page 2 (H-1244) 

A 1969 amendment to article 695a authorized an increase in the size of the 

Child Welfare Board and added the following provision: 

In the interest of the welfare of all children in this state, 

it is essential that the state and all subdivisions thereof be 

given the authority through legislative acts to make broad, 

general, flexible plans for improving health, education and 

welfare of all children, and it is particularly necessary for 

the County Commissioners Court in the various counties to 

have discretionary powers in relation to determining the size 

of Child Welfare Boards established depending upon the 

needs and the types of programs in the particular county. 

It Is the expressed intent of this Act to strengthen Child 

Welfare Boards so that services may be provided to all 

children in the county who are in need of services. 

Sec. 4(c). (Emphasis added). We believe the broad language on plans for improving 

the health, education, and welfare of all children, and on providing them services 

must be read in connection with the specific purposes of article 695a and the 1969 

amendments. See Rogers v. First Nationa! Bank, 448 S.W.2d 149 (Tex. Civ. App. - 

El Paso 1969, wxref’d n.r.e.) (statute must be viewed as a whole). The services to 

be provided are services for the dependent, neglected, and other children that 

article 695a seeks to assist. See Attorney General Opinion H-392 (1974) (Child 

Welfare Board created to improve and provide services for children in need of 

supervision). According to the caption, the 1969 amendments were designed to 

authorize an increase In the size of the Board, to authorize multi-county Boards, 

and to clarify the Board’s relationship to the Department of Public Welfare. Acts 

1969, 61st Leg., ch. 765, at 2273. We believe that much of the quoted language 

merely expresses the legislative policy which favored increased flexibility for 

County Child Welfare Boards in carrying out their duties under article 695a. It 

cannot be read as legislative authorization for the state and politicaf subdivisions 

to provide all services relating te the health, education, and welfare of alI children. 

At most, it expresses approval of such legislation. In our opinion article 695a 

authorizes the county to provide services only to those children described in section 

2 of the statute. 

Article 4418f, V.T.C.S., authorizes the commissioners court to spend money 

“in behalf of public health and sanitation” within the county. Prior opinions 

interpreting article 4418f have approved the funding of services which clearly aided 

the sick or dealt with a sanitation problem. See Attorney General Opinions M-806 

(1971); C-772 (1966) (ambulance service); o-56701944) (storm sewer connected with 

county hospital). We do not rule out the possibility that there may arise special 

circumstances when the provision of day care to some or even all children would 

serve the public health. However, as a general matter, we do not believe that the 

routine provision of day care to healthy children would be held by our courts to 

constitute a public health function within article 4418f. While, as indicated in 

P. 4950 
Honorable Joe K. McGill - Page 3 (H-1244) 

Attorney General Opinion H-R89 (1978), there is statutory authority for counties to 

provide day care services to some children, neither article 695a, V.T.C.S., nor 

article 4418f, V.T.C.S., authorizes Gaines County to provide day care to all 

children. Legislation would be necessary to authorize counties to provide general 

day care services to all children. 

SUMMARY 

Neither article 695a, V.T.C.S., nor article 4418f, V.T.C.S., 

authorizes Gaines County to provide day care to all children, 

although each statute may authorize the county to provide 

day care to some children or under some circumstances. 

Legislation would be necessary to authorize counties to 

provide general day care services to all children. 

-Very truly yours, 

APPROVED: 

< 

DAVID M. KENDALL, First Assistant 

Opinion Committee 

jsn 

p. 4951