JOaN I,. Fl1x.L 

A-m- o-AI. 

August 24, 

George N. Rodriguez, Jr. 

El Paso County Attorney 

Room 201 City-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 to finance 

operation of Juvenile 

Probation Department 

Your letter of May 22, 1973, requests an opinion of this office as 

to whether fees collected from adult probationers under $ba(a) of Article 

42.12 and Article 42.13, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, can properly 

be used in financing the costs of operation of a juvenile probation department. 

Section 6a(a) of Article 42.12 (The Adult Probation and Parole Law) 

provides as follows : 

“Sec. 6a. (a) A court granting probation may 

fix a fee not exceeding $10 per month to be paid to 

the court by the probationer during the probationary 

period. The court may make payment of the fee a 

condition of granting or continuing the probation. ” 

Article 2338-1, Vernon’s Texas Civil Statutes, concerns “delinquent 

children. ” Section 13 of Article 2338-l authorizes the juvenile court, after 

hearing to: 

“(I) place the chi.ld on probation or under supervision in his own home or in the custody of a relative 

or other fit person, upon such terms as the court shall 

determine; . . . . 

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

“(3) make such further disposition as the court 

may deem to be for the best interest of the child, except 

as herein otherwise provided. ” 

We have found no provision in Article 2338-l or related statutes for 

collecting a supervisory fee similar to the one provided for in Article 

42.12 above. Section 12 of Article 42.12 now makes § 6a thereof applicable 

to Article 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 to Attorney General Opinion No. M-784 (1971) 

which discusses the proper use of the fee col,lected under Articles 42.12 

and 42.13 as follows (emphasis added): 

“We are of the opinion that the phrase ‘for 

use in administering the probation laws, ’ as found 

in Subsection (b) of Section ba, supra, must be 

liberally construed, and considered in connection 

with the purpose of the Adult Probation and Parole 

Law -- the maintenance of effective probationary 

program (cf. the underscored portion of Section 10, 

supra). 

“Accordingly, you are advised that it is the 

opinion of this office that fees permitted to be 

collected pursuant to Article 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 to the 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) of Article 42.12 provides that “the court shall distribute 

the fees. . . for use in administering the probation laws. ‘I Section 10 of 

Article 42.12 contains some ,language which indicates the possibility of a 

co-relation between adult and juvenile probation programs. It reads 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 to establish a separate division of adult probation and appoint adult 

probation officers and such other personnel as required. 

It is the further intent of this Act that the same person 

serving as a probation officer for juveniles shall not 

be required to serve as a probation officer for adults 

and vice-versa. ” 

It is certainly the general duty of the various district courts to act 

in the best interests of juveniles and to protect their rights and interests 

in every way possible. See Echols v. State, 481 S. W. 2d 160 (Tex. Civ.App., 

Houston, 1972); Dudley v. State, 219 S. W. 2d 574 (Tex. Civ.App., Amarillo, 

1949). 

After considering al,1 of the above we have concluded that the primary 

purpose of the fund in question 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 on hand 

we cannot say that the statute or the legislative intent prohibits use of such 

funde for financing and administering juvenile probation. 

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

We therefore hold that the district judge or judges charged with 

the responsibility of administering the Adult Probation Laws under 

Articles 42.12 and 42.13 may .in their discretion direct the use of surplus funds for administration of juvenile 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 or judges charged with the responsibility 

of administering adult probation laws. 

Yours very truly, 

A 

v Attorney General of Texas 

_AqBROVED: 

DAVID MI KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 410