# TEXEATNBRNEY GENERAL OF YIYEXAS AURTIN. TEXAS 78711

January 16, 1974 The Honorable Raymond W. Vowel1 State Department ofPublic Welfare John H. Reagan Building Austin, Texas 78701 Opinion No. H- 211 Re: Availability offunds to establish a record .file required by $11.17, Title& Family Code, 63rd Leg. and obligation of Dept. ofPublic Welfare to carry out pro,visions ofthe Code for which there are no.appropriations. Dear Mr. Vowell: Your opinion request concerns the problem ‘offinancing the program assigned to your department under various provisions ofTitle 2of the Family Code, (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., R.S., ch. 543, p. 1411). Your first two questions concern $11.17 ofthe Code, which requires your department to establish and maintain a central record file of suits affecting the parent-child relationship. Subsection (c) of $11.17 provides: “On the written request of a court or of an attorney, the department shall identify the court which last hadjurisdiction ofthe child in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship and give the docket number ofthe suit, or state that the child has not been the subject of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship. The child shall be identified inthe request by name, birthdate, and place ofbirth. The department shall transmit this information within 10davs after the dav the request is received and may charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost ofthis service. ‘I (emphasis added)

p. 989The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 2 (H-211)

Your first question is whether the emphasized language. constitutes an appropriation of the reasonable fee, ifany, toyour department, there being no such “specific appropriation” inthe portion ofthe ,Appropriation Act applicable toyour Department. See Article 8, $ 6, Constitution of Texas. Inour opinion, the language does not constitute an appropriation. We are not unmindful of the language in cases such as Pickle v. Finley, 44 S.W. 480 (Tex. 1898) and National Biscuit Company v. State of Texas, 135 S.W. 2d 687 (Tex. 1940), that no specific words are necessary in order to make an appropriation: that an appropriation may be made by implication when the language employed leads to the belief that such was the intent ofthe Legislature: and that, where an appropriation is made of all funds coming from certain sources and deposited in a special fund for a de.s.ignated purpose, it is not necessary for the appropriating act to name a certain or e,vena maximum sum. And see Attorney General Opinions C-248 (1964), V-887 (1949), V-895 (1949), V-1255 (1951). However, these authorities interpret statumry language clearly indicating an intention to appropriate funds. For instance, inAttorney General Opinion V-887, the following statutory language was involved: “All license fees collected by the Commissioner ofAgrizlture under the provisions ,hereof shall be placed in a special fund inthe State Treasury to be known as ‘The 2, 4-D License Fund, ’which fund shall be available to the Commissioner ofAgriculture for the purpose of defraying expenses which accrue in the administration of the provisions hereof and same shall be paid out by the State Treasurer upon warrants based upon vouchers issued therefor by the Commissioner ofAgriculture. ” Onthe other hand, inAttorney General Opinion H-154 (1973) this office was “unable to find inArticle 5521f, V. T. C.S., any language of appropriation”, ina statute which provided:

p. 990The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 3 (H-21 1)

“(a) The board [Performance Certification Board] with the advice ofthe department [of Labor Statistics] shall establish a schedule offees .topay the cost incurred by the department for the work relating to the administration and enforcement ofthis Act.
. .

. , .

“(d) All fees shall be paid to the state treasury and placed ina special account for the use oftlss department inthe administration and enforcement ofthis Act. ” The language in $11.17(c) ofthe Family Code does not even “earmark” the funds when they are placed inthe State Treasury and does not appropriate them toyour department expressly or by implication. Your next question, contingent upon anegative answer to the first question, inquires, “to what extent is the Department obligated.to implement this program, for which ithas thereby received no appropriation?” This question is similar toyour remaining questions and they will be discussed tog,ether. Your next question asks:

“It has been estimated that the cost of establishing and maintaining the central record file may be as much as $250, 000 for the first year; yet, at no point inthe currently effective Appropriations Act has the Department received any specific appropriation to meet this expense. Therefore, we are requesting your consideration and guidance with respect t,othe following question: ” 1To what extent is the Department obligated to implement the program established by Section 11.17 of Title 2ofthe Family Code when ithas received no specific appropriation inthe currently effective

p. 991The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 4 (H-211)
Appropriations Act to meet the administrative costs ofthe program andwhen no other source ofappropriated funds may be available for this purpose? ’ ” Section 34. 05 ofthe Family Code requires your Department to make investigations promptly after receiving oral or written reports ofxhild abuse. The Legislature has not appropriated any moneys to the Department to meet the administrative expenses ofperforming these functions. You inquire:

“To what extent is the Department obligated~to p,er.- form the tasks mandated by Section 34,.05 ofTitle 2 ofthe Family Code when ithas received no specific appropriations to meet the administrative expenses of such activity? ‘I All ofthese inquiries relate tothe obligation ofyour Department when it is burdened with a statutory duty but receives no specific appropriation to carry out the mandate. Itis not necessary that appropriations be spedific with reference to each such program. All three ofthese programs ar.e closely related to child welfare and Item 34 B ofthe General Appropriations Act grants yo.ur department funds to be expended for “child welfare services”
. (II.B. 139, 63rd Leg., at II-45). We are ofthe opinion that such appropriation is sufficiently specific tojustify expending funds and using personnel in connection with any ofthe programs and duties mentioned inyour letter. As towhether the amount of the appropriation is sufficient to enable you toeffectively establish and maintain these programs and to continue with your present duties, we express no opinion. SUMMARY The provision of $11.17(c) ofTitle 2ofthe Family Code, authorizing the Department ofPublic Welfare to charge a reasonable fee to cover the cost ofproviding information from a central records file does not constitute an appropriation of such fees to the Department

p. 992The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 5 (H-211)

for that purpose. However, the appropriation for child welfare services inthe Appropriations Act constitutes an appropriation to the Department for providing such services as well as for establishing and maintaining the contemplated central records file and for conducting the investigations of child abuse provided in 534. 05 ofthe Family Code. Very truly yours, A
Attorney General ofTexas

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman Opinion Committee

p. 993