TEXE ATNBRNEY GENERAL 

OF YIYEXAS 

AURTIN. TEXAS 78711 

January 16, 1974 

The Honorable Raymond W. Vowel1 

State Department of Public Welfare 

John H. Reagan Building 

Austin, Texas 78701 

Opinion No. H- 211 

Re: Availability of funds to 

establish a record .file required 

by $11.17, Title& Family Code, 

63rd Leg. and obligation of Dept. 

of Public Welfare to carry out 

pro,visions of the Code for which 

there are no. appropriations. 

Dear Mr. Vowell: 

Your opinion request concerns the problem ‘of financing the program 

assigned to your department under various provisions of Title 2 of the Family 

Code, (Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., R. S., ch. 543, p. 1411). 

Your first two questions concern $11.17 of the 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 had jurisdiction of the child in a suit 

affecting the parent-child relationship and give the 

docket number of the suit, or state that the child 

has not been the subject of a suit affecting the 

parent-child relationship. The child shall be 

identified in the request by name, birthdate, and 

place of birth. The department shall transmit 

this information within 10 davs after the dav the 

request is received and may charge a reasonable 

fee to cover the cost of this service. ‘I (emphasis 

added) 

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

Your first question is whether the emphasized language. constitutes 

an appropriation of the reasonable fee, if any, to your department, there 

being no such “specific appropriation” in the portion of the ,Appropriation 

Act applicable to your Department. See Article 8, $ 6, Constitution of 

Texas. 

In our 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 of the 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,ven a 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, in Attorney General Opinion 

V-887, the following statutory language was involved: 

“All license fees collected by the Commissioner 

of Agrizlture under the provisions ,hereof shall be 

placed in a special fund in the State Treasury to be 

known as ‘The 2, 4-D License Fund, ’ which fund shall 

be available to the Commissioner of Agriculture 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 of Agriculture. ” 

On the other hand, in Attorney General Opinion H-154 (1973) this office 

was “unable to find in Article 5521f, V. T. C. S., any language of appropriation”, 

in a statute which provided: 

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

“(a) The board [Performance Certification Board] 

with the advice of the department [of Labor Statistics] shall establish a schedule of fees .to pay the 

cost incurred by the department for the work 

relating to the administration and enforcement 

of this Act. . . 

. , . 

“(d) All fees shall be paid to the state treasury 

and placed in a special account for the use of tlss 

department in the administration and enforcement 

of this Act. ” 

The language in $11.17(c) of the Family Code does not even “earmark” the 

funds when they are placed in the State Treasury and does not appropriate them 

to your department expressly or by implication. 

Your next question, contingent upon a negative answer to the first question, 

inquires, “to what extent is the Department obligated.to implement this program, 

for which it has thereby received no appropriation?” This question is similar 

to your 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 

in the 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,o the 

following question: 

” 1 To what extent is the Department obligated to 

implement the program established by Section 11.17 

of Title 2 of the Family Code when it has received 

no specific appropriation in the currently effective 

p. 991 
The Honorable Raymond W. Vowell, page 4 (H-211) 

Appropriations Act to meet the administrative costs 

of the program and when no other source of appropriated funds may be available for this purpose? ’ ” 

Section 34. 05 of the Family Code requires your Department to make 

investigations promptly after receiving oral or written reports of xhild abuse. 

The Legislature has not appropriated any moneys to the Department to meet 

the administrative expenses of performing these functions. You inquire: 

“To what extent is the Department obligated~to p,er.- 

form the tasks mandated by Section 34,. 05 of Title 2 

of the Family Code when it has received no specific 

appropriations to meet the administrative expenses 

of such activity? ‘I 

All of these inquiries relate to the obligation of your Department when it 

is burdened with a statutory duty but receives no specific appropriation to 

carry out the mandate. 

It is not necessary that appropriations be spedific with reference to each 

such program. All three of these programs ar.e closely related to child 

welfare and Item 34 B of the 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 of the opinion that such appropriation is sufficiently specific 

to justify expending funds and using personnel in connection with any of the 

programs and duties mentioned in your letter. 

As to whether the amount of the appropriation is sufficient to enable you 

to effectively establish and maintain these programs and to continue with your 

present duties, we express no opinion. 

SUMMARY 

The provision of $11.17(c) of Title 2 of the Family Code, 

authorizing the Department of Public Welfare to charge a reasonable 

fee to cover the cost of providing information from a central records 

file does not constitute an appropriation of such fees to the Department 

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

for that purpose. However, the appropriation for child welfare 

services in the 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 

5 34. 05 of the Family Code. 

Very truly yours, 

A 

Attorney General of Texas 

DAVID M. KENDALL, Chairman 

Opinion Committee 

p. 993