Weekly News Round Up Of The State’s Top Law Enforcement Officer – Texas Attorney General
Requests and Opinions, Travis County and Texas Child Support Division Conducts Child Support Roundup
Texas Attorney General, Ken Paxton is the lawyer for the State of Texas and is charged by the Texas Constitution to:
- defend the laws and the Constitution of the State of Texas
- represent the State in litigation
- approve public bond issues
To fulfill these responsibilities, the Office of the Attorney General serves as legal counsel to all boards and agencies of state government, issues legal opinions when requested by the Governor, heads of state agencies and other officials and agencies as provided by Texas statutes.
The Texas AG sits as an ex-officio member of state committees and commissions, and defends challenges to state laws and suits against both state agencies and individual employees of the State.
Many Texans look to the Office of the Attorney General for guidance with disputes and legal issues. The agency receives hundreds of letters, phone calls and visits each week about crime victims’ compensation, child support, abuse in nursing homes, possible consumer fraud and other topics. To find out more about the Texas Attorney General, visit the official website at https://texasattorneygeneral.gov/.
WEEKLY NEWS ROUND-UP OF THE STATE’S
TOP LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER…
THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL
Travis County Conducts Child Support Roundup
Travis County Precinct 5 – Constable Carlos Lopez arrests 25 parents for failure to pay child support
AUSTIN – Travis County Constable Carlos Lopez led a child support roundup that started on Saturday, September 22, 2018 through Thursday, September 27, 2018. He arrested 25 Travis County parents who violated court orders requiring them to pay child support.
The sweep was conducted in conjunction with the Texas Attorney General’s Child Support Division and focused on parents who are wanted by authorities for failing to pay their court-ordered child support.
“Caring for your children is the fundamental and moral responsibility of any parent,” Attorney General Ken Paxton said. “I commend everyone involved in holding accountable those who attempt to evade child support. Their efforts help ensure better care and better lives for Texas children.”
This effort demonstrates the hard work and dedication of Constable Lopez to track down parents who are wanted for contempt of court because of their failure to pay child support. He dispatched six teams of law enforcement officers to locate and arrest the noncompliant parents before they had a chance to leave their homes for the day.
Child Support Division investigators assisted in the effort by providing logistical assistance and helping to locate missing parents.
The roundup resulted in the arrest of 25 parents whose failure to support their children violated the law, and these arrests have provided the children of Texas with $22,360 in child support collected.
Delinquent parents arrested on civil warrants face up to six months in jail. Cash bonds posted by delinquent parents seeking release from jail are paid to the custodial parents and children who are owed back child support.
Parents who have fallen behind on their child support payments – but are not subject to warrants for their arrest – should immediately contact the Attorney General’s Child Support Division at (800) 252-8014 to make payment arrangements.
NOTIFICATION OF OPINION
Opinion: KP-0219 The authority of Texas counties to pursue housing programs in specific circumstances
Request for Opinion: RQ-0220-KP
Summary of Opinion: Although a county may not expend public funds to solely benefit a private interest, a county may make an expenditure to assist a homeowner to make repairs or subsidize the construction of singleor multi-family housing when the expenditure serves a predominantly public purpose of the county.
Whether a particular expenditure serves a predominately public purpose of the county is for the commissioners court to make in the first instance, subject to judicial review.
Section 381.003 of the Local Government Code authorizes housing programs that qualify under federal law as community and economic development programs or housing and community development programs, which generally address the housing needs of persons with low and moderate income.
NOTIFICATION OF OPINION
Opinion: KP-0218 Whether chapter 75 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code applies to limit the liability of a private property owner on whose property private aircraft lands for purposes of agritourism
Request for Opinion: RQ-0219-KP
Summary of Opinion: Chapter 75 of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code limits liability in certain circumstances for the owner, lessee, or occupant of agricultural land. By statutory definition, agritourism occurs only on agricultural land. Thus, chapter 75 applies to property owners conducting agritourism on their agricultural property if they otherwise meet the conditions in chapter 75.
Assuming those conditions are met, if a property owner conducting agritourism on his or her agricultural property invites or grants permission to individuals to enter the premises of the property for recreation, chapter 75 limits the property owner’s liability for injuries or property damage occurring on the premises to those invited or given permission to enter, including injuries or damages due to the landing of private aircraft. Chapter 75 does not, however, limit the liability of a property owner who acts with gross negligence, malicious intent, or in bad faith.
NOTIFICATION OF OPINION
Opinion: KP-0217 Authority of the temporary directors of the Southwestern Travis County Groundwater Conservation District
Request for Opinion: RQ-0218-KP
Summary of Opinion: A court would likely conclude that the temporary directors of the Southwestern Travis County Groundwater Conservation District had no authority to cancel the 2018 confirmation and candidate election.
A court would also likely conclude that the temporary directors hold office and can exercise those powers expressly given them in section 8871.023 of the Texas Special District Local Laws Code until the initial directors are elected under section 8871.024.
Absent express authority in chapter 8871, a court would likely conclude that the appointing officials may not withdraw their respective appointments.
Certainly, the Legislature has authority to amend chapter 8871. Other potential options to address the disarray resulting from the absence of the confirmation and director election include removal of the temporary directors for misconduct or a quo warrant to proceeding challenging the authority of the temporary directors to hold office.
NOTIFICATION OF OPINION
Opinion: KP-0216 Whether a groundwater conservation district may amend a historic or existing use permit in specific circumstances
Request for Opinion: RQ-0217-KP This letter is to request your opinion on what groundwater conservation district rules are permissible in light of the Texas Supreme Court opinion in Guitar Holding Co., L.P. v. Hudspeth County Underground Water Conservation District.
Summary of Opinion: Under the Texas Supreme Court’s opinion in Guitar Holding Co. v. Hudspeth County Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, a change in the purpose of the proposed use of water to be produced under a historic or existing use permit is a new use, even if the new use would occur within the district. Whether a district must treat an application for an amended permit as an application for a new-use permit will depend on the particular facts and is a matter for the district to determine, in the first instance, subject to judicial review.
A groundwater conservation district may accept a surrender of a portion of rights to groundwater under a historic or existing use permit and allow the holder to retain the remaining rights not surrendered. A holder of a historic or existing use permit who surrenders a portion of rights subject to the permit may seek a new permit for a new use.
A court would likely determine that the uniformity requirements in chapter 36 of the Water Code preclude district rules that would give an advantage to a historic or existing permit holder who seeks new use approval that is not available to other new use permit applicants.
