Did a Texas child need a Social Security number before a court could enter a divorce or child-support decree?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1984. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Texas law, with citations.
Texas AG Opinion JM-159: Child Support Decree SSNs
Plain-English summary
JM-159 concluded that former Family Code section 11.15(b) required a child-support decree to include Social Security numbers only when those numbers were already available.
"We answer your question in the negative; we conclude that section 11.15(b) requires the inclusion of such information only if it is already available."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
The statute did not require parents to obtain a Social Security number or card for a child before a court entered the decree.
"The legislature merely intended to require the inclusion of such number if it has already been obtained."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf"[I]t does not require parents to obtain social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child who does not have such a card."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1984. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Common questions
What did former Family Code section 11.15(b) say?
It required a decree in a parent-child suit ordering child support to contain the Social Security number of each party, including the child.
"A decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, in which any person is ordered to pay child support, must contain the social security number of each party to the suit, including the child."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Why was the opinion requested?
Some judges were reading the provision to prevent final divorce decrees until parents obtained Social Security cards for every affected child, including infants.
"You inform us that certain judges are interpreting section 11.15(b) to require that final divorce decrees cannot be entered without the parents obtaining social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child affected thereby, including infants."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Did the statute expressly say a person had to obtain a new number?
No. The opinion framed the missing language as whether the statute should be read to add a requirement that every party or child without a number obtain one, then declined to add that language without clear evidence of legislative intent.
"More specifically, the issue is whether to construe section 11.15(b) of the Family Code to include the phrase 'and each party or child not already possessing a social security number must obtain one.' Without clear evidence of legislative intent supporting such an inclusion, we decline to do so."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
What statutory-interpretation rule did the AG use?
The opinion said courts do not add or remove statutory words when the language is plain unless doing so is necessary to carry out clear legislative intent.
"If the language of a statute is plain, a court will not eliminate or supply a word or clause on the supposition that it was included or omitted by inadvertence."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf"Courts will add words or phrases to a statute only when it is necessary to give effect to the clear legislative intent."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
What did the legislative history show?
The AG found no legislative intent to require a party or child to obtain a number that the person did not already possess.
"Our examination of the relevant legislative history does not reveal any intent on the part of the legislature to require that parties to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, as well as the children affected thereby, obtain a social security number if that person does not already possess one."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Background and legal framework
House Bill 1169 added subsection (b) to Family Code section 11.15 in 1983.
"House Bill No. 1169, Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 424, § 15, at 2346 amended section 11.15 of the Family Code by adding subsection (b)."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
The opinion read the enacted text as requiring inclusion of existing information, not as creating an unspoken duty to apply for a Social Security number.
"Clearly, section 11.15(b) requires the decree in every suit which affects the parent-child relationship and in which any person is ordered to pay child support to contain the social security number, if it is available, of every party to the suit, as well as of every child thereby affected."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Holding
"Section 11.15(b) of the Family Code requires, in any decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, the inclusion of the social security number of each party to the suit, as well as that of every child affected thereby, if that number has already been obtained; it does not require parents to obtain social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child who does not have such a card."
Source: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Source
- Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/jim-mattox/jm-0159
- Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1984/jm0159.pdf
Original opinion text
Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain. The linked PDF is authoritative.
The Attorney General of Texas
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General
June 6, 1984
Honorable Bob Bush
Chairman
Committee on the Judiciary
Texas House of Representatives
P. O. Box 2910
Austin, Texas 78769
Opinion No. JM-159
Re: Whether House Bill No. 1169, 68th Legislature requires a minor child to have a social security number prior to the issuance of a decree in a child support suit
Dear Representative Bush:
House Bill No. 1169, Acts 1983, 68th Leg., ch. 424, § 15, at 2346 amended section 11.15 of the Family Code by adding subsection (b). Section 11.15 of the Family Code reads as follows:
(b) A decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship, in which any person is ordered to pay child support, must contain the social security number of each party to the suit, including the child. (Emphasis added).
You inform us that certain judges are interpreting section 11.15(b) to require that final divorce decrees cannot be entered without the parents obtaining social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child affected thereby, including infants. You ask us the following question:
Is the legislative intent of section 11.15(b) of House Bill No. 1169 to require the acquisition of a social security number for all children prior to entering a decree in such suits [affecting the parent-child relationship]?
We answer your question in the negative; we conclude that section 11.15(b) requires the inclusion of such information only if it is already available.
We are required to interpret a statute in a way which
expresses only the will of the makers of the law, not forced nor strained, but simply such as the words of the law in their plain sense fairly sanction and will clearly sustain.
Railroad Commission of Texas v. Miller, 434 S.W.2d 670, 672 (Tex. 1968). Clearly, section 11.15(b) requires the decree in every suit which affects the parent-child relationship and in which any person is ordered to pay child support to contain the social security number, if it is available, of every party to the suit, as well as of every child thereby affected. The issue is whether section 11.15(b) of the Family Code, in addition, requires a person to obtain such a number if he does not already have one. More specifically, the issue is whether to construe section 11.15(b) of the Family Code to include the phrase "and each party or child not already possessing a social security number must obtain one." Without clear evidence of legislative intent supporting such an inclusion, we decline to do so.
If the language of a statute is plain, a court will not eliminate or supply a word or clause on the supposition that it was included or omitted by inadvertence. Ratcliff v. State, 289 S.W. 1072 (Tex. Crim. App. 1926); Winder v. King, 297 S.W. 689 (Tex. Civ. App. - Amarillo 1927), rev'd on other grounds, 1 S.W.2d 587 (Tex. Comm'n App. 1928). Courts will add words or phrases to a statute only when it is necessary to give effect to the clear legislative intent. Hunter v. Fort Worth Capital Corporation, 620 S.W.2d 547 (Tex. 1981); Sweeny Hospital District v. Carr, 378 S.W.2d 40 (Tex. 1964).
Our examination of the relevant legislative history does not reveal any intent on the part of the legislature to require that parties to a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, as well as the children affected thereby, obtain a social security number if that person does not already possess one. The legislature merely intended to require the inclusion of such number if it has already been obtained. Accordingly, we conclude that section 11.15(b) of the Family Code requires, in any decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, the inclusion of the social security number of each party to the suit, as well as that of every child affected thereby, if that number has already been obtained; it does not require parents to obtain social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child who does not have such a card.
SUMMARY
Section 11.15(b) of the Family Code requires, in any decree in a suit affecting the parent-child relationship in which any person is ordered to pay child support, the inclusion of the social security number of each party to the suit, as well as that of every child affected thereby, if that number has already been obtained; it does not require parents to obtain social security cards from the Social Security Administration for every child who does not have such a card.
Very truly yours,
JIM MATTOX
Attorney General of Texas
TOM GREEN
First Assistant Attorney General
DAVID R. RICHARDS
Executive Assistant Attorney General
Prepared by Jim Moellinger
Assistant Attorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairman
David Brooks
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
Nancy Sutton
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1984 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.