Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

OF TEXAS AUWTIN. TExAI3 mswla January 22, 1975 The Honorable Joe Reswcber Opinion No. H- 503 County Attorney ?Iarrim County Courthouee Re: County Clerk’n acceptance Houston, Texae 77002 of waiver of certain marriage licenee requirement0 under the Family Code, as amended. Dear Mr. Reeweber: You have requented our opinion ar to whether or not “the County Clerk [in] obligated or permitted to accept a court ordered waiver of the furnishing of the information concerning age, identification of the applicant or identification of the parent required on the marriage license applicatiofi. 1’ Prior to January 1, 1974, eection 1.05 of the Family Code read as followr: Any information pertaining to an applicant, other than the applicant’r name, may be omitted from the application, and any formality required by Subchapters A, B, and D of thie chapter may be waived on the county judge!0 written order, issued for good cause ehown, and eubmitted to the county clerk at the time the application ie made. As rewritten, eection 1.05 omits entirely thin provision regarding waiver. Furthermore, rection 1.07 specifically prohibits the iseuance of 8 licenee unless certain conditions are fulfilled: (a) The county clerk may not issue a license to the applicant if: p. 2271 The Honorable Joe Resweber page 2 (H-503) (1) either applicant fails to provide informatim as required by Sections 1.02 and 1.05 of the code; [and1 (2) either applicant fails to submit proof of age and identity: . . . . Both of these conditions were ‘ins’erfed for the first time in the amended code that took effect on January 1, 1974. Finally, a reference in former section 1.02 to the county judge’s waiver order, requiring an applicant to submit the order “if applicable, ” was deleted from section 1.02 of the amended code. This deletion would seem to indicate ‘that the Legislature did not contemplate the continued existence of such an order. It would appear, therefore, that on three .separate’.occasions in the amended Family Code, the,Legislature expresses its intention to abrogate the waiver provision of former section 1.05. As a result, the County Clerk is neither obligated nor even permitted to accept a court-oidered waiver of the furnishing of the information concerning age, identification of the applicant or identification of the parent required on. the marriage license application. Compare Attorney General Opinion H-216 (1974) which discueaes waiver of age require- ments by a district court. SUMMARY A County Clerk is neither obligated nor permitted to accept a court ordered waiver Of the furnishing of the information concern- ing age,. identification of the applicant .or identification of the parent required on. the marriage license application. ours very truly, < Jiizdifs . ti1 Attorney General of Texas I/ . p. 2272 . f :, . \ * :~ . . ‘I .f 1 The Honorable Joe Reeweber page 3 (H-503) APPROVED: DAVID M. KENDALL, First Asdistant Opinion Committee p. 2273