Can a child support recipient change the payment address without going back to court?

Plain-English summary

In Texas, court-ordered child support often runs through the local court registry: the paying parent sends money to the district clerk, who forwards it to the parent who has custody. A district attorney asked whether a custodial parent could simply file a change-of-address form with the district clerk to redirect those payments, in this case to the parent's new address in care of a child support collection agency, or whether that required going back to court to modify the support order. The facts involved a 1986 divorce decree ordering payments through the registry to the mother, who in 1993 submitted a change-of-address request and a limited power of attorney naming a collection agency.

The office said a court order was not needed for a mere address change. An earlier opinion (DM-222) had held that changing who receives the payments, the designated recipient, requires the court's approval, because that designation is a term the court sets when it makes the order. But a parent's mailing address is different. Courts generally do not fix the obligee's address in a support order, and people move often, so the address is not a term "relevant to the making of the order in the first place." Because only the address changed and the custodial parent remained the recipient, the clerk could honor a properly completed change-of-address form, even one routing payments in care of a collection agency, without modifying the order. The office noted limits in a footnote: where the parent receives certain public assistance, the right to the payments is assigned to the Attorney General and the clerk must send the money to the state registry instead, and a court can always order that a particular obligee move to modify the order before changing an address.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994. 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.

Texas later recodified its family law and moved child support collection toward a centralized state disbursement system rather than county registries, and the Human Resources Code public-assistance provisions cited here have been amended. Read this page for how the office distinguished an address change from a recipient change in 1994, not for current child support payment procedures.

What the opinion meant for those who asked

For district clerks: The opinion concluded a clerk could honor a properly completed change-of-address form from a child support obligee, including one directing payments in care of a collection agency, without a court order modifying the support order, because the obligee's address is not a term the court fixes.

For custodial parents (obligees): The opinion treated updating a mailing address as not requiring a return to court, in contrast to changing the designated recipient of the payments, which under DM-222 does require court approval.

For paying parents (obligors) and the courts: The opinion noted a court could still, in a given case, order that an obligee move to modify the support order before changing an address, and that public-assistance assignments redirect payments to the state.

Common questions

Do I need a court order to change the address where my child support is sent?
Under this opinion, no. The office concluded a district clerk could honor a properly completed change-of-address form without modifying the support order, because the recipient's address is not a term the court fixes.

What if the new address is in care of a collection agency?
The office concluded that did not change the answer, because the custodial parent remained the recipient and only the address changed.

When does changing child support require going back to court?
Under DM-222, changing who receives the payments (the designated recipient) requires the approval of the court with continuing jurisdiction. A mere address change does not.

Are there situations where the clerk cannot honor the change?
Yes. The opinion noted that if the parent receives certain public assistance, the right to the payments is assigned to the Attorney General and the clerk must direct the money to the state registry, and a court may order a particular obligee to move to modify the order before changing an address.

Background and statutory framework

A court that acquires jurisdiction over a suit affecting the parent-child relationship keeps continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the parties and related matters (Family Code § 11.05(a)). In Attorney General Opinion DM-222 (1993), the office held that this power includes the power to modify the part of an order designating the person who ultimately receives child support, so a managing conservator may not unilaterally assign the child's right to payments to a third party without a court order; the clerk must follow the existing order until a modifying order arrives. DM-222 expressly left open whether an obligee could change the address for transmitting the payments.

This opinion answered that open question. Drawing on the treatise treatment of modification grounds (Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 18.2, at 371 (2d ed. 1987)), the office reasoned that the designation of the recipient is a factor relevant to making the order, but the obligee's address is not, because obligees move frequently and courts generally do not fix an address in a support order (see Ex parte Pappas, 562 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, no writ)). So a clerk could honor a properly completed change-of-address form without a modifying order, even where the new address was in care of a collection agency. A footnote flagged exceptions: a public-assistance recipient under chapter 31 or chapter 76 of the Human Resources Code assigns the right to payments to the Attorney General (Hum. Res. Code § 76.003(a)), in which case the clerk must direct payments to the state registry, and a court may by order require an obligee to move to modify before changing an address.

Citations

Statutory provisions discussed:

• Family Code § 11.05(a) (continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the parent-child relationship)
• Human Resources Code §§ 31, 76 (public assistance); § 76.003(a) (assignment of support rights to the Attorney General)

Case discussed:

• Ex parte Pappas, 562 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, no writ)

Other authority: Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 18.2, at 371 (2d ed. 1987).

Prior Attorney General opinion referenced: DM-222 (1993).

Source

• Landing page: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/dan-morales/dm-0296
• Original PDF: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/opinion-files/opinion/1994/dm0296.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain — the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of the Attorney General
State of Texas

DAN MORALES
ATTORNEY GENERAL

June 17, 1994

Honorable Lee Haney
District Attorney
35th Judicial District
Courthouse
Brownwood, Texas 76801

Opinion No. DM-296

Re: Whether a district clerk may honor a change of address request from a child support obligee to remit child support payments to the care of a collection agency (RQ-653)

Dear Mr. Haney:

You have asked whether a district clerk may honor a change of address request from a child support obligee to remit child support payments to the care of a collection agency. In other words, you ask whether a child support obligee must seek a court order modifying the original child support order if the obligee desires to change the address to which the local registry remits the child support payments. Your question requires us to consider the issue that Attorney General Opinion DM-222 (1993) left unresolved.

You have provided us with the following facts:

In 1986 Deborah Marie Coley and Robert Leslie Coley were divorced. The Decree of Divorce provided that Mr. Coley pay child support in the amount of $200.00 per month to Ms. Coley for the support of their two minor children.

In 1993 the District Clerk received two documents from Debie Gilbert, formerly Deborah Marie Coley. . . . As in opinion DM-222 these documents were a "Limited Power of Attorney and Authorization to Release Information" and a "Change of Address and Request for Payment History."

You have included with your letter to this office a copy of the divorce decree and the two documents that the district clerk recently received from Ms. Gilbert. We note that the divorce decree requires Mr. Coley, the child support obligor, to pay child support on a monthly basis "through the registry of the Court and thereafter promptly remitted to the Managing Conservator[, Ms. Gilbert,] for the support of the children." In re Coley, No. 25,778 (35th Dist. Ct., Brown County, Tex., June 19, 1986). In the document entitled "Change of Address and Request for Payment History" Ms. Gilbert has requested that the court change her mailing address and "forward all future payments to" the care of Child Support Collection Agency of America. In the document entitled "Limited Power of Attorney and Authorization to Release Information" Ms. Gilbert "appoint[s] and authorize[s] limited power of attorney to Child Support Collection Agency of America, Inc. . . . to take any and all lawful action necessary to collect the child support" due to the Coley children.

In Attorney General Opinion DM-222 (1993) this office considered whether a child support obligee may assign the right to receive child support payments through the local registry to another person without a court order modifying the original child support order to designate a different person to whom the district clerk should remit the child support payments. That opinion determined that the power of the district court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the parent-child relationship[1] at issue "encompasses the power to modify that part of the order designating the person . . . who is ultimately to receive the child support payments." Attorney General Opinion DM-222 (1993) at 3. We continued:

Consequently, a managing conservator may not unilaterally assign to a third party the child's right to child support payments. Instead, a managing conservator must seek the approval of the court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the child, which will consider and protect the child's interest in the child support payments.

Id. The opinion concluded, therefore, that a district clerk must comply with the terms of the existing court order, remitting the child support payments to the person named in the order, unless the district clerk has received a court order modifying the designation of the ultimate recipient of the child support payments. Id. at 4.

We stated in that opinion, however, that "we [here] determine . . . only whether a child support obligee may authorize payment of child support payments to an entity other than that provided in the court order. . . . [w]e do not determine . . . whether a child support obligee may change his or her address for purposes of transmitting the child support payments." Id. at 1 n.1. This is the question that we must consider now.

"The grounds for modification of [a] child support order[] are those factors which are relevant to the making of the order[] in the first place, [e.g.,] changes in the child's needs and resources, in the needs and resources of both parents, and in the child's physical, emotional[,] and educational requirements." Homer H. Clark, Jr., The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 18.2, at 371 (2d ed. 1987). Consistent with our conclusion in Attorney General Opinion DM-222, we believe that the designation of the person who is ultimately to receive the child support payments also is a factor that is relevant to the making of the child support order, and changes in the designation only may be accomplished through a court order modifying the original child support order. On the other hand, we do not believe that the obligee's address is a factor "relevant to the making of the order[] in the first place." See Clark, supra, § 18.2, at 371. We have been informed that a child support obligee may change his or her residence numerous times. Indeed, we understand that a court generally does not attempt to fix in a child support order the address of an obligee. Id.; see Ex parte Pappas, 562 S.W.2d 865, 866 (Tex. Civ. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1977, no writ) (stating that, because child support order identifies obligee and states amount to be paid, order is not ambiguous and therefore void for lack of instructions to obligor regarding how and where to make payments). For example, while the Coley divorce decree unequivocally designates the obligee to whom the court registry is to remit the child support payments, it does not attempt to fix the obligee's address. We therefore believe that a district clerk may honor a change of address form that a child support obligee properly has completed and submitted, without a court order modifying the original child support order to reflect the changed address.[2] Our conclusion remains the same even if the new address is "care of" a child support collection agency.

SUMMARY

A district clerk may honor a change of address request, even if the new address is "care of" a child support collection agency, that a child support obligee properly has completed and submitted without a court order modifying the original child support order to reflect the changed address.

DAN MORALES
Attorney General of Texas

JORGE VEGA
First Assistant Attorney General

DREW DURHAM
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Justice

WILL PRYOR
Special Counsel

RENEA HICKS
State Solicitor

SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, Opinion Committee

Prepared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge
Assistant Attorney General

[1] Under section 11.05(a) of the Family Code, a court that has acquired jurisdiction of a suit affecting the parent-child relationship retains continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of all parties and matters related to the suit. Attorney General Opinion DM-222 (1993) at 3.

[2] If a person has applied for or receives financial assistance under chapter 31 of the Human Resources Code or has applied for services under chapter 76 of the Human Resources Code, the person thereby assigns to the Office of the Attorney General of Texas any right to receive child support payments of a child for whom the person is claiming assistance. Hum. Res. Code § 76.003(a). In either case, a district clerk must direct all child support payments to the state registry; the district clerk must not honor a change of address request. We also understand that some counties have contracted with the Office of the Attorney General locally to distribute money collected in proceedings brought under title IV, part D of the Social Security Act. These counties act as the attorney general's agent to change an obligee's address. Brown County does not, however, have such an arrangement with the Office of the Attorney General. Additionally, a court in any case may by order require that a child support obligee move to modify the original child support order if the obligee seeks to change his or her mailing address.