Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): unambiguous language of the Family Code and under precedent from the Supreme Court of Texas, the answer to this question is “yes.” “A parent of a child has ... the duty to support the child.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 151.001(a) (West 2008). In the Family Code, the Texas Legislature expressly states that “a parent who fails to discharge the duty of support is liable to a person who provides necessaries to those to whom support is owed.” Id. § 151.001(c). In this provision, the Legislature ha is a sound statutory basis for the holdings in cases in which courts have determined that the trial court in a non-enforcement modification suit has authority to order a parent to pay reasonable attorney’s fees as child support under the “necessaries rule.” See In re J.A.D., 2010 WL 2649961, at *1-4 (<HOLDING>); In re A.J.J., No. 2-04-265-CV, 2005 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding in modification suit in which no enforcement was ordered that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support under the necessaries rule (B) holding that trial court properly assessed mothers attorneys fees as necessaries against father in case in which trial court ordered father to pay mothers attorneys fees as child support but did not state that the fees were necessaries (C) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that father pay attorneys fees to mother as necessaries for the benefit of the children in divorce decree and citing statutory predecessor to section 151001 (D) holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering that father pay attorneys fees to mother as necessaries for the benefit of the children in paternity proceeding and citing statutory predecessor to section 151001 (E) holding in nonenforcement modification suit that court of continuing jurisdiction did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay reasonable attorneys fees incurred by mother as necessaries for the children
Output (English): holding in nonenforcement modification suit that court of continuing jurisdiction did not abuse its discretion in ordering father to pay reasonable attorneys fees incurred by mother as necessaries for the children