Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): case en banc, considered only the merits of the two attorney’s fees issues because Tucker waived his complaint on the modification requests. 405 S.W.3d at 711-14. The court of appeals held that the Family Code gives trial courts authority to order a parent to pay attorney’s fees for legal services benefit-ting the children — whether provided by the amicus attorney or the other parent— as additional child support in non-enforcement modification suits. Id. at 712. While acknowledging that other Texas courts of appeals have held that the Family Code does not expressly grant trial courts authority to assess attorney’s fees as additional child support when parties seek only modification of an order under Title 5 of the Family Code, the court reas ex.App.Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). II. Analysis In this issue of first 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that attorneys fees and costs may not be awarded as child support when they are incurred in a suit to modify the parentchild relationship that does not involve the enforcement of a child support obligation (B) holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation (C) holding that a judgment for attorneys fees may be rendered in the nature of child support regardless of whether the underlying action is one of enforcement or modification (D) holding that attorneys fees incurred in a nonenforcement modification suit can be awarded as additional child support under the family code (E) holding that fees incurred by debtor were not in the nature of support
Output (English): holding that a judgment for attorneys fees may be rendered in the nature of child support regardless of whether the underlying action is one of enforcement or modification