to order Ross to pay additional child support. See Tex. Fam.Code Ann. §§ 155.003, 156.401(a); see also Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 154.001(a) (West 2008) (stating that “the court may order either or both parents to support a child in the manner specified by the order....”). 2. The trial court had jurisdiction and authority to order payment of attorney’s fees as additional child support. Given the trial court’s clear jurisdiction and authority to order Ross to pay additional child support, the next question is whether, in a non-enforcement modification suit, the trial court could determine that Ross’s duty to support his children includes a duty to pay reasonable attorney’s fees for legal services benefitting the children. Under at *5-6 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth Apr. 21, 2005, no pet.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); Hardin, 161 S.W.3d at 25-26 (holding in
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 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 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 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 holding in nonenforcement modification suit that court of continuing jurisdiction may order one parent to pay the reasonable attorneys fees of the other parent as additional child support if the fees are necessaries for the benefit of the children