that a parent’s statutory duty to provide his or her children with necessaries evidences the Legislature’s intent to grant trial courts broad discretion to assess attorney’s fees as child support. Id. at 703-05. The court of appeals further held that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the attorney’s fees awarded to Thomas were reasonable, reversing on that issue and remanding the case to the trial court for a determination of reasonable attorney’s fees. Id. at 714. In this Court, Tucker has pursued only the issue of whether Thomas’s attorney’s fees could be awarded as additional child support, and we granted his petition to resolve the disagreement among the courts of appeals. 56 Tex. Sup.Ct. J. 100-01 (Nov. 16, 2012). Compare 405 S.W.3d at 714 (<HOLDING>), with, e.g., In re Moers, 104 S.W.3d 609, 612
holding the family court properly awarded a wife attorneys fees incurred as the result of her husbands contempt 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 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 holding that attorneys fees incurred in a nonenforcement modification suit can be awarded as additional child support under the family code 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