has provided that child with necessaries, then the parent is liable to that other person. Tex.Fam.Code Ann. § 151.003(c) (Vernon 1995); see also Interest of M.W.T., 12 S.W.3d 598 (Tex.App.— San Antonio 2000, pet. denied) (citing Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 151.003 (Vernon 1995)). Any person who provides necessaries to a child- may sue to recover from a parent who fails to discharge his duty of support. Office of Att’y Gen. v. Carter, 977 S.W.2d 159, 160-61 (Tex.App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.); see also Bailey v. Bailey, 987 S.W.2d 206, 210 (Tex.App.— Amarillo 1999, no pet.) (defining necessaries to include provisions such as clothing, food, shelter, medical and dental attention, and education); Lawrence v. Cox, 464 S.W.2d 674, 675 (Tex.Civ.App. — Waco 1971, writ dism’d w.o.j.) (<HOLDING>). Appellee had a duty to support W.J.S. until
recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child holding that the doctrine of estoppel embodies the fiction that regardless of biology and the presumption of paternity the person who has cared for the child is the childs parent holding that when a state obtains an order to remove a child from his home and takes the child into protective custody it is exercising affirmative state power over the child to the extent that it has a due process obligation to assume responsibility to provide for the childs basic needs holding any person who has supplied necessities to a child may sue and recover from the childs parent for value of the supplies or services furnished to the child