codified longstanding common-law principles. Under the plain language of section 151.001(c), Ross’s duty as a parent to support his minor children includes a duty to provide them with necessaries. See id.; In re H.V., 252 S.W.3d 319, 327, n. 55 (Tex.2008) (concluding that a parent’s duty of support includes a duty to pay for the “necessaries” of the parent’s children); In re W.J.S., 35 S.W.3d 274, 277-278 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.) (same ffirmed that attorney’s fees for services rendered for a child’s benefit may constitute necessaries that fall within the duty of support owed by that child’s parents. See In re H.V., 252 S.W.3d at 327, n. 55. Ross’s duty to support his children encompasses an obligation to provide them with necessaries, which m -Tyler 1991, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Though not cited in all of the opinions,
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 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 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 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