Rosscer Craig Tucker, Ii v. Lizabeth Thomas, 419 S.W.3d 292

Tucker and Thomas divorced in 2005; they were named joint managing conservators with Thomas designated as the parent with the exclusive right to designate the children's primary residence and Tucker with visitation rights under a standard possession order.
Tucker filed a modification petition seeking exclusive designation of residence; Thomas countersued to name her sole managing conservator, modify the possession order, and increase Tucker's child support.
An amicus attorney was appointed to assist the court in protecting the children’s best interests during the proceedings.
At bench trial, the court denied Tucker’s modification requests, increased Tucker’s monthly child support, reduced his possession periods, and found the amicus attorney’s fees and Thomas’s fees to be necessaries for the children.
The court ordered Tucker and Thomas to each pay half of the amicus fees as additional child support and also ordered Tucker to pay Thomas’s attorney’s fees as additional child support, plus postjudgment interest.
Tucker appealed; the court of appeals, sitting en banc, held that the trial court had authority to award attorney’s fees as necessaries or as additional child support in a non-enforcement modification suit; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the split.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Legislature authorized awarding attorney’s fees as additional child support in non-enforcement modification suits.	Tucker argues statutory authority exists allowing such awards.	Court held no express statutory authorization for such characterization.	Not authorized; absence of express authority.
Whether section 151.001(c) supports treating attorney’s fees as necessaries in non-enforcement modification suits.	Court of appeals relied on necessaries doctrine to justify fees as child support.	Plain language does not support treating non-enforcement modification fees as necessaries.	Not supported by statute; not allowable.

Searcy v. Hunter, 81 Tex. 644, 17 S.W. 372 (Tex. 1891) (attorney’s fees may be necessaries for the minor)
Askey v. Williams, 74 Tex. 294, 11 S.W. 1101 (Tex. 1889) (necessaries for the child’s defense)
Schwartz v. Jacob, 394 S.W.2d 15 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houst. 1965) (first use of necessaries in custody/modification context)
In re H.V., 252 S.W.3d 319 (Tex. 2008) (noting duties regarding attorney’s fees for children)
Daniels v. Allen, 811 S.W.2d 278 (Tex.App.-Tyler 1991) (fees may be necessaries or child-support-related)
Ex parte Helms, 152 Tex. 480, 259 S.W.2d 184 (Tex. 1953) (rule permitting contempt-based enforcement of fees)
In re Moers, 104 S.W.3d 609 (Tex.App.-Hous. (1st Dist.) 2003) (treating fees as child support under certain interpretations)
Farish v. Farish, 982 S.W.2d 623 (Tex.App.-Houst. (1st Dist.) 1998) (necessaries doctrine in SAPCR)
In re Henry, 154 S.W.3d 594 (Tex. 2005) (fees as enforcement-context support)