With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". See Note, The Unnecessary Doctrine of Necessaries, 82 Mich. L.Rev. 1767, 1767 (1984); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 554 (9th ed.2009) (providing a historical definition of the “doctrine of necessaries”). As we have noted, the doctrine of necessaries implied a contract between a parent and the provider of the necessaries at common law. See Searcy v. Hunter, 81 Tex. 644, 17 5.W. 372, 373 (1891). In 1967, the Legislature amended former Article 4614 of our Civil Statutes to establish a statutory duty in parents for support of the family, including liability to third parties who provide necessaries to the child upon the parent’s failure to provide for the child. See Act of May 16, 1967, 60th Leg., R.S., ch. 309, § 1, art. 4614, 1967 Tex. Gen. Laws 735, 736 (“Each spous 101-02 (1889) (<HOLDING>); see also In re H.V., 252 S.W.3d 319, 327 n.

A: 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
B: holding that attorneys fees are necessaries for the criminal defense of a child
C: holding that attorneys fees are necessaries for the criminal de fense of a child
D: holding that reasonable attorneys fees for the benefit of a minor in defending the minor against a criminal charge were necessaries
B.