Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
modification suit, does a trial court have jurisdiction and authority to order payment of attorney’s fees as additional child support? Under his first issue, Ross argues that in a modification suit in which the trial court does not order a party to pay a past-due child-support obligation, the trial court has no authority to order payment of attorney’s fees to a parent or amicus attorney as additional child support. The reasoning of the First Court of Appeals in In re Moers supports Ross’s argument. See 104 S.W.3d 609, 611-12 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.). Though he relies upon the In re Moers case, Ross acknowledges that this court declined to follow In re Moers and held to the contrary in Hardin v. Hardin. See 161 S.W.3d 14, 24-27 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2004) , judgm’t vacated, op. not withdrawn, No.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. 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
B. holding that attorneys fees are necessaries for the criminal defense of a child
C. 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
D. 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
E. holding that attorneys fees incurred in a nonenforcement modification suit can be awarded as additional child support under the family code
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.