Interesting that not only "have to + V", but also "have+object+to+verb" can express obligation, when it normally expresses possession:
She has a train to catch.
He has a child to feed.
She has a train to catch.
He has a child to feed.
obligation not possession
Interestingly though, 'he has to feed his child' and 'he has a child to feed' don't have quite the same meaning. The first implies that he must feed his child right now, whilst the second his a more general or habitual statement.