use a warm compress and massage [AH.'s] tear ducts on a daily basis which they will do if I remind them but other than that they do not do it" and that she has "seen them do it maybe three or four times under [her] instruction only." Id. at 345-346. Based upon our review of the record, we cannot say that the evidence does not support the trial court's findings or that the findings do not support the conclusions in Paragraph 129 of its Order. Given the evidence and testimony presented at the fact-finding hearing, we cannot say that the trial court's findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment were clearly erroneous. The evidence and findings of fact were sufficient to demonstrate that A.H.'s physical condition was "seriously endangered." See, e.g., Roark, 551 N.E.2d at 869-872 (<HOLDING>); Parker v. Monroe County Dep't of Pub. 533
holding merely that the evidence was sufficient to support the award of attorneys fees recognizing principle but finding evidence at first trial sufficient holding evidence sufficient to support trial courts finding in aggravation that the offense was planned holding that the evidence presented at a factfinding hearing was sufficient to support the chins finding holding that the state courts factfinding procedure was adequate even though it did not hold an evidentiary hearing because  hearing as used in  2254d does not require a trialtype hearing at which live testimony is presented and the accused has the opportunity to crossexamine witnesses