reasonable efforts to eliminate the need for the child’s removal and enable the child to return home, there is a substantial risk of a continuing danger if the child is returned home. See id. § 262.201(b), (c). This order named DFPS K.N.D.’s temporary managing conservator, but it did allow A.D. visitation with K.N.D. Thus, the trial court specifically found danger to KN.D.’s physical health or safety caused by “an act or failure to act” of A.D., as “the person entitled to possession.” A.D. did not challenge these findings at the time the trial court made them or at any other time in the year that this case was pending in the trial court. At trial, she did not present an argument regarding the sufficiency of 59, at *4 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 30, 2012, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (<HOLDING>); L.Z. v. Tex. Dep’t of Family & Protective
holding evidence sufficient to show child was removed under chapter 262 for abuse or neglect when undisputed evidence showed family service plan stated reason for involvement with family was two referrals alleging neglectful supervision and physical abuse caseworker testified to basis of referrals and the record eontained the trial courts temporary order following an adversary hearing which appointed dfps as temporary managing conservator and included the findings required by section 262201 of the family code holding in termination of fathers rights that evidence was sufficient to support finding children were removed for abuse or neglect when previous decree reflected trial court made findings that children were removed from mother under chapter 262 for abuse or neglect holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree holding that although the father did not have physical custody of his children at the time they were removed the children were nonetheless effectively removed from both their parents when they were removed from the physical custody of the mother and placed in another home pursuant to the dispositional decree holding that evidence was sufficient that child was removed under chapter 262 for abuse or neglect when record contained evidence that parent made no effort to contact child left at shelter and trial court made findings of immediate danger to childs physical health or safety in emergency temporary order