tracking the language of section 161.001(1)(0) in his statement of points. In the court of appeals, Francisco argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue of constructive abandonment under section 161.001(1)(N) in the statement of points. The court of appeals did not reach that issue, 385 S.W.3d 1, 21 n. 13 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2011, pet. granted), and the Department does not argue waiver here. Francisco's statement of points also did not attack the trial court's best-interest finding. The Department does not challenge that omission. The Legislature has since repealed the requirement for a statement of points on appeal. See Act of May 5, 2011, 82d Leg., R.S., ch. 75, § 5, 2011 Tex. Gen. Laws 75; see also In re J.O.A., 283 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Tex.2009) (<HOLDING>). 8 . Edna’s parental rights were terminated as
holding that remand for new trial is remedy for factual insufficiency of evidence recognizing that to preserve a claim of insufficiency of the evidence a defendant must move for judgment of acquittal when the government rests or at the close of all the evidence holding that insufficiency of indictment is not a basis for habeas relief holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants holding that the statementofpoints requirement is unconstitutional as applied when it precludes a parent from raising a meritorious complaint concerning the insufficiency of the evidence supporting a termination order