support the trial court’s having removed K.C. from Tammy’s care, custody, and control in the first place. And, by transposing this in to a case where Carol is a legitimate managing conservator of K.C. and any testimony by her interested witnesses is sufficient to support the trial court’s absolute discretion as to who should have custody of K.C. as between Tammy, a parent, and Carol, a non-parent, the majority opinion is far more deferential to a non nce that some specific, identifiable behavior or conduct of the parent will probably cause that harm.” In re M.W., 959 S.W.2d at 665 (emphasis added). The link between the parent’s conduct and harm to the child may not be based on evidence which raises mere surmise or speculation of possible harm. Id.; see Le-welling, 796 S.W.2d at 167-68 (<HOLDING>); In re M.W., 959 S.W.2d at 667 (holding that
recognizing that the child custody act required that the natural parent presumption must be seriously considered and heavily weighted in favor of the parent but that the presumption is rebutted if the clear and convincing evidence establishes that the best interest of the child is served by awarding custody to the third party holding that evidence that parent is victim of spousal abuse and that parent is unemployed living in crowded conditions and had multiple visits to mental hospital was no evidence that awarding custody to parent would significantly impair child holding when real estate is conveyed to a child and consideration is paid by the parent the parent has the burden of proving a gift was not intended holding pennsylvania had jurisdiction to modify tennessee custody order where the child had been living in pennsylvania for three years and no parent or person acting as a parent resided in tennessee any longer recognizing duty of parent to control conduct of child