839-40 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding) (stating that appellate review of trial court’s legal determinations is “much less deferential” than review of factual determinations); see also Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc., 701 S.W.2d 238, 241-42 (Tex.1985). In a family law case, the abuse of discretion standard of review “overlaps with the traditional sufficiency standard of review.” Boyd v. Boyd, 131 S.W.3d 605, 611 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 2004, no pet.). Legal and factual insufficiency are not “independent reversible grounds of error” but are relevant factors in assessing whether the trial court abused its discretion. Id. A trial court may be reversed for abusing its discretion only when we find that the court acted in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner. See Downer, 701 S.W.2d at 241^2 (<HOLDING>). In other words, an abuse of discretion occurs
holding that the abuse of discretion standard does not prevent an appellate court from conducting a meaningful analysis holding that appellate court may only review issues actually presented to and considered by the trial court holding that mere fact that trial court may decide discretionary matter differently from appellate court does not demonstrate abuse of discretion recognizing that an appellate court reviews a trial courts decision whether or not to grant equitable relief only for an abuse of discretion holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the appellants motion for change of judge where the appellant failed to demonstrate actual bias