with a “foster agency representative” and K.N.D.’s guardian ad litem. The record does not contain a transcript of this hearing. However, the trial court entered an order that same day finding that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy a person of ordinary prudence and caution that: (1) there was a danger to the physical health or safety of the child which was caused by an act or failure to act of the person entitled to possession and for the child to remain in the home is contrary to the welfare of the child; (2) the urgent need for protection required the immediate removal of the child and makes efforts to eliminate or prevent the child’s removal impossible or unreasonable; and (3) notwithstandi ., No. 03-12-00113-CV, 2012 WL 3629435, at *7-8 (Tex.App.-Austin Aug. 23, 2012, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); In re S.N., 287 S.W.3d 183, 190
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 that a wife with a child from a prior relationship was not entitled to use and possession of the family home holding it is proper to defer to the family court even if conflicting evidence is presented on appeal as long as ample evidence in the record supports the family courts findings and conclusions 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 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