can be considered even if child living elsewhere at time of events). Between December 2006 and September 2007, she was kicked out of the Rose Home shelter for violent conduct, she then attempted suicide, and then resided at various points in time in a hospital, in a shelter, or was homeless. Although none of her conduct at that time was directed at harming R.A., endangering conduct is not limited to actions directed toward the child. See In re J.I.T.P., 99 S.W.3d at 844 (endangering acts need not be directed at or actually cause injury to child). The trial court could reasonably determine that Jordan’s propensity for violence against herself and others, want of self control, and transient lifestyle would endanger R.A. by giving him a life of instability and uncertainty. See id. at 845 (<HOLDING>); In re N.S.G., 235 S.W.3d at 358, 367
holding that certifications of parent and child regarding her desire to live with her father were sufficient to warrant a plenary hearing holding that mother could not be charged with criminal endangering the welfare of her child based upon prenatal acts of smoking cocaine holding mothers drug use during pregnancy and after child was removed from her care in face of random drug testing that placed her relationship with child at risk was legally and factually sufficient evidence that she engaged in course of conduct which endangered her child holding trial court could have considered mothers desire to hurt herself and her history of noncompliance with her medication schedule as factors endangering child holding that the defendant mother could not be charged with endangering the welfare of a child based upon prenatal acts endangering an unborn child