With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". "doctors' certificates alone could constitute sufficient evidence” to support trial court's findings, but holding that they did not when certificates did not provide evidence of recent overt act or continuing pattern of behavior that confirmed that appellant was likely to harm herself) (emphasis in original). 13 . This “further showing” may be provided by expert testimony or by other evidence. In re F.M., 183 S.W.3d 489, 499 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.). 14 . See also Breeden, 4 S.W.3d at 788 (noting that "what is lacking from the record ... is sufficient evidence of a recent act or continuing pattern of behavior that tends to confirm [the expert’s] assertions.”) (emphasis in original); Broussard v. State, 827 S.W.2d 619, 622 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ) (<HOLDING>); see also State ex. rel. P.W., 801 S.W.2d 1, 3

A: holding that an overt act may be a verbal statement or a physical act
B: holding evidence insufficient to support confinement where record lacked any evidence of an overt act or continuing pattern of behavior
C: holding evidence insufficient to support finding of implied contract
D: holding that proof of overt act is not required to support admission of evidence of statement of coconspirator during course of conspiracy
B.