With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". R.A. even though she knew the location of Akin and R.A. Additionally, unlike in Holick, there was no understanding between Akin and Jordan that Jordan would not be sending support because Akin could provide adequate support on his own. As Akin said in his own letters, Jordan “stuck” R.A. with him, she “never once helped [him] when [he] had [R.A.],” he “tried for almost 6 month[s]” to locate Jordan but she “vanished off the face of the earth,” and he needed her “more than ever at that time and so did [R.A.] [b]ut [p]oof [she] vanished.” The evidence clearly shows that Jordan did not make arrangements for the adequate support of R.A. Cf. In re R.N.G., No. 11-02-00084-CV, 2002 WL 32344622, at *2 (Tex.App.-Eastland Dec. 12, 2002, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>). Jordan also relies upon In re T.B.D. to argue

A: holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with physically abusive father
B: holding evidence insufficient to terminate mothers parental rights under section c because mother made arrangements for adequate support of children evidence showed mother left children with father who maintained steady employment and adequately supported children mother knew that father would provide adequate support and mother left children pursuant to agreed divorce decree
C: holding evidence supported terminating mothers parental rights under section d based in part on evidence that mother could not adequately protect or provide financially for children
D: holding evidence legally and factually sufficient under sections d and e to terminate mothers parental rights based in part on evidence that mother placed children with father who lived transient lifestyle with children
B.