system: You are a legal assistant. Answer concisely and accurately. When legal text is provided, rely on it and do not invent facts.

user: Read the case excerpt and choose the best holding from the options. Case excerpt: “rights” and a state court’s discretion than any prior Texas cases. Prior case law has indicated the types of acts or omissions that demonstrate significant impairment of the child, such as physical abuse, severe neglect, abandonment, drug or alcohol abuse, or immoral behavior on the part of the parent. See Brook v. Brook, 881 S.W.2d 297, 298 (Tex.1994); In re Hidalgo, 938 S.W.2d at 494, 497 (affirming appointment of mother and step-grandmother as joint managing conservators when mother effectively abandoned child after birth; child was raised first by father and stepmother, then, after father’s death by stepmother, and then by step-grandmother; and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old); Thomas v. Thomas, 852 S.W.2d 31, 32-36 (Tex.App.-Waco 1993, no writ) (<HOLDING>). The “[ejvidence must support the logical Options: A. holding that grandmother who had intermittent custody of her grandchild had no protected liberty interest in the continued custody of the child B. holding trial court did not err in appointing maternal grandmother as managing conservator when evidence showed grandmother had been childs primary caretaker for years father had history of criminal conduct drug and alcohol use dishonesty unemployment and instability and had abandoned and failed to support child and mother who had immoral and unstable lifestyle and had exposed child to violence asked court to award managing conservatorship to grandmother C. holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in trial of mother for felony injury to child when after grandmother testified that she had been concerned about leaving a child with mother or suspicious of her when another of mothers young children had diedevidence which had been the subject of a motion in limine the trial court strongly instructed the jurors three times that day and polled them individually the next day about whether they could follow the instruction to disregard D. holding that court could permit grandparent or other person having substantial past contact with child to intervene in pending sapcr even though original suit requesting possessory conservatorship could not be filed by grandparent or other person and further holding that stepgrandmother had standing to intervene to seek managing conservatorship of child under section 102004b and section 1020039 where natural mother abandoned child after birth parents were divorced natural father remarried father had custody of child after father died child lived first with stepmother then with stepgrandmother and mother first sought custody when child was eleven years old E. holding that maternal grandmother had standing to intervene in pending sapcr to seek managing conservatorship of child pursuant to former section 102004b and section 102004a where she had substantial past contact with child there was evidence of abuse and neglect of child by mother and mother had been arrested and had subsequently engaged in bizarre and dangerous behavior towards child had attacked grandmother with frying pan and hedge clippers and had been involuntarily committed to psychiatric center all of which established serious and immediate concern for welfare of child

assistant: The best answer is B. holding trial court did not err in appointing maternal grandmother as managing conservator when evidence showed grandmother had been childs primary caretaker for years father had history of criminal conduct drug and alcohol use dishonesty unemployment and instability and had abandoned and failed to support child and mother who had immoral and unstable lifestyle and had exposed child to violence asked court to award managing conservatorship to grandmother