Applying the appropriate standards of review, we hold that the evidence is legally and factually sufficient to support the trial court's finding that Mother had not regularly visited or maintained significant contact with the girls. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(b)(1)(N); C.G., 2019 WL 3367524, at *7 (upholding the finding that the father failed to visit regularly or maintain significant contact when he left, slept, or used his phone during visits and there was no evidence that he otherwise tried to phone or correspond with the children); In re T.T., No. 11-18-00291-CV, 2019 WL 1716416, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Apr. 18, 2019, no pet.) (mem. op.) (upholding the constructive abandonment finding when evidence showed that the father had not seen his child for years and that he did not try to contact the child while the case was pending despite being informed how); In re C.J.B., No. 07-17-00069-CV, 2017 WL 2822512, at *2 (Tex. App.—Amarillo June 28, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) ("[W]hile [the father] may not have been allowed visitation until he fulfilled his service plan, that did not prevent him from communicating with the child through other means."); In re K.G., 350 S.W.3d 338, 355 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet. denied) (upholding the trial court's finding on the visitation element based on testimony that the parent visited once between September and December 2009 and did not visit between February and May 2010 or accept an alternative visitation schedule); Gamez, 2009 WL 4456150, at *7 (concluding in dicta that evidence that the parent's last contact with the child had occurred more than a year before the trial and the parent's failure to provide contact information supported the visitation element of the constructive abandonment ground).