Moreover, a parent's testimony about parole eligibility, even if undisputed, is generally not binding on a factfinder because "parole decisions are inherently speculative and rest entirely within the parole board's discretion." In re E.N.Q. , No. 04-17-00089-CV, 2017 WL 2791286, at *4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 28, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (citing In re H.R.M. , 209 S.W.3d 105, 110 (Tex. 2006) ). In short, Mother is currently serving an eight-year prison sentence, and the trial court specifically considered on the record the possibility Mother could serve the entire eight years.
See, e.g., In re D.S., No. 02-15-00350-CV, 2016 WL 1267808, at *5 (Tex. App.-Fort Worth Mar. 31, 2016, no pet.) (mem. op.); In re E.N.Q., No. 04-17-00089-CV, 2017 WL 2791286, at *2 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 28, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.); In re A.A., No. 01-13-00542-CV, 2013 WL 6569922, at *4 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] Dec. 12, 2013, pet. denied) (mem. op.). Further, as we have said, whether the Hamiltons should have had priority for Jacob's placement is not determinative of the good-cause issue.
In re E.N.Q., No. 04-17-00089-CV, 2017 WL 2791286, at *4 (Tex. App.-San Antonio June 28, 2017, pet. denied) (mem. op.)