Thus, the jury could have reasonably determined that if it returned Kevin to her legal custody, she would be unable to take physical possession of him, to take advantage of programs aimed at helping her promote his best interest, to provide a stable home, or to meet his physical needs. See id.; see also In re Z.D.C.P., No. 04-17-00090-CV, 2017 WL 2457054, at *3 (Tex. App.—San Antonio June 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering a parent's uncertain immigration status as a factor affecting a child's best interest); In re A.M., No. 11-13-00239-CV, 2014 WL 358982, at *3 (Tex. App.—Eastland Jan. 30, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op.) (considering a parent's indictment in a best-interest review). Next, given Kevin's young age, he did not testify about his desires, but the jury received evidence from multiple witnesses who observed Mother's visits with Kevin indicating that Mother did not show a bond with him.