In re N.C.M‪.‬

This is an accelerated appeal from trial courts determination that appellants appeal of the termination of his parental rights to his children was frivolous. We affirm.DISCUSSIONOn appeal, appellant does not challenge the trial courts finding that his appeal was frivolous. Instead, in a single issue, appellant asserts Family Code section 263.405(i) is facially unconstitutional because it arbitrarily removes a right that other civil litigants have in other appeals, which is to challenge the legal and factual sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. To sustain a facial challenge, the party must show that the statute, by its terms, always has and always will operate unconstitutionally. Neeley v. West Orange-Cove Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., 176 S.W.3d 746, 814 n.94 (Tex. 2005); In re Pensom, 126 S.W.3d 251, 254 (Tex. App.---San Antonio 2003, orig. proceeding). We conclude appellant has not met this burden.