Gerald “Pat” Arrington was diagnosed with a brain tumor. At the time of the diagnosis, he was married to Brenda Arrington, but they were separated pending their divorce. Brenda and Pat had no children, but Pat had five children from a previous marriage. Patricia Daley had lived with Pat since she was born. Pat referred to her as his only “stable” child. After Patricia married David Daley, the two stayed with Pat at his ranch and helped him with the cattle and working the land. Pat executed a new will one year before his death and following the brain tumor diagnosis that left everything to Patricia because Pat felt Brenda would just sell his ranch and he did not want it to be sold. After Pat died, Patricia, as executrix of the estate, had the will admitted to probate. Brenda challenged the admission of the will to probate because she said that he gave his property to someone who was not legally his child and that showed he lacked capacity. The will was witnessed by two employees of a bank and both testified that Pat seemed to be his usual self and that he had done business at the bank for 20 years. What should the court do with the will and the challenge to it and why? [In re Estate of Arrington, 365 S.W.3d 463 (Tex. App. 2012)]