the statutory requirement of “clear and convincing” necessary to terminate the mother’s parental rights. The State’s expert witness physician, Dr. Biehler, consultant for the University of Miami Child Protection Team, reviewed the child’s medical records and testified that the rib, leg and arm So.2d 449, 450 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002); M.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 783 So.2d 277, 278 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001). In order to grant a petition for termination of parental rights, a trial court must find by clear and convincing evidence that at least one of the statutory grounds for termination exists and that termination is in the manifest best interests of the child. See § 39.802(4)(a), (c), Fla. Stat. (2010); Padgett v. Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 577 So.2d 565, 571 (Fla.1991) (<HOLDING>). Further, because parental rights constitute a
holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied recognizing that the department is required to present clear and convincing evidence to support termination of a parents parental rights holding that due process allows parental rights to be terminated only upon clear and convincing evidence of unfitness holding that a party who can show a significant risk of irreparable harm has demonstrated that the harm is not speculative holding that before a parents rights can be terminated the department must show by clear and convincing evidence that reunification with the parent poses a substantial risk of significant harm to the child