search of the record,” Moore v. State Dep’t of Pensions & Sec., 470 So.2d 1269, 1270 (Ala.Civ.App.1985), to determine if clear and convincing evidence supports the judgment. Ala.Code 1975, § 26-18-7(a) (requiring clear and convincing evidence to support an order terminating parental rights); and Columbus v. State Dep’t of Human Res., 523 So.2d 419, 421 (Ala.Civ.App.1987). See also L.M. v. D.D.F., 840 So.2d 171, 179 (Ala.Civ.App.2002) (“Due to the serious nature of the action of terminating a parent’s parental rights, this court must carefully review the unique set of facts established in each ease in determining whether clear and convincing evidence was presented to support the termination of those rights.”); and Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S.Ct. 1388, 71 L.Ed.2d 599 (1982) (<HOLDING>). “ ‘ “Clear and convincing evidence” is
holding that the clear and convincing standard provides appropriate due process in cases involving parental rights holding that in a proceeding to terminate parental rights the preponderance of the evidence standard of proof violates the due process clause and that due process requires at least a clear and convincing evidence standard holding that due process allows parental rights to be terminated only upon clear and convincing evidence of unfitness 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