to sustain the ultimate finding should be sufficiently relevant and material that a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to support the conclusion reached.” Id. The competent substantial evidence standard defers to the trial court’s judgment because the trial court is in the best position “‘to evaluate and weigh the testimony and evidence based upon its observation of the bearing, demeanor and credibility of the witnesses.’ ” In re Estate of Sterile, 902 So.2d 915, 922 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (quoting Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So.2d 13, 16 (Fla.1976)). Our aseptic record cannot replicate what the trial court observed. Thus, we assess the record evidence from which the trial court reached its conclusion for its sufficiency, not its weight. See Blackwood v. State, 946 So.2d 960, 973 (Fla.2006) (<HOLDING>). The evidence must meet technical requirements
holding that the standard of review where a trial court terminates parental rights on the basis of egregious conduct is whether the order is supported by competent substantial evidence holding that direct and circumstantial evidence are to be given the same weight when reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence holding review of whether evidence is competent and substantial tests only its legal sufficiency and not its weight holding review of sufficiency of evidence of juvenile adjudication is same as reviewing substantial evidence to support a criminal conviction holding that the evidence that the defendant violated a probation condition was not competent and substantial because the state presented only hearsay evidence