their parents. The guardian opined that “with assistance, the parents would be very capable parents.” At the conclusion of the trial, the trial court entered an order terminating the parental rights of the mother and father to all three children. In determining that termination was appropriate, the trial judge focused primarily on the abuse of the infant. The trial judge expressed concern that the parents had suggested their eldest child may be to blame for the injuries to the infant. As to the middle child, the trial judge made no specific findings of fact. There is no question that the abuse of the infant in this case constituted egregious conduct that threatened the life and health of this child. See N.L. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 843 So.2d 996, 1001 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>); M.C. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs.,
holding experts demonstration of shaken baby syndrome using infant mannequin was not substantially similar when mannequin had to be shaken harder than in real life and number of oscillations of head needed to cause injury was unknown holding egregious conduct occurred when infant was shaken forcefully enough to break bones holding that whether hola governs the action depends on when the alleged conduct occurred holding that the court had no power to sanction conduct that occurred in an arbitration holding that first amendment provides no protection against private actions no matter how egregious