cortical blindness to the male twin. The egregious abuse on the twins was sufficient, standing alone, to terminate the father’s rights as to Z.K.P., and seíves as a basis to uphold the trial court’s decision. See B.B., 824 So.2d at 1007; F.L., 880 So.2d at 608. Moreover, it is undisputed that Z.K.P. was present in the home at the time the father committed the egregious abuse on the twins, and that she became hysterical when the twins were separated from her to attend supervised family visits. Finally, the father’s statements regarding how he shook the infant twins showed a lack of regard to their well-being, which supports a finding that he poses a substantial risk of significant harm to Z.K.P. See, e.g., M.W. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs., 881 So.2d 734, 737 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s determination that it was
holding in termination of fathers rights that evidence was sufficient to support finding children were removed for abuse or neglect when previous decree reflected trial court made findings that children were removed from mother under chapter 262 for abuse or neglect holding fathers pleadings representing himself to be the father of the children constituted a judicial admission recognizing that fathers parental rights were terminated based upon his incarceration and his behavior while in prison his history of substance abuse and the fact that his child support payments are in arrears holding that the fathers statements denying responsibility for abuse on his stepdaughter were further evidence to support the trial courts conclusion that the father posed a risk of potential harm to his natural children holding that once a state posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married his mother