were not injuries that could be sustained in the ordinary course of play or handling a baby. He also testified that it was possible that, if a person did not know what had happened, one might not realize the child’s expressions of pain or discomfort were as a result of a fracture, but might be misinterpreted by a layperson as colic or fussiness. He also testified that the skull fracture was consistent with an accidental injury. The child’s pediatrician, Dr. Lovo, testified that he saw the baby six times over the first two months of the child’s life, including the ten days prior to the child’s removal. He testified that during his examinations of the child he found the baby healthy, happy and content and did not observe any signs of the healing So.2d 945, 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>); F.R. v. Dep’t of Children & Family Servs.,
recognizing that the district courts decision to termi nate parental rights will be upheld by this court if it is supported by substantial evidence holding review of whether evidence is competent and substantial tests only its legal sufficiency and not its weight holding law court will not overturn conclusions supported by competent and substantial evidence holding that a trial courts finding of a fraudulent lien must be supported by competent evidence 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