In evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence in support of a finding, an appellate court must make an appropriate adjustment to its analysis when the clear and convincing standard of proof applied before the trial court. In general, the court must determine whether the record, viewed as a whole, contains substantial evidence from which a reasonable trier of fact could have made the finding of high probability demanded by this standard of proof.  Nevertheless, the appellate court does not reweigh the evidence itself. Instead, it views the record in the light most favorable to the judgment below; it must indulge reasonable inferences that the trier of fact might have drawn from the evidence; it must accept the factfinder’s resolution of conflicting evidence; and it may not insert its own views regarding the credibility of witnesses in place of the assessments conveyed by the judgment.