In the case of Santosky v. Kramer, 1981, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that before a state can sever completely and irrevocably the rights of parents in their natural child, due process requires that the state support its allegations by at least clear and convincing evidence. The case involved John and Annie Santosky who had three children removed from their care by Ulster County Department of Social Services on grounds of neglect. After several years without significant improvement in parenting skills, termination proceedings were initiated against them based on "preponderance of evidence" standard which is lower than "clear and convincing". The court held this was insufficient to terminate parental rights under Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as it did not adequately protect parent’s fundamental liberty interest in family integrity.

In the dissenting opinion for Santosky v. Kramer, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to require a "clear and convincing" standard of evidence in termination of parental rights cases was an unnecessary federal intrusion into state affairs. He contended that it is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to dictate how states should handle such sensitive matters, particularly when there is no constitutional question at stake. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential negative consequences resulting from this heightened burden of proof on child welfare agencies; specifically, he feared it could result in children remaining longer in harmful situations due to increased difficulty proving parental unfitness under this stricter standard. In his view, each state should have discretion over its own evidentiary standards based on their unique circumstances and needs.