What is the test for terminating a child's parental rights?

The court found that the rights being terminated were fundamental and that the magnitude of the decision mandated a higher standard of proof than preponderance of the evidence. In reaching this conclusion the court considered various aspects of the procedure which might weigh in favor of the state's effort to terminate and undermine the parents' objective of reunification. The state is armed with well-educated agents, the court said, while the parents are "often poor, uneducated or members of minority groups ... vulnerable to judgments based on cultural or class bias." (Santosky v. Kramer, supra, 455 U.S. at p. 763, 102 S.Ct. at p. 1400.) The state's power to present its case usually dwarfs the parents' efforts at defense, the court surmised. In light of the severe damage an erroneous decision to terminate would cause, as compared with the lesser societal costs of an [15 Cal.App.4th 485] erroneous decision to postpone termination, the court concluded the prophylactic benefit of the higher standard of proof was constitutionally mandated. (Id. at p. 765, 102 S.Ct. at p. 1401.)