How have courts interpreted the burden of persuasion in a termination of parental rights proceeding?

In the Matter of J. R., supra, a child abuse proceeding, the respondent's challenge to the preponderance rule was based on Matter of Alsager v. District Ct. of Polk County, Iowa, 406 F.Supp. 10 (D.C.Iowa), wherein the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa held a termination of parental rights statute of Iowa unconstitutional for its failure to afford procedural due process in requiring clear and convincing evidence as opposed to the preponderance standard then in effect.

Matter of J. R. then turns to the "classic" holding that a state has the right to establish its own standards for the ultimate burden of persuasion citing Lavine v. Milne, 424 U.S. 577, 585, 96 S.Ct. 1010, 1015, 47 L.Ed.2d 249, wherein the court stated that: "the criminal law area, where special concerns attend, the locus of the burden of persuasion is normally not an issue of federal constitutional moment."